Thoughts from the front lines



When Crake was creating his own perfect human being, he might have found an Oxford Study on human nature pretty useful. In 2011 Oxford University professors conducted a study across 20 different countries on human nature and religion and how it is in our nature to believe in God or Gods and an after-life. Now, it is important to note that their mission wasn’t to prove that a God does or does not exist, but to prove that it is in our nature to ask ourselves what our purpose in life is and how we were put here.

Are these questions ringing any bells? The Crakers and the Gardeners both ask themselves these questions in the books. The Crakers started praying to Oryx, Crake and Snowman, which Crake had obviously not intended since he believed that any form of art would basically lead to misery, and the Gardeners also have their own complex view of why God put them on Earth and how they were created.

Evolution of Religion 1 Icelanders Are Converting To A Unique Religion, To Make Money


The children of Crake have no difficulty believing that Crake is a magical being that can control wind and lives in the sky which the study touches upon. The study found that it is common for children of a certain age to believe that their mothers and God can see everything they do, but when they realize their mother can’t see everything they do they still believe God can.

This study doesn’t prove in any way that because it is natural for us to believe in a God or Gods that there is one, in fact even atheists can use this study to defend their point of view. Crake would use this study to defend his point of view by saying that we only believe in God/s because it is in our nature and we have to fight it or even edit it out of our system. A person like Jimmy who more easily believes in God, would use it to defend the idea that it is in our nature for a reason and it proves that there is a God or Gods.

Image result for atheist vs theist Source:

How do you think you would use this study to defend your religious beliefs? Do you think Crake could have been successful in editing out this part of our human nature and do you think he should have?


Works Cited

University of Oxford. “Humans ‘predisposed’ to believe in gods and the afterlife.” ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 July

Greene, Richar A. “Religious belief is human nature, huge new study claims”. CNN, May 12,2011.     study-claims/




  1. This is an interesting point of view. Although we don’t see Crake as a God-like figure, the Crakers do because it is in their nature to believe in some sort of God. In a way, Crake is like a God since he essentially created a new type of world as well as a new type of species. In terms of human nature, many of the aspects that were supposed to be edited out of the Crakers, including belief in a higher power, somehow find their way into the Crakers lives. For instnce, they adopt art even though this was supposed to have been removed from their genes. The Crakers appear to be similar to a primitive version of human beings. Just like humans, the Crakers naturally evolve, which is why art, God, and several other aspects can simply not be avoided. I liked this blog, it really made me reflect on this topic!


  2. I think that just because it is in our nature to believe in God it’s not evidence to prove the exitence, nor the nonexistence of God. To me, it only proves that we are curious and want to understand about the world we live in and ourselves.
    I don’t think Crake should edit out this part of humans. Questioning stuff is part of curiosity and critical thinking, and those two are not necessarily bad things. I mean, if we were to edit every single possible thing that would cause melancholy, how far can we still call the Crakers humans?


  3. Hahaha, well put, I came here after you commented on my post and indeed, they link together very nicely. In the end. Much like what my post said, I do not think that Crake would have been able to edit out human nature out of the Crakers, but only because he used humans as a template. Lacking in the aspect of art however, I doubt Crake would have been able to imagine or create a template previously unknown. So no, I doubt Crake would have been able to edit out human nature out of Crakers. Should he have done it? His goal was to create everything anew, to create a better world where man’s failings did not exist. With this in mind, I think he was right in trying, but could have done away with the apocalypse.


  4. This is a super interesting topic that I mulled over quite a bit myself! After finishing Oryx and Crake, the idea that a belief in the supernatural or in mystics is intrinsic and in fact a part of our biological makeup was undeniable. I questioned if Atwood was correct in making this kind of statement with the Crakers, and my thoughts always came back in agreement with her. Spirituality is different in every present culture on earth, and what I believe is significant is the fact that every culture is spiritual in some shape or form to begin with. Additionally, though most cultures view what is spiritual differently, there always seems to be common factors among them, leading me to further see the truth in Atwood’s claim! Humans, are incredibly complex creatures with an intense need for structure. I can’t imagine a human race not being curious about it’s existence! Crake tried to take the humanity out of the Crakers, but I suppose that there are just some aspects of it that are just too deep rooted to weed out…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s