You touch on a subject groovist that is one that I find very fascinating. My perspective on it is very different to yours, quite apart from the point that I take a completely rationalist, non-religious view. My problem is that in truth, my view is no more scientific than yours. I’m certain that what I’m about to offer is more insightful than your original post, but if anyone challenges my assertions – and I’m sure people will if anyone notices and cares a hoot about what I’m going to say – I cannot back it up with any hard scientific data.
So, I assert, it is vital to grasp the difference between human behaviour that is instinctive, which I am equating to genetically programmed, and human behaviour that has nothing whatever to with genetics but is part of what might be regarded as an emergent capability of human beings. Behaviours that are purely instinctive are fairly basic behaviours. Not just the instinct to eat and seek sustenance, or the instinct to find shelter, but the instinct to turn and flee when presented with immediate danger, and yes, even the instinct to stand and fight to protect your own interests. But it is an obvious point that human behaviour is far more complex than that, and I contend, that complexity cannot be explained by investigating the interactions of amino acids and proteins.
Now you should know that there are some scientific heavyweights who would not agree with me. My great scientific hero – Richard Feynman – believed that quantum physics would ultimately be able to explain every human action. But I am going to invite huge raspberries from all of Physics Forums most respected by having the temerity to suggest that, on this point, I believe he was wrong. It is pretty clear that some behaviours are part of our genetic programming. I even understand that there is powerful evidence that our fundamental capability for language is hard-wired in our brains. But, it seems to me, the greater part of complex human behaviour is a purely emergent capability.