Gott, Corona und die Theodizee

Eine an die heutige Situation angepasste Theodizee

Kein Blank Slate bzw Tabula rasa

In feministischen Kreisen wird häufig tatsächlich noch ein Blank Slate vertreten.

Insofern lohnt es sich die Argumente noch mal zusammenzutragen.

In der Neuzeit hat Sigmund Freud den Begriff des unbeschriebenen Blattes in seiner Abhandlung „Notiz über den Wunderblock“ (1925) in Bezug auf das System Wahrnehmung-Bewusstsein in Abgrenzung zum Unbewussten verwendet.^[10]

Einige moderne Wissenschaftsdisziplinen haben die Vorstellung von der Tabula rasa in Frage gestellt. Kognitionswissenschaftler haben verschiedene angeborene Mechanismen identifiziert, die Voraussetzung für Lernen sind (z. B. einen Sinn für Objekte und Zahlen, eine Theory of Mind). Laut der Evolutionspsychologie gibt es eine Reihe von kulturellen, gesellschaftlichen, sprachlichen, verhaltensbezogenen und psychologischen Merkmalen, die sich in allen menschlichen Populationen finden. Zweitens können viele menschliche Charakteristika (z. B. Appetit, Rache, Attraktivität) nur als evolutionäre Anpassungen im Kontext der Jäger und Sammler verstanden werden. Die Neurowissenschaft hat gezeigt, dass das pränatale Gehirn komplexe Verschaltungen durchläuft, die genetisch gesteuert werden. Auch verträgt sich die Tabula rasa nicht mit der Erkenntnis der Verhaltensgenetik, dass alle menschlichen Verhaltensmerkmale teilweise erblich sind.^[11]

Die englische Wikipedia ist da schon etwas ausführlicher:

Psychology and neurobiology

Main article: Nature versus nurture

Psychologists and neurobiologists have shown evidence that initially, the entire cerebral cortex is programmed and organized to process sensory input, control motor actions, regulate emotion, and respond reflexively (under predetermined conditions).[9] These programmed mechanisms in the brain subsequently act to learn and refine the ability of the organism.[10][11] For example, psychologist Steven Pinker showed that—in contrast to written language—the brain is „programmed“ to pick up spoken language spontaneously.[12]

There have been claims by a minority in psychology and neurobiology, however, that the brain is tabula rasa only for certain behaviours. For instance, with respect to one’s ability to acquire both general and special types of knowledge or skills, Michael Howe argued against the existence of innate talent.[13] There also have been neurological investigations into specific learning and memory functions, such as Karl Lashley’s study on mass action and serial interaction mechanisms.

Important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind comes from behavioural genetics, especially twin and adoption studies (see below). These indicate strong genetic influences on personal characteristics such as IQ, alcoholism, gender identity, and other traits.[12] Critically, multivariate studies show that the distinct faculties of the mind, such as memory and reason, fractionate along genetic boundaries. Cultural universals such as emotion and the relative resilience of psychological adaptation to accidental biological changes (for instance the David Reimer case of gender reassignment following an accident) also support basic biological mechanisms in the mind.[14]

Social pre-wiring

Twin studies have resulted in important evidence against the tabula rasa model of the mind, specifically, of social behaviour.

The social pre-wiring hypothesis refers to the ontogeny of social interaction. Also informally referred to as, „wired to be social.“ The theory questions whether there is a propensity to socially oriented action already present before birth. Research in the theory concludes that newborns are born into the world with a unique genetic wiring to be social.[15]

Circumstantial evidence supporting the social pre-wiring hypothesis can be revealed when examining newborns‘ behaviour. Newborns, not even hours after birth, have been found to display a preparedness for social interaction. This preparedness is expressed in ways such as their imitation of facial gestures. This observed behaviour cannot be attributed to any current form of socialization or social construction. Rather, newborns most likely inherit to some extent social behaviour and identity through genetics.[15]

Principal evidence of this theory is uncovered by examining twin pregnancies. The main argument is, if there are social behaviours that are inherited and developed before birth, then one should expect twin fetuses to engage in some form of social interaction before they are born. Thus, ten fetuses were analyzed over a period of time using ultrasound techniques. Using kinematic analysis, the results of the experiment were that the twin fetuses would interact with each other for longer periods and more often as the pregnancies went on. Researchers were able to conclude that the performance of movements between the co-twins were not accidental but specifically aimed.[15]

The social pre-wiring hypothesis was proved correct, „The central advance of this study is the demonstration that ’social actions‘ are already performed in the second trimester of gestation. Starting from the 14th week of gestation twin fetuses plan and execute movements specifically aimed at the co-twin. These findings force us to predate the emergence of social behaviour: when the context enables it, as in the case of twin fetuses, other-directed actions are not only possible but predominant over self-directed actions.“[15]

Gerade im Geschlechterbereich finde ich auch die hier schon häufig angeführten Sonderfälle, von CAH-Mädchen bis Transsexualität wichtig.

Welche Argumente für oder gegen einen „Blank Slate“ findet ihr überzeugend?