This is a reply to this post (click here)
Firstly, I shall expound on in more detail on what i meant by "science is taking human nature for granted". I would say that the use of this idea is due to the lack of studies being done that are capable of being applied to all cultures around the world. Of course, the mere thought of doing such a study would be of very tremendous, and possibly ridiculous, effort. However, I hold my stand based on the findings that are slowly but surely unraveling themselves within intercultural psychology studies. That is: the findings that there is an actual difference in cognitive behaviors of humans, and this factor effects how we think, behave and perceive matters of life. Much of scientific study, whether in pure science of social science, have been conducted in the western world. Although there is indefinitely already a number of studies in place within the rest of the world, but it's presence is yet to be as large as its counterpart.
I believe that one such study that emphasized on this difference in cognitive behavior is by Richard E. Nisbett, whom with much help and effort has managed to analyse the differences found with western and south east asian (defined as Chinese, Japanese, Koreans...) thought. With this, there is much to be desired in finding a definition of what truly is "human nature". Science, having its roots within scientific enquiry, which started from philosophy in Greece, has dominated the western society for a very long time, and is used by almost all individuals of the society. However, the eastern world is still going through the developing stages of experiencing science in a whole. Plus, there are still many great thinkers in the eastern society that still hold through to teachings of oriental nature (i.e Confucious).
There has been found to be great difference in the concepts that the two societies hold. Although it is said that science is an attempt to study human nature, there is always the sense of achieving objectivity. Objectivity in current scientific studies is largely based on the concepts used by the west. Besides intercultural studies, there is little that has been incorporated into scientific research. Though, human nature is not only within the western society, but also within each and every society in the world. The way that people think and behave is based on society, and science is not only an attempt to educate, but also in an indirect way an attempt to globally achieve a singular way of thinking - in other words being objective. A unified way of carrying out tasks, inferences and research, is a crucial point in science, in order for results to be able to be generalized in any way. But the fact that scientific inquiry is dominated largely by western philosophies is already an act of taking human nature for granted. As if all humans are alike and categorization attempts will overrule the differences. The fact is there is no human that is alike, and the cognitive differences are immensely varied. Only an attempt to articulate why these differences have occurred, would allow for any model to be accurately built for a mapping of human nature.
Secondly, the meaning of singular and social individual, has only been vaguely described in my previous post. I did not fully expound on the precepts in mind that i had utilized to build such a description of people categories. It is agreed that all people are social, in the sense that they are bound to their society and interactions are exchanged in minutes or even seconds. The meaning of singular is not one that is taken literally as a person that functions as a single unit, but one that functions in independence, using only minimal interactions towards the outside world. One could compare this to introverts - people whom are very less social compared to others. These are very individualistic people, who's goals are merely directed towards themselves. Social people are in direct contrast. As I mentioned before, people are of a mixture of the two extremes, for in reality there are very rare cases where one person embodies either one. An important factor in this is that, science is not a tool that provides people with these emotions or behaviors, rather people are the ones that own them. Science is an attempt to categorize and study, not to implement. Thus, psychology has no narcisistic point of view, it cannot have a point of view. It is merely in the persons who utilize it to empower themselves. Though, if psychology were a person, it would be again wrong to say he/she is a narsicistic person (refer back to previous post) because of the existance of both extremes of singular and social people. Psychology is not only for the empowerment of the person who studies it, but also for other people, because it talks about helping yourself and helping others too.
Thirdly, on the views of achieving identity, I would agree that the trinitarian viewpoint is very much alike how people conduct themselves socially, thus proving it to be a very suitable model to describe human beings. But, in my opinion, it cannot be said to be an ultimate model. Perhaps the essence of it, if you strip it of views of Christianity, making it unbiased, then a more appropriate model would appear.
It it true that without a belief in any of such assumptions in psychology, we would not have been able to achieve any advancement in the field. Thus there is always the matter of having faith in what we do. However, in my opinion it is wrong to suggest that Christianity should be the faith to be adorned to a field that sheds light on not only Christian people, but people of the world. Faith is embedded within this field. When it came from the west, it may have been the likeness of man towards Christ and how we should study it. But when transposed onto other societies, they will attempt to suit their own environment and culture. If Christianity was the only type of faith in the world, then I would have no laments on the architecture of psychology being submerged in Christianity. However, the fact remains that the world comprises of many beliefs, brought on not only by religion, but also cultural factors. To immerse anything within the principles of one single belief would be committing the wrong something like a dictatorship at worst, commanding all followers to obey with one hand of rule, while there are others who think differently. I do believe that this is why the basis of democracy has come about. Thus, there should be a democratic view of using faith - and not only Christianity.
To view a full list of my links, please click below.