Friday, November 18, 2005
Religion and Harmony
Disclaimer: This may seem offensive to some. I have made my best effort to put forth my views in as polite and open a manner as possible. I am not against your beliefs. These are just my views. If you cannot maintain objectivity while reading this post, Do Not Read Any Further.
Just as I was finishing this post, I came across a wonderful essay on Agnosticism by Bertrand Russell. Being an agnostic, I found it very enriching. The interested reader is directed here.
We want to belong. It is our nature to be a part of something. We are not capable of surviving contently in absolute solitude. We seek common threads that hold us together, that bring some meaning and purpose to our way of life. We find several attributes; color of skin, place of birth, common tongue and such are some examples. But by far, the one commonality that surpasses all others is religion. Religion attracts us to each other the way droplets of mercury tend to coalesce. Religion shows us moral and ethical guidelines that appeal to us. Religion teaches tolerance, that we highly regard. Religion gives us faith, that becomes our pillar in life. We say "I am Hindu" or "I am Muslim" or "I am Jewish", proudly. We begin to follow the traditions of our religion. We make religion an indispensible part of our lives. Our daily life is governed by the ways that our religion preaches. "I do not eat meat, because I am Jain", we say. "I go to Church on Sundays, because I am Roman Catholic", we say. Such beliefs and traditions give us an identity, something we share in common with some, yet something that makes us different from others. We share good times such as Diwali, Christmas, Eid and Hanukkah, satisfying our inner hunger for social interaction and harmony. In times of strife, we draw strength and solace from our faith in the epics and the lore of our religion. Religion provides the much needed fulfilment, the completeness, the righteousness, and the dignity that our often troubled lives seek. But sometimes, just sometimes, we do not stop here. We entrench ourselves so firmly in our beliefs that we are blinded. We see only what our beliefs show us, everything else starts appearing nonsensical. We begin to tolerate only what our beliefs preach as moral. We deny ideas that do not fit within the now inelastic framework of our beliefs. Over years, this rigid impression is scorched into our minds, that refuses to leave the door to fresh thought, even slightly ajar. Fundamentalism and Extremism begin rearing their ugly heads. Clashes between various groups of idealists occur, degrading the very basic fibers of their foundation. The moderates among us, label these groups as anti-social. We protest that they mar the soil of faith that nurtures them and us. But who is really at fault? The select few who, in our opinion, adhere to unreasonable beliefs ? Or the beliefs themselves ? Or is it the corruption of our self-proclaimed benign and idealistic views ? Are we hitting the branches when the cause may lie at the root ? Let us be a little more specific. Let us say that there two separate religions: X and Y. Some select individuals following religion X happen to act in a way so as to antagonize those following religion Y. X blames Y. Y says X is no better. Who is right and who is wrong? Who decides? Such exchanges would continue endlessly. But let us look closely. Those from X are perfectly content within X. Same applies to Y. Followers of X do not particularly oppose other followers of X as adamantly as they voice their sentiments against followers of Y. So perhaps neither X nor Y is at fault. More than the preachings of X and Y, isn't the very existence of separate X and Y that provides the ground for unpleasant interactions? Wouldn't it be better if there was no X and Y and only one Z? Some followers of X and Y realize this, and vehemently try imposing their faiths on to each other, to form a homogenous X or Y. The circle of endless opposite reactions is complete. To think further, if there was a homogenous culture with no trace of X or Y, would petty quarrels about doctrines ever arise? We look into our religious roots and there we seek ways of righteous living. Does this mean there must exist a religious belief to supply a moral code of conduct? Are we so incapable of making the basic choices about right or wrong without having to take support in ancient doctrines? I think not. It is a subjective matter to decide what is socially right and what is not. Such views change over time. The ultimate judgement of what is 'morally' right and what is wrong varies from individual to individual. But can we not lay down certain guidelines to uphold in the interest of humanity or life in general? Why do we have to create the 'label' of 'religion' for such moral codes. Why do we have to profess our beliefs under the banner of religion? In case of the religions that I know of, a faith, a firm belief in God is expected. So much that the two concepts cannot exist without each other. Can we not have this belief without confining ourselves within the walls of religion? We say two or more religions can peacefully co-exist, if they are tolerant of each other. Can WE not peacefully co-exist without having a religion?
----Just as I was finishing this post, I came across a wonderful essay on Agnosticism by Bertrand Russell. Being an agnostic, I found it very enriching. The interested reader is directed here.
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
technology - the elixir of life ?
you want to donate organs, you say. suppose you decide that your organs be donated after your death. then later, you die. some organ of yours, goes to someone. that someone is happy and lives a long life. that person decides to donate her/his organs when she/he dies. then later, that person dies. can the organ that 'you' donated to that person, be transferred over to someone else? how long can an organ, such as the eye, survive? how many such transfers can an organ survive? now, say due to some miracle of modern medicine, our possible life span increases to 200 years suddenly (hypothetically). would you need 'replace' some of your organs in order to live that long? if you could replace such organs, how much can you extend your life? for example, if someone has a weak heart (medically), and that person replaces it with a strong, healthy one, and keeps replacing every few years, can that person live considerably longer than others? old age is inevitable, you'll say. if you could completely replace organs such as skin, muscles and bones, (which may very well be possible in a century or so, even now it is being done, but only partially), have we found a fountain of youth? the brain gets older, you'll say. you can't replace the brain, you'll say. a lot of research is being carried out to form artificial structures mimicking the brain. in a few centuries, you may well be able to 'download' your brain. or at least something close to it. now, you can replace your brain with a microchip. terabytes of storage will be readily available too. you can even 'backup' yourself anytime you wish. you can't replace every single cell of your body, you'll say. may be not. may be you don't need to. if you lose a limb, a prosthetic one can be just as fine. at least in a few decades. add sensors and you have touch, pain and whatever sense you need. you can also have electronic eyes that have tremendous resolution and zoom capability. no more spectacles or cataracts. no more retinas or corneas. just ccds and lenses. add infrared vision, if you wish. eventually, you replace yourself with artificial limbs and organs, complete with a microchip-brain. is it you anymore? is it a new life form? is it a super human being? is this, now, the fountain of youth? where does it end? or does it? is this immortality? perhaps. perhaps not. with new technology and progress, come newer problems and impediments. with an electronic brain and a body, you are vulnerable to newer attacks. you don't worry about falling down and hurting yourself. you are not even afraid of being shot. you can replace your body in no time. do you think can you die? may be not. but think. think how viruses weaken your body, kill even. they can't harm a cyborg like you, but their cousins, the computer viruses, can, and may be will. now, can you die? perhaps. is this immortality? is the end of an existence or the beginning of a new circle of life?
