I've been away for quite a while and I really don't have a great excuse other than that I was busy but I am going to try and be somewhat consistent now. I've posted on a variety of topics in the past and today again I want to post on something that I feel is rather important, ethics.
Socrates says that an unexamined life is not worth living. I believe he makes a rather powerful point and one that bears important scrutiny. Introspection is the key to growth and development of our ethical, moral and spiritual lives. When we examine our lives on a continual and regular basis we place our development as a key component of our being. We need to be able to reflect on our life and decisions in order for us to weigh who we are to who we can become or want to be. For Socrates, the Ideal life is one spent in search of the Good. What is the Good? The Good is Knowledge and evil is nothing but ignorance. The goal of human existence is to discover that Good and that Good is universal. It is a ethical, intellectual and spiritual good.
Socrates asks the quintessential question: what is the good? This question can be considered from a variety of perspectives like good business, good morals, good friends and so on. But thats not what Socrates is really referring to, rather he is talking about the idea of the Ideal or the Right. He informs us that the good life is the life of virtue, material growth is not seen as being part of the good but rather self-development, the fostering of virtues. In our modern world especially in this country, self development isn't important but material growth is what is important and the basis of what is termed success. Most of the East, Middle East and other such regions accuse the West but more specifically America of materialist culture, a culture which centers around monetary gain, material comfort and amassing of a personal fortune. This criticism applies to corporate America and the now burgeoning upper class. When the average salary or compensation differential between a CEO and employee is 400 to 1, such claims don't seem to be too far off the mark. CEO have enormous golden parachute packages, were even if they were to perform badly and their companies loss millions if not billions of dollars, they will still get multi-million dollar packages. On the otherhand, most employees are not given remotely even decent severance packages if anything at all. Such focus on increasing one's coffers fundamentally shifts society's vision for what is important. Maybe the focus so be something less material and more principled.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Wednesday, December 20, 2006
A Great Opinion Piece by Pervez Hoodboy about Pakistan
http://www.despardes.com/articles/dec06/20061218-reimagining-pak.htm
Its a great article about Pakistan and I think it applies equally to India.
Its a great article about Pakistan and I think it applies equally to India.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Meaning in a Meaningless World
For most of us, we think that life has some plan for us, a destiny so to say. I am a lawyer now because it was something I was meant to do, it is my purpose as far as I know. I'm not sure that life has an intrinsic meaning like that. There are only three certain things for all living beings: birth, death and change. We have no idea what the future will bring besides change and death, in fact sadly for millions of infants in the world that is the fate that they will experience. As human beings, who have developed our intellectual, emotional and psychological faculties, we desire meaning beyond the three certain things in our lives. We desire meaning, a purpose for our continued presence and even for our eventual yet inevitable demise. Most people find that meaning through the idea of God. In otherwords, we do not possess inherent meaning to our lives but only in light of and due to God and God's will.
As my previous posts might suggest this is not something I agree with but I think my rationale is a bit different from what is expected. I'm not saying that its not God who adds meaning to our lives but God is one of the supplemental factors. The meaning to our lives must come from ourselves, our inherent worth as the most intellectually and maybe morally evolved beings on this planet. Our meaning comes due to our relationships with each other and the bonds we possess as being born into the family of living beings and more specifically the family of beings with intelligent thought. We are the natural caretakers and guardians of each other and the world we occupy, due to which I have a natural duty to my fellow human beings to try and provide them with the most freedom and choice that I can coupled with the duty to try and help them find that best way to make our lives on this planet as wonderful as possible.
Our meaning is our guiding light and our foundation for growth in a world which seems to defy our methods to control it and predict it. It may sound confusing at first glance but I think its simple. I believe that once we as a collective species begin to place each other's fundamental freedom, well being and rights as paramount, the social world we live in will become more and more of a utopia that we dream of. Simple in theory and near impossible in practice. Why? Because of the nature of our existence as we currently understand it, the Ego or the part of us that separates us from each other and tries to pry us from the underlying unity that is reality, forces us to think of our individual selves, ideas or communities first. From this desire to see our individual selves, ideas or communities gain prominence we become attached to it and this attachment leads to our inevitable conflict with those we view as different.
So what does this have to do with the meaning of our lives? Well, we have to remove our egos from the equation and in the words of the Gita, act without attachment to the outcome. Act for the greater good, see ourselves as instruments or parts of a larger unity. All things are composites of numerous other things but in order to function they must act together with emphasis placed on the unit as opposed focused on the individual. The basic underlying point I'm trying to make here is that service to our fellow beings is the meaning that we must give ourselves, find your niche in the world and make sure its a niche that will benefit others and perform it to the best of your abilities and do it as a service to others. Doing that will bring light into the meaningless world that we lived in before and it is in that service that God can be found. Service of man is Service of God.
As my previous posts might suggest this is not something I agree with but I think my rationale is a bit different from what is expected. I'm not saying that its not God who adds meaning to our lives but God is one of the supplemental factors. The meaning to our lives must come from ourselves, our inherent worth as the most intellectually and maybe morally evolved beings on this planet. Our meaning comes due to our relationships with each other and the bonds we possess as being born into the family of living beings and more specifically the family of beings with intelligent thought. We are the natural caretakers and guardians of each other and the world we occupy, due to which I have a natural duty to my fellow human beings to try and provide them with the most freedom and choice that I can coupled with the duty to try and help them find that best way to make our lives on this planet as wonderful as possible.
Our meaning is our guiding light and our foundation for growth in a world which seems to defy our methods to control it and predict it. It may sound confusing at first glance but I think its simple. I believe that once we as a collective species begin to place each other's fundamental freedom, well being and rights as paramount, the social world we live in will become more and more of a utopia that we dream of. Simple in theory and near impossible in practice. Why? Because of the nature of our existence as we currently understand it, the Ego or the part of us that separates us from each other and tries to pry us from the underlying unity that is reality, forces us to think of our individual selves, ideas or communities first. From this desire to see our individual selves, ideas or communities gain prominence we become attached to it and this attachment leads to our inevitable conflict with those we view as different.
So what does this have to do with the meaning of our lives? Well, we have to remove our egos from the equation and in the words of the Gita, act without attachment to the outcome. Act for the greater good, see ourselves as instruments or parts of a larger unity. All things are composites of numerous other things but in order to function they must act together with emphasis placed on the unit as opposed focused on the individual. The basic underlying point I'm trying to make here is that service to our fellow beings is the meaning that we must give ourselves, find your niche in the world and make sure its a niche that will benefit others and perform it to the best of your abilities and do it as a service to others. Doing that will bring light into the meaningless world that we lived in before and it is in that service that God can be found. Service of man is Service of God.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Michael J. Fox versus Rush Limbaugh
This topic angers me because I'm at a loss why people would even listen to Rush Limbaugh about something in which has no knowledge. It is clear when you watch the video of Michael J. Fox that he is not acting and he does not have control over his movements. People like him and Christopher Reeve have been fighting to find a way to cure these genetic problems for years. Its sad that we need to have some entertainer who develops the problem and then uses their influence and star power to fight for the cause. Whats sad isn't that they fight for a noble cause but that we as a society have a blind eye to it until such a person comes along.
It still fascinates me that ignorant people like Rush Limbaugh, Kurt Warner, Jim Caviezel and so on can come and stand against an issue that has the potential to save the lives of millions of people and relieve the pain and suffering of potential billions. The idiocy is that somehow these people think that stem cells are potential human beings therefore the stem cells should be protected from being cloned and used to make other cells. The reason that stem cells are considered to be potential human beings by scientifically ignorant and conservatives (somehow these two groups end up being the same group) is that they have the potential to become any human cell and the way they are extracted requires that an embroyo be destroyed. I previously discussed stem cells and so I won't rehash that entire discussion.
The Stem Cell debate is intricately tied into the Abortion debate, because basically the same argument that has been used for abortion has been used for stem cells. Essentially, what we have is policy makers and legislators, who have no foundation in modern science and thought. When we have the big decisions makers and we give airtime and weight to any joe moron with a opinion, we end up with a society that is more controlled by marketing and propoganda than actual evidence and research. I blame faith for this problem, faith which cannot be scrutinized without angry rebukes and criticism from those who possess such faith. The notion that God hates abortion but favors a war on terrorism, is ludicrious. How can religion in any objective manner provide us a basis to judge when life begins? or which lives matter?
Maybe this is a tangent from the topic at hand but I think it is connected. Let me try and explain my thought process. The metaphysical notion of God and God's relationship to His creation sets the framework of how we view ourselves and our relationship to the rest of creation. God made all the animals then made man, who is considered to be separate from all the rest of the creation. Man is not an animal but something entirely different as such we must have different rules apply to us. We have total dominion and mastery over all the creatures of the earth, hence we can kill this planet, its non-human inhabitants without any fear of reprisal. That might explain why we have conservatives who refuse to accept the reality of global warming, mass extinction of animal and plant species in the world and draining of the world's natural resources. We can experiment on mice who possess a fully functioning nervous system and thereby pain but we have opposition to using stem cells which don't possess any nervous system or any method of feeling sensations, in fact the idea of feelings or sensation cannot even apply to it. These stem cells can eventually lead to a cure for many of the diseases that plague us. There are millions of people on this planet who suffer from paralysis, children with multiple sclerosis, our elders who have alzhemirs, others with parkinsons and so many more disorders, which all can be eventually hopefully addressed by stem cell research. Thoughts? Comments?
It still fascinates me that ignorant people like Rush Limbaugh, Kurt Warner, Jim Caviezel and so on can come and stand against an issue that has the potential to save the lives of millions of people and relieve the pain and suffering of potential billions. The idiocy is that somehow these people think that stem cells are potential human beings therefore the stem cells should be protected from being cloned and used to make other cells. The reason that stem cells are considered to be potential human beings by scientifically ignorant and conservatives (somehow these two groups end up being the same group) is that they have the potential to become any human cell and the way they are extracted requires that an embroyo be destroyed. I previously discussed stem cells and so I won't rehash that entire discussion.
The Stem Cell debate is intricately tied into the Abortion debate, because basically the same argument that has been used for abortion has been used for stem cells. Essentially, what we have is policy makers and legislators, who have no foundation in modern science and thought. When we have the big decisions makers and we give airtime and weight to any joe moron with a opinion, we end up with a society that is more controlled by marketing and propoganda than actual evidence and research. I blame faith for this problem, faith which cannot be scrutinized without angry rebukes and criticism from those who possess such faith. The notion that God hates abortion but favors a war on terrorism, is ludicrious. How can religion in any objective manner provide us a basis to judge when life begins? or which lives matter?
Maybe this is a tangent from the topic at hand but I think it is connected. Let me try and explain my thought process. The metaphysical notion of God and God's relationship to His creation sets the framework of how we view ourselves and our relationship to the rest of creation. God made all the animals then made man, who is considered to be separate from all the rest of the creation. Man is not an animal but something entirely different as such we must have different rules apply to us. We have total dominion and mastery over all the creatures of the earth, hence we can kill this planet, its non-human inhabitants without any fear of reprisal. That might explain why we have conservatives who refuse to accept the reality of global warming, mass extinction of animal and plant species in the world and draining of the world's natural resources. We can experiment on mice who possess a fully functioning nervous system and thereby pain but we have opposition to using stem cells which don't possess any nervous system or any method of feeling sensations, in fact the idea of feelings or sensation cannot even apply to it. These stem cells can eventually lead to a cure for many of the diseases that plague us. There are millions of people on this planet who suffer from paralysis, children with multiple sclerosis, our elders who have alzhemirs, others with parkinsons and so many more disorders, which all can be eventually hopefully addressed by stem cell research. Thoughts? Comments?
Monday, October 30, 2006
Hindu Mythology: Raama Part 1
One of the most powerful ancient methods of disseminating morals and knowledge was through the art of myth telling. The cultures of the ancient world used this uniquely human aspect to attempt to explain the world and the drama of human existence. Most people in the modern world know a few of the ancient myths such as the Hellenic myths: Illiad and the Odyessey. People also know the Teutonic myths of Thor, Odin and Loki. The least known myths are the myths of South America, Africa and ancient Sumeria and Persia. My particular area of expertise is Indian and Persian Mythology. So given that, I want to try and discuss a few of the characters that have been highlighted in Indian mythology beginning with Raama, of the Ramayana epic.
Raamayana means the Journey of Raama. There are numerous versions of the Ramayana but the original version is known as Valmiki's Ramayana, named after the first poet in India, Valmiki. Indian mythology has a unique feature in that the author of the epic also is a character in the epic, which also occurred in the Mahabharata with Veda Vyasa. Raama ("he who causes joy") was the first son of the monarch Dasaratha ("He who controls ten chariots"). He was born due to the intervention of the Gods. Dasaratha could not have children on his own so he performed a yagna or sacrifice in which he recieved divine nectar which he split up between his three wives. Raama was the oldest and first born. In later times, Raama became identified as the full avatar or manifestation of the Supreme Being, Vishnu. In Valmiki Ramayana, Raama was considered human but only in a few places was his divinity hinted at.
Raama was considered to be the perfect man, husband, father, king and son. I personally think this was the later thinkers imposed on the epic and character. Valmiki, I think, was trying to show that there cannot be a perfect human being that will appease all people. The crux of the entire Ramayana laid in the simple fact that each of the characters had to pick which duties they held to be superior. Dasaratha when he exiled Raama picked his duty as a husband and king over that of a father due to the promise he made to his third wife Kaikeyi. Raama, when he abandoned Sita in the forest during her pregnancy chose his duty as King over his duty as husband.
In the story, Raama abandons his pregnant wife Sita in the forest near the ashram of Valmiki because his subjects thought that Sita was impure because she was held captive of the Rakshasha King Ravana. Hindu thought at that time was that the King is both the civil, political, military and moral leader of the people. The king is to be a moral individual who sets the model for the rest of society. As Raama was king, he decided that he should be beyond reproach by his subjects that he left her in the forest. This is one of the few issues that I have always had with Raama, instead of changing the incorrect values of his people, he succumbed to them. Maybe this was the moral of the story because finally at the end of the story, after Raama realizes his mistake and tries to take back Sita, she rebukes him and returns back into the earth from whence she came.
Valmiki, I believe was trying to show that the choices we make are based on our priorities and sometimes our priorities conflict and during those times we might make the wrong choices. The Raama of Valmiki was a very conflicted individual, not in the emotional sense but in the sense that he had so many values he was trying to uphold all at once. He was a king, prince, man of his word, honest, a son who held his parent's decisions as paramount and so on. Valmiki's point was that there is no such thing as a perfect person, we can strive for that perfection but more often than not we will fail. In my next post, i'll try and delineate the qualities of Raama and show how he is an extremely complex character, who still has a lot to teach us about being human.
Raamayana means the Journey of Raama. There are numerous versions of the Ramayana but the original version is known as Valmiki's Ramayana, named after the first poet in India, Valmiki. Indian mythology has a unique feature in that the author of the epic also is a character in the epic, which also occurred in the Mahabharata with Veda Vyasa. Raama ("he who causes joy") was the first son of the monarch Dasaratha ("He who controls ten chariots"). He was born due to the intervention of the Gods. Dasaratha could not have children on his own so he performed a yagna or sacrifice in which he recieved divine nectar which he split up between his three wives. Raama was the oldest and first born. In later times, Raama became identified as the full avatar or manifestation of the Supreme Being, Vishnu. In Valmiki Ramayana, Raama was considered human but only in a few places was his divinity hinted at.
Raama was considered to be the perfect man, husband, father, king and son. I personally think this was the later thinkers imposed on the epic and character. Valmiki, I think, was trying to show that there cannot be a perfect human being that will appease all people. The crux of the entire Ramayana laid in the simple fact that each of the characters had to pick which duties they held to be superior. Dasaratha when he exiled Raama picked his duty as a husband and king over that of a father due to the promise he made to his third wife Kaikeyi. Raama, when he abandoned Sita in the forest during her pregnancy chose his duty as King over his duty as husband.
In the story, Raama abandons his pregnant wife Sita in the forest near the ashram of Valmiki because his subjects thought that Sita was impure because she was held captive of the Rakshasha King Ravana. Hindu thought at that time was that the King is both the civil, political, military and moral leader of the people. The king is to be a moral individual who sets the model for the rest of society. As Raama was king, he decided that he should be beyond reproach by his subjects that he left her in the forest. This is one of the few issues that I have always had with Raama, instead of changing the incorrect values of his people, he succumbed to them. Maybe this was the moral of the story because finally at the end of the story, after Raama realizes his mistake and tries to take back Sita, she rebukes him and returns back into the earth from whence she came.
Valmiki, I believe was trying to show that the choices we make are based on our priorities and sometimes our priorities conflict and during those times we might make the wrong choices. The Raama of Valmiki was a very conflicted individual, not in the emotional sense but in the sense that he had so many values he was trying to uphold all at once. He was a king, prince, man of his word, honest, a son who held his parent's decisions as paramount and so on. Valmiki's point was that there is no such thing as a perfect person, we can strive for that perfection but more often than not we will fail. In my next post, i'll try and delineate the qualities of Raama and show how he is an extremely complex character, who still has a lot to teach us about being human.
Friday, October 20, 2006
The Big 27
So, I recently turned 27 or as they say in india, I'm running 28 (since in india they count your birthday from the day of your conception). Its rather funny because I think I'm supposed to feel different but I really don't, unless you consider that I'm graying a bit more and losing brain cells, hey as long as my hair doesn't fall out, i'm good to go. The one thing that birthdays do is to make you think about the past and with the lens towards the future. In that vein, I've been thinking about my life, where I've been, where I am and where I would like to go.
Life has been described as a book or a journey or a game. Its a book because what you have done is much like what has been recorded into a page, it cannot be changed (i'm guessing this metaphor was created before the invention of the eraser or white out). My life has been a rather interesting ride. I'd say I've experienced a lot more than many people and it is this ride that made me into the person I am now, good or bad thats for others to judge. I don't want to get into specifics because I'd rather people ask about it than me blog about it. My views on the world have changed drastically from high school and college. Maybe I've become more cynical but I think I've become more realistic. My idealism hasn't abated any because I still fundamentally believe in the potential of humanity to rise above selfishness.
The world we live in isn't ideal, its full of hatred, bigotry, anger, ignorance and selfishness. The depravity of the human condition really knows no bounds but neither does the splendor and goodness. Sometimes, just seeing that one kid in the street with nothing but is still content and happy with a beaming smile is enough to make you hope that maybe that kid will be the one who opens our eyes to part of us that connects us to everything else. The values our society pays to money and status is sometimes absurd. Seeing the amount of respect and attention we give to people like Paris Hilton or Donald Trump or other such people is sometimes borderline obscene when the teachers, thinkers, police, doctors, social workers and other such people are paid so poorly yet provide so much for our world.
As cheesy as it might be the line from batman begins really strikes a chord "It is not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you". A good person in my mind is the person who tries to help those that they barely know or maybe those they don't like. Helping people you care about as nice as it is isn't something that should be lauded but should be something we expect from each other. Ya, i've blogged about a part of this before but such thoughts do continue to linger.
So whats all this have to do with my age? I think I'm trying to find more ways to do more but I want to do things big. I want to do work in India help eradicate caste and ill treatment of women. I want to help improve health standards and medical problems. AIDS education, free medicine for the poor and education. I'm Indian and American, I want to find a way to live in both worlds and impact both worlds but its a thin line to find and even thinner line to walk. I guess my real birthday wish is that every year I'll be able to something more for people than I did the year before. Even though I'm not religious and question a lot of faith, I do believe that Dharma sustains uses and protects those who fight for it. Dharma is a living by principles of compassion, justice, honor, truth, dignity and knowledge. Those who stand and fight for these things are never alone and will always find support. Fight for what is right and don't back down even though the rest of the world might stand against you. Justice is never easy but is necessary. Compassion isn't a just a goal but a means, sometimes compassion does mean punishment but never hatred or anger. As long as you are honest with yourself you are honest with others, when you show dignity for others you reaffirm the dignity of yourself. Anyways, I have a bit more thoughts but not right now. Hopefully some of this makes sense. As always leave comments or suggestions.
Life has been described as a book or a journey or a game. Its a book because what you have done is much like what has been recorded into a page, it cannot be changed (i'm guessing this metaphor was created before the invention of the eraser or white out). My life has been a rather interesting ride. I'd say I've experienced a lot more than many people and it is this ride that made me into the person I am now, good or bad thats for others to judge. I don't want to get into specifics because I'd rather people ask about it than me blog about it. My views on the world have changed drastically from high school and college. Maybe I've become more cynical but I think I've become more realistic. My idealism hasn't abated any because I still fundamentally believe in the potential of humanity to rise above selfishness.
The world we live in isn't ideal, its full of hatred, bigotry, anger, ignorance and selfishness. The depravity of the human condition really knows no bounds but neither does the splendor and goodness. Sometimes, just seeing that one kid in the street with nothing but is still content and happy with a beaming smile is enough to make you hope that maybe that kid will be the one who opens our eyes to part of us that connects us to everything else. The values our society pays to money and status is sometimes absurd. Seeing the amount of respect and attention we give to people like Paris Hilton or Donald Trump or other such people is sometimes borderline obscene when the teachers, thinkers, police, doctors, social workers and other such people are paid so poorly yet provide so much for our world.
As cheesy as it might be the line from batman begins really strikes a chord "It is not who you are underneath but what you do that defines you". A good person in my mind is the person who tries to help those that they barely know or maybe those they don't like. Helping people you care about as nice as it is isn't something that should be lauded but should be something we expect from each other. Ya, i've blogged about a part of this before but such thoughts do continue to linger.
So whats all this have to do with my age? I think I'm trying to find more ways to do more but I want to do things big. I want to do work in India help eradicate caste and ill treatment of women. I want to help improve health standards and medical problems. AIDS education, free medicine for the poor and education. I'm Indian and American, I want to find a way to live in both worlds and impact both worlds but its a thin line to find and even thinner line to walk. I guess my real birthday wish is that every year I'll be able to something more for people than I did the year before. Even though I'm not religious and question a lot of faith, I do believe that Dharma sustains uses and protects those who fight for it. Dharma is a living by principles of compassion, justice, honor, truth, dignity and knowledge. Those who stand and fight for these things are never alone and will always find support. Fight for what is right and don't back down even though the rest of the world might stand against you. Justice is never easy but is necessary. Compassion isn't a just a goal but a means, sometimes compassion does mean punishment but never hatred or anger. As long as you are honest with yourself you are honest with others, when you show dignity for others you reaffirm the dignity of yourself. Anyways, I have a bit more thoughts but not right now. Hopefully some of this makes sense. As always leave comments or suggestions.
Saturday, August 26, 2006
The End of Faith and Beginning of Freedom
In the past couple months, I have started to become an avid reader, once again. I think this is due to the fact that I take the subway to and from work so I have about 40 minutes each way to burn. I pop on my earphones and start reading away. About 3 weeks ago, I finished a very pivotal and important book called The End of Faith by Sam Harris. To put it bluntly, it is a very controversial book if you rabidly cling to your faith, especially if you cling to Christianity, Islam and even Judaism. Although I do think that even other faiths like Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, Zoraustrianism and others also should pay heed.
Harris makes strong and rather rational arguments towards explaining how Christianity, Islam and Judaism are rather irrational and furthermore bring about more negative than positive. To be honest, maybe a few years back I would have disagreed because I strongly felt that all religions have some kernel of truth. Now, I accept that they might have a drop of wisdom here or there but its mostly a vast ocean of hatred and oppression. Maybe it seems I am singling out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths but its only because they make rather large and broad claims to the exclusive truth.
First, in the Old Testament, Yahweh is a very jealous and vengeful God, as He himself proclaims in Exodus 20:3-5 ("You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments" also see Deuteronomy 4:23-25. Secondly, in the Old Testament again, He requires his people to kill and destroy anyone who tries to convert them to other gods, see Deuteronomy 13:6-18. Similarly, He promises salvation and protection to only those who worship Him and Him alone. He requires His people to do what He says not because its the right thing to do but because He says it. Killing isn't wrong because its fundamentally wrong but because He says its wrong. The Lord, here doesn't want people to think or use the abilities that He apparently has given them but wants blind obedience. God as seen in the Old Testament was a very draconian God, much like the Laws of Hammarabi, God did not tolerate violators of His Law.
The God of the Christians, who was/is or at one point the God of the Jews, is still a very jealous God but a much more loving God, but with the caveat that now you must accept His only begotten Son, Christos Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. John 14: 6. It wasn't until recently with Pope John Pauls declaration that salvation can be possible for non-christians, that Christianity recognized that moral acts done without necessity of belief in God or the Christian God was ok.
You may ask at this point, why does it matter that God is a jealous and vengeful God. As I have blogged before, I think the notion of God must be a universal one, one that transcends the anthropomorphic nature that we assign to Him, such as human emotions. If God is truly God as understood by many of us as being Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and so on then He cannot possess the petty and negative emotions that we possess. Anger, wrath, jealously, impatience, hatred, insecurity, fear and so on are all emotions we would almost universally dub as negative and as something not conducive to growth and attainment of good character. Why is it then that God is allowed to possess these qualities?
In one breath we are told that God is perfect and yet many of the acts that are imputed to have been committed by God, if done by any human would be seen as evil. For example, in Exodus God unleashes a series of plagues, ten to be exact, to force the Pharoah to release the Israelites and also to display his awesome power over the Gods of Egypt thereby proving his exalted and supreme status. The last and worst of the plagues was the Plague of the Firstborn, where God descended upon Egypt and directing the Angel of Death to kill all the first born sons of Egypt including the Pharoah's but sparing all the children of the Israelites (who had obeyed God's decree and marked their doors with lamb's blood after sacrificing to God, this event is celebrated as Passover). For argument's sake, say that instead of God doing this some human freedom fighter decided that to gain rights for his people all he needed to do was kill all the girl babies of the ruling power. If he were to follow through with this action, would that not be a heinous act worth all of our condemnation and retribution?
I believe the answer has to be an astounding yes. Why shouldn't a deity who proscribes such laws and morality upon us also be held to such standards? If God is the perfect being, shouldn't God be the example we should be emulating? Furthermore, for a truly universal God the Egyptians and their first borns should be just as important as the Israelites, in fact both are His children.
Islam divides the world into Dar al Islam or the House of Islam/Peace and Dar al Harb or the House of War. Dar al Islam refers to the places where there is Muslim rule and submission to Allah. Dar al Harb is all non-muslim and secular rule. First off, this division is not found in the Koran or Hadiths but is a subsequent division but nonetheless it does have germs which reach into those texts. For example, The Quran/Koran makes a few strong divisions between Believes and Non-Believers; further separates Non-Believers into the People of the Book and Infidels. People of the Book are Jews and Christians, who are believed to have misinterpreted the truths of Allah and taken a mistaken path. They are allowed to live and practice their faith but must pay a jizya or religious tax. It must be pointed out that according to Islam, Allah does not approve of any other lifestyle which is not in conformity with Islam. [3:85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
I'll end part one of this long post with this and will pick up with my thoughts in the next post, hopefully soon time permitting. Please drop me any comments or ideas.
Harris makes strong and rather rational arguments towards explaining how Christianity, Islam and Judaism are rather irrational and furthermore bring about more negative than positive. To be honest, maybe a few years back I would have disagreed because I strongly felt that all religions have some kernel of truth. Now, I accept that they might have a drop of wisdom here or there but its mostly a vast ocean of hatred and oppression. Maybe it seems I am singling out the Judeo-Christian-Islamic faiths but its only because they make rather large and broad claims to the exclusive truth.
First, in the Old Testament, Yahweh is a very jealous and vengeful God, as He himself proclaims in Exodus 20:3-5 ("You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments" also see Deuteronomy 4:23-25. Secondly, in the Old Testament again, He requires his people to kill and destroy anyone who tries to convert them to other gods, see Deuteronomy 13:6-18. Similarly, He promises salvation and protection to only those who worship Him and Him alone. He requires His people to do what He says not because its the right thing to do but because He says it. Killing isn't wrong because its fundamentally wrong but because He says its wrong. The Lord, here doesn't want people to think or use the abilities that He apparently has given them but wants blind obedience. God as seen in the Old Testament was a very draconian God, much like the Laws of Hammarabi, God did not tolerate violators of His Law.
The God of the Christians, who was/is or at one point the God of the Jews, is still a very jealous God but a much more loving God, but with the caveat that now you must accept His only begotten Son, Christos Jesus as the way, the truth and the life. John 14: 6. It wasn't until recently with Pope John Pauls declaration that salvation can be possible for non-christians, that Christianity recognized that moral acts done without necessity of belief in God or the Christian God was ok.
You may ask at this point, why does it matter that God is a jealous and vengeful God. As I have blogged before, I think the notion of God must be a universal one, one that transcends the anthropomorphic nature that we assign to Him, such as human emotions. If God is truly God as understood by many of us as being Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent and so on then He cannot possess the petty and negative emotions that we possess. Anger, wrath, jealously, impatience, hatred, insecurity, fear and so on are all emotions we would almost universally dub as negative and as something not conducive to growth and attainment of good character. Why is it then that God is allowed to possess these qualities?
In one breath we are told that God is perfect and yet many of the acts that are imputed to have been committed by God, if done by any human would be seen as evil. For example, in Exodus God unleashes a series of plagues, ten to be exact, to force the Pharoah to release the Israelites and also to display his awesome power over the Gods of Egypt thereby proving his exalted and supreme status. The last and worst of the plagues was the Plague of the Firstborn, where God descended upon Egypt and directing the Angel of Death to kill all the first born sons of Egypt including the Pharoah's but sparing all the children of the Israelites (who had obeyed God's decree and marked their doors with lamb's blood after sacrificing to God, this event is celebrated as Passover). For argument's sake, say that instead of God doing this some human freedom fighter decided that to gain rights for his people all he needed to do was kill all the girl babies of the ruling power. If he were to follow through with this action, would that not be a heinous act worth all of our condemnation and retribution?
I believe the answer has to be an astounding yes. Why shouldn't a deity who proscribes such laws and morality upon us also be held to such standards? If God is the perfect being, shouldn't God be the example we should be emulating? Furthermore, for a truly universal God the Egyptians and their first borns should be just as important as the Israelites, in fact both are His children.
Islam divides the world into Dar al Islam or the House of Islam/Peace and Dar al Harb or the House of War. Dar al Islam refers to the places where there is Muslim rule and submission to Allah. Dar al Harb is all non-muslim and secular rule. First off, this division is not found in the Koran or Hadiths but is a subsequent division but nonetheless it does have germs which reach into those texts. For example, The Quran/Koran makes a few strong divisions between Believes and Non-Believers; further separates Non-Believers into the People of the Book and Infidels. People of the Book are Jews and Christians, who are believed to have misinterpreted the truths of Allah and taken a mistaken path. They are allowed to live and practice their faith but must pay a jizya or religious tax. It must be pointed out that according to Islam, Allah does not approve of any other lifestyle which is not in conformity with Islam. [3:85] And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the losers.
I'll end part one of this long post with this and will pick up with my thoughts in the next post, hopefully soon time permitting. Please drop me any comments or ideas.
Tuesday, June 27, 2006
SUPERMAN RETURNS!!!!!
Last night I just saw an early premiere of the new Man of Tomorrow movie. For those of you who know me you all know that I have been anticipating this movie since as far as I can remember. Superman and Batman are endearing embelms of American culture and values to me. I found a connection with both of these iconic characters and their corpus of mythology. Superman represents all that is good and amazing about ourselves. A god amidst mortals who deeply desires to be one of the mortals but cannot. Who desires to be normal but isnt and who does good just to do good. Not out of some sense of duty, not to right a previous wrong, not to balance the scales or take revenge. He simply does it because he is good. He will always make the right choice and help others. Hence he is called a boy scout and many people find him boring because of that. I don't. I think I have imbibed in many of his values into my life. He represents integrity and time honored values of honesty, truth and compassion. Things I think that are sometimes thrown to the wayside by many of us in pursuit of our own joy and happiness.
The new movie attempts to bring Superman into the new age of gray that we live in. Without giving away plot details, Singer manages to capture a lingering feeling from the first two superman movies and present an entirely unique and evolved Superman. The first two Superman movies highlighted Superman's duality between Clark Kent and Superman. This movie is more about Superman than Clark. It is Superman's return and his place as the savior of the world. Superman protects people from physical harm and inspires them to look up to the skies. The special effects are astounding in this movie but I think for me they took a back seat to seeing the Man of Steel grace the screen and continue the story which had me wearing tights and capes all through my childhood, jumping off the stairs and standing in front of a fan so that the cape will flutter behind me like i've seen so many times. The Superman theme song still gives me goosebumps. Singer gives us a more divine Superman, a Superman who bears the burden of being super and knows it but nonetheless accepts it because this is who he is.
Superman has been made into something larger than life by Christopher Reeve who in the last decade of his life became Superman in more than just name. He used his fame and influence to try and fight for research to combat paralysis. This movie was made in memory of Christopher Reeve and his wife Diana Reeve. It is a fitting tribute.
The new movie attempts to bring Superman into the new age of gray that we live in. Without giving away plot details, Singer manages to capture a lingering feeling from the first two superman movies and present an entirely unique and evolved Superman. The first two Superman movies highlighted Superman's duality between Clark Kent and Superman. This movie is more about Superman than Clark. It is Superman's return and his place as the savior of the world. Superman protects people from physical harm and inspires them to look up to the skies. The special effects are astounding in this movie but I think for me they took a back seat to seeing the Man of Steel grace the screen and continue the story which had me wearing tights and capes all through my childhood, jumping off the stairs and standing in front of a fan so that the cape will flutter behind me like i've seen so many times. The Superman theme song still gives me goosebumps. Singer gives us a more divine Superman, a Superman who bears the burden of being super and knows it but nonetheless accepts it because this is who he is.
Superman has been made into something larger than life by Christopher Reeve who in the last decade of his life became Superman in more than just name. He used his fame and influence to try and fight for research to combat paralysis. This movie was made in memory of Christopher Reeve and his wife Diana Reeve. It is a fitting tribute.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Stem Cells and Motor Function
A recent study conducted by Douglas Kerr presents more evidence with the growing mountain of data as to why stem cell research is vital and necessary. (link: Neurons from Stem Cells) The article basically reports that Kerr and his team developed stem cells until they became neural precursors. Before I go any further, I just want to explain what a stem cell is and why there is so much fervor over it. I'm not a scientist but I have a basic background in science and read a few books on it, so if I make any mistakes just correct me. Stem cells are cells that are essentially undivided and undifferentiated, meaning that they haven't "decided" what type of cell they will end up becoming. Usually stem cells are taken from either the placenta or umbilical cord after birth or they are taken from an recently fertilized embroyo with around 50 to 150 cells already divided. These cells can then be therapeutically cloned so as to produce more stem cells and thereby have a chain of cells which are a genetic match of the donor organism. In short this process of cloning involves removing the nucleus of an egg and then replacing that nucleus with DNA from another organism. The egg will then be cultivated with the new DNA and begin to divide as if fertilized. After a week or so the cells are now now as totipotent stem cells as they can become ANY type of cell. As they divide and begin to become more differentiated they can be used for limited purposes. That is a very rudimentary overview of stem cells and at this stage it is about as much as I know, hopefully I'll read some more on it and gain a larger body of knowledge.
So in this study, Kerr took the eggs of a rat and cultivated them using the above method until they developed into neural precursors, which basically means cells that haven't developed into specific nerve cells or neurons. Kerr developed about 60,000 of these cells and injected them into the spinal column of paralyzed rats. These precursors developed into motor neurons and develop more based on the types of chemicals that they interact with. Essentially what occurred is that these cells, reformed the a few nerve connections in the spinal cord. These reformed connections even though only 1% gave the paralyzed rats partial recovery and movement. Consider the impact, now there is a possibility that paralyzed people might be able to move and regain control over their bodies. To put it into perspective, this was only done on rats cells and haven't been attempted on human cells yet. Next time, I'll discuss the controversy revolving around the stem cell debate.
So in this study, Kerr took the eggs of a rat and cultivated them using the above method until they developed into neural precursors, which basically means cells that haven't developed into specific nerve cells or neurons. Kerr developed about 60,000 of these cells and injected them into the spinal column of paralyzed rats. These precursors developed into motor neurons and develop more based on the types of chemicals that they interact with. Essentially what occurred is that these cells, reformed the a few nerve connections in the spinal cord. These reformed connections even though only 1% gave the paralyzed rats partial recovery and movement. Consider the impact, now there is a possibility that paralyzed people might be able to move and regain control over their bodies. To put it into perspective, this was only done on rats cells and haven't been attempted on human cells yet. Next time, I'll discuss the controversy revolving around the stem cell debate.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Logic and Rationality, Part 1
Its been a while since I've last posted and a lot has happened which has been food for thought. So let me start with this topic. I've been reading a lot of political polemics and debates. These people love to use the term logical or rational in almost every argument. It makes a lot of sense when you consider that many of the people engaging in polemics are lawyers and as such they love to use the term logic or rational to buttress their arguments. The sad part is that they don't know what logic really means. Usually, the term logic or rational as used in these types of argument refers to simple inferences. So the question arises what is logic and rational?
Logic is simply a method of reasoning but there are three types of logic: deduction, induction and abduction. Deduction is deriving the conclusions from the premises. Here is an example:
Premise A: All men are evil
Premise B: Plato is a man
Conclusion: Plato is evil
Its a simple syllogism of three steps. The conclusion is necessary from the premises, in other words, there is no new knowledge gained in the process. The statement itself can be perfectally valid, meaning if you don't assume the existence of anything outside of the statement. The problem occurs at the empirical level, the statement might not be true when applied to the real world. Like above, not all men are evil so the conclusion is not necessary because Plato might or might not be evil. In other words, deductive logic doesn't fully work in the real world but makes for a powerful tool in philosophical discussion and speculation.
Induction is deriving the conclusion from the most probable facts. For example:
Premise A: Where there is smoke there is fire
Example: Like in the kitchen
Counter Example: Unlike in the water
Observation: There is smoke on the hill
Conclusion: There is fire
Induction is a system of reasoning based on what is observed and what will most probably be the conclusion. The five step syllogism above comes to the conclusion based on observable and knowable situations. If there are situations where there is smoke but no fire the conclusion will not be absolute but might still be valid. In otherwords, the validity of the conclusion is not entirely based on the internal validity of the statement but with external validity found in the real world. While in deductive logic the premises must lead to the conclusion, in inductive logic the premises coupled with our intuition will most probably lead the conclusion. Inductive logic is the logic of probabilities. It is used by scientists to show the most probable conclusion.
The final system of logic is Abduction. Abduction begins with an hypothesis then works backward to find the if the hypothesis is correct. It is the method of reasoning used by scientists and researchers. For example:
Facts: If i throw something up it will come down
Hypothesis: There is an force which pulls objects towards each other
Or;
Facts: Human beings possess 98% genetic similarity to chimps
Hypothesis: Human beings over a period of time evolved away from chimps
Basically both those hypothesis are not more or less valid, from a strictly logical necessity prespective, from an idea that God does all the gravity or created us to be related to chimps. Essentially, Abduction is an attempt to develop a rationale for the facts, in fact Abduction does not possess any real logical validity. Induction is probabilities and deduction is internal structural necessity.
So what is rational? Rational has less to do with deductive logic and more to do with common sense based on the wealth of knowledge availible to us. For example, 3000 years ago it was rational to believe that lightning and thunder was rained down by Zeus or the rumbling volcano are the mighty Titans of myth trying to break out of the chains that have them bound in Tartarus. This is not the case if we apply the same explanations nowadays, we would consider such thoughts or ideas from individuals in our time and from big cities to be irrational based on ignorance. Such thoughts can be logical on the otherhand as long we set up the syllogism appropriately such as:
1. All thunder and lightning is caused by Zeus
2. there is thunder and lightning in Florida
con: The lightning and thunder in florida is caused by Zeus
The statement is logical but utterly irrational. Just something to think about next time we try and use logic and rationality in our arguments.
Logic is simply a method of reasoning but there are three types of logic: deduction, induction and abduction. Deduction is deriving the conclusions from the premises. Here is an example:
Premise A: All men are evil
Premise B: Plato is a man
Conclusion: Plato is evil
Its a simple syllogism of three steps. The conclusion is necessary from the premises, in other words, there is no new knowledge gained in the process. The statement itself can be perfectally valid, meaning if you don't assume the existence of anything outside of the statement. The problem occurs at the empirical level, the statement might not be true when applied to the real world. Like above, not all men are evil so the conclusion is not necessary because Plato might or might not be evil. In other words, deductive logic doesn't fully work in the real world but makes for a powerful tool in philosophical discussion and speculation.
Induction is deriving the conclusion from the most probable facts. For example:
Premise A: Where there is smoke there is fire
Example: Like in the kitchen
Counter Example: Unlike in the water
Observation: There is smoke on the hill
Conclusion: There is fire
Induction is a system of reasoning based on what is observed and what will most probably be the conclusion. The five step syllogism above comes to the conclusion based on observable and knowable situations. If there are situations where there is smoke but no fire the conclusion will not be absolute but might still be valid. In otherwords, the validity of the conclusion is not entirely based on the internal validity of the statement but with external validity found in the real world. While in deductive logic the premises must lead to the conclusion, in inductive logic the premises coupled with our intuition will most probably lead the conclusion. Inductive logic is the logic of probabilities. It is used by scientists to show the most probable conclusion.
The final system of logic is Abduction. Abduction begins with an hypothesis then works backward to find the if the hypothesis is correct. It is the method of reasoning used by scientists and researchers. For example:
Facts: If i throw something up it will come down
Hypothesis: There is an force which pulls objects towards each other
Or;
Facts: Human beings possess 98% genetic similarity to chimps
Hypothesis: Human beings over a period of time evolved away from chimps
Basically both those hypothesis are not more or less valid, from a strictly logical necessity prespective, from an idea that God does all the gravity or created us to be related to chimps. Essentially, Abduction is an attempt to develop a rationale for the facts, in fact Abduction does not possess any real logical validity. Induction is probabilities and deduction is internal structural necessity.
So what is rational? Rational has less to do with deductive logic and more to do with common sense based on the wealth of knowledge availible to us. For example, 3000 years ago it was rational to believe that lightning and thunder was rained down by Zeus or the rumbling volcano are the mighty Titans of myth trying to break out of the chains that have them bound in Tartarus. This is not the case if we apply the same explanations nowadays, we would consider such thoughts or ideas from individuals in our time and from big cities to be irrational based on ignorance. Such thoughts can be logical on the otherhand as long we set up the syllogism appropriately such as:
1. All thunder and lightning is caused by Zeus
2. there is thunder and lightning in Florida
con: The lightning and thunder in florida is caused by Zeus
The statement is logical but utterly irrational. Just something to think about next time we try and use logic and rationality in our arguments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
