Some sociologists and scientists believe that we are the sum of our experiences.  Freud, and other psychologists looked toward childhood experiences as pivotal events that formed later neuroses and behaviours. 

Yet we know that we incarnate with a soul (at least many on this forum believe in that).  This presupposes that we are primarily mind (points of perception apart from the physical world).  Some afterlife theories have us reincarnating and wiping our memories just prior to incarnating.  This would leave us with certain potential tendencies for behaviours, without the knowledge of past lives. 

So the question arises, what contribution to our devlepment has the greatest impact:  nature (our inherent "soul state" so to speak that we come into the world with) or nurture (our life experiences, and circumstances we are exposed to)?

If we are blank slates (tabula rasa), then experience mostly shapes us.  If we have souls which drive our destiny, then no matter what situation we face, our soul will follow its natural loves and tendencies and continue to develop.  Swedenborg proposed that every soul has a unique driving love that it is bound to follow, but that while incarnate, the conscious mind could channel that love in a positive way, and make more progress than in the afterlife by learning in a "faster" pace.

My own take on things is that the soul comes into the world with its own loves and tendencies.  I've seen this in my children; my son (now 7) had very distinct habits, when he was a newborn that could not have been formed from any parent-child interactions.   Any parent can see with some inspection that this is so.  Babies, even newborns have dispositions and personalities.  For me, it has been born out in such a way, as I think of it as silly to think of us all as "blank slates."

A problem I have with those who favor nurture over nature is the idea that a person, to understand themselves must go through years of psychoanalysis, look at interactions with parents, family and friends in order to truly understand themself.  I know people who are elderly, who still claim that were it not for their parent favoring their brother or sister over them, they would have been happier and had better lives.  Some of these people have told me that they have to come to terms with their resentment of childhood trauma in order to be happy.

Maybe,  for them, there is some truth to that, but for me, I think it is an obsession that is counter-productive.  We live in the now.  To dwell on the nurture of the past (or lack thereof) is, to some extent to deny the present, and hold oneself back. 

M

As  a follow up question, to all of you non-reincarnationists (those who don't believe in reincarnation), where do you think the soul was before it incarnated, or could your consciousness have come into being de novo, from scratch?

I will be mostly lurking for a few months, but thought I'd post an experience that is relevant to DocM's thread.

Back in my grad student days, I was having a drink in a bar near Harvard Square and engaged a gal in conversation who ran the Day Care Center for the Harvard School of Education.  I had just read Robert Monroe's "Journeys Out of the Body" and was interested to hear whether the little children under her charge had any unusual paranormal experiences.
I was awestruck by what she shared.

One bright little boy (3 years old!) commented on nap time.  He said, "You know, during naptime all these kids fly around outsisde their bodies.  I know that I'm doing this, but they don't."  This gal asked the toddler, "Why don't they know they're  flying around the room?"  He replied, "Well, it's like a little mousy doesn't know that he's a mouse!"  I was astounded that a 3-year old could deduce that primitive animals are not self-conscious in the way we are.  The woman was curious to know if this toddler's revelations were in any way shaped by his parents' influence.  But when he discreetly asked them, they were outraged: "No!  And you'd better not be putting these silly New Age beliefs into my son's head!'  She rightly concluded, "OK, the boy isn't deriving these insights from his parents." 

Then the toddler said something more relevant to Matthew's thread; he told the woman: "You have a birthday tomorrow, don't you?"  She replied, "Yes, but how did you know?"  He replied, "Well, when I was in heaven before I was born, I was told the birthdays of the people who would be in my early life.  He then listed some of the birthdays of his relatives. 

This suggests not only the preexistence of the soul, but some sort of coordinated planning that involves the well-timed births of important people in this youngster's life.  I don't believe in astrology, but I do concede that this toddler's experience might be used in astrological apologetics.  And if there is no prebirth planning, how else can we explain Mozart's ability to compose a sophisticated piano concerto at age 5?

The Bible teaches the doctrine of the soul's preexistence, but not reincarnation.  The wording of Jeremiah's prophetic call is relevant here: "The word of the Lord came to me, saying, "Before I formed you in the womb, I KNEW YOU, before you were born, I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations (Jeremiah 1:5).""  The wording here seems to be claiming more than predistination; it seems to imply a preexistent soul involved in pre-brith planning.

The nature vs. nurture debate is unresolved, but is crucial to any discussion of pre-birth destiny or karma.  So it is appropriate that Matthew initiate a post on this subject here.

Don

Based on my own experience of having borne two children, I am definitely on the nature side of the scale.  Each of them had clearly formed and very different personalities, despite having the same parents and home environment.  And nothing we did could have changed those personalities.

One of my favorite stories in this regard concerns a family I babysat for as a teenager.  Their first of three sons was a perfect child, quiet, always well-behaved, etc.  I often heard them being critical of other parents and their childrearing habits which led to the bad behavior of their children.  This family's second son was more normal, but still well behaved enough for the parents to retain their sense of being superior parents.  Then there was the third little child, again a boy.  He was an absolute hellion, I think from the time he left the womb.  As a little kid, he managed to escape all methods of restraint, whether doors, gates, etc. and head off to parts unknown.  I don't think these parents ever were critical of the parenting skills of others again.