Biology and Humanism

When one applies the scientific method to the nature vs. nurture debate the biological model is compelling. At first blush, it appears less subjective. The advent of the mapping of the human genome gives us the ability to assign behavioral characteristics to defects in specific genes. In theory, a catalog of these defects or augmentations could yield a chinese menu of personality. Certainly one does not need a laboratory to log the way an individual's behavior changes under the physical effects of alcohol or drugs.

On the other hand, the argument for a humanistic study of personality is equally compelling. The idea that a path of guided introspection can yield a stronger, happier, and more content self is common desire for humanity. The fact that this practice can be empirically planned and measured lends credibility to the science of the spirit. The ability of humans to self-actualize, that is to experience spiritual growth and to achieve one's goals allows us to overcome profound physical impediments in life.

When the biologists argue that genes and synaptic functions provide the ability to introspect and spiritually grow, they are not wrong.

When the existentialists argue that the self is greater than the sum of it's parts, they are not wrong. Perhaps the most profound weakness for both biological and humanistic paths is how little we really know in either regard.