When I wrote about the "religion gene" a few weeks ago, I had no idea how much interest it would cause. Although it may not be obvious from the blog -- why are people so shy to post comments? -- quite a few people approached me and wished to discuss the subject.
Now, I'm not a genetics expert and can't give the whole scientific background. I heard the tidbit in the news and it entered my mind as it was meandering along for subjects to discuss. A Google or better yet, an acoona search might give you more details on the subject, as well as lead you to some forums where the issue has been debated.
What I would like to further discuss today is the idea of religion, which I believe is highly appropriate seeing as how we are in the middle of the holidays. Now, don't get me wrong. I like holidays. Unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, I keep the Christmas spirit alive in my heart all year round. I like to give gifts more than I like to receive gifts (although if you have a gift to give me, I won't refuse!! lol) and I like the effect that the Christmas holiday has on people. It's not very often in my part of the world that people seem giving, and goodwilled. Holidays bring out the best in people, and if only for that one fact, having religion is a good thing to my mind.
But how about religion as a whole? Is it necessary? Can we excuse the violence and upheaval brought about in the name of religion? Were the Christian Crusades right? How about the Holy Inquisition? Is Jihad excusable? Just how many people have died and will die in the name of a peaceful, giving, loving religion, in the name of an untouchable God? Is it possible that there are those among us who use our need to believe (genetically pre-ordained perhaps) to manipulate us into serving their own purposes? Most likely.
And the question arises: can't our trained. intelligent mind overcome the basic instinct and selectively keep the positive teachings arising from our various beliefs while condemning the negatives? Apparently not and for many reasons. The most obvious one is that not everyone's mind is trained and intelligent. The second reason -- more obscure but just as imprtant -- is fear. If God ordains, we must obey, mustn't we? Poor Abraham almost killed his own son because God ordered him to! But is blind belief what we should have? If so, why were we given the ability to doubt, to ask questions, to seek alternate answers?
And then we had the Great Communist Experiment. Religion was outlawed, it was "the opium of the people", only realism there, please. Nothing you cannot detect with one of your five senses. It lasted for several generations... but did it wipe out religion? Nope. As soon as they could, the people opened up the old, forgotten chuches and were back where they had started from. What's the use? The gene is mightier than reason!
Now, I have a different belief. I believe in freedom! In my meandering mind, everyone has the right to believe what he/she wants to, as long as that belief does no harm to anyone else. Radical, huh?
Friend, I don't care who and how you worship... that is your affair. I do demand that you show me the same courtesy and keep your nose out of my business!! Oh, and by the way... if your religion includes the "right" or "obligation" to do harm to someone else, I'm sure there is a jail or a nice, padded cell somewhere for you.
Thursday, December 28, 2006
Tuesday, December 19, 2006
Time Warp
Doesn't time fly? It does for me, anyway. Only a few days left until Christmas and soon afterwards the New Year! 2007.... my gosh!! It seems only yesterday that I was writing down the date 1967... where did the years go??
The second half of the last century there were so many dreams about the dawn of the 21st Century. It seemed far away, shining brightly, wonderful really... predictions that have not come true. We have not spread out to space, even the moon was abandoned... We haven't conquered poverty and hunger... We haven't been able to create a world government... We don't have robot servants catering to our every whim.
On the other hand, we have also not had World War III (thank goodness), we haven't completely destoyed the earth (yet) and machines have not taken over.
Not that there are no changes. The world of 1967 has very little in common with the world of 2007. Good things and bad things have happened during the last 40 years. One thing is certain: those of us who were alive in 1967 have grown 40 years older!
How and when did this happen? I still remember the 11 year-old child, a little serious, a little ornery who celebrated New Year's in 1967. I wonder how much it has in common with the 51 year-old woman of 2007, besides a few memories. How much of our core self do we keep intact as the years go by? Would the child recognize the woman? Would she be proud or disappointed of what the future brought?
It doesn't really matter. The child's future is now the woman's past and it is immutable. At least at this time. Perhaps there will be a bubble of time-space somewhere down the line where the past can change. A common SciFi scenario, that has not yet been realized either.
I thoughtfully wish everyone a Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate at this time and a Happy New Year!
The second half of the last century there were so many dreams about the dawn of the 21st Century. It seemed far away, shining brightly, wonderful really... predictions that have not come true. We have not spread out to space, even the moon was abandoned... We haven't conquered poverty and hunger... We haven't been able to create a world government... We don't have robot servants catering to our every whim.
On the other hand, we have also not had World War III (thank goodness), we haven't completely destoyed the earth (yet) and machines have not taken over.
Not that there are no changes. The world of 1967 has very little in common with the world of 2007. Good things and bad things have happened during the last 40 years. One thing is certain: those of us who were alive in 1967 have grown 40 years older!
How and when did this happen? I still remember the 11 year-old child, a little serious, a little ornery who celebrated New Year's in 1967. I wonder how much it has in common with the 51 year-old woman of 2007, besides a few memories. How much of our core self do we keep intact as the years go by? Would the child recognize the woman? Would she be proud or disappointed of what the future brought?
It doesn't really matter. The child's future is now the woman's past and it is immutable. At least at this time. Perhaps there will be a bubble of time-space somewhere down the line where the past can change. A common SciFi scenario, that has not yet been realized either.
I thoughtfully wish everyone a Merry Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate at this time and a Happy New Year!
Thursday, December 7, 2006
Religion Gene
This is not news but it is true that geneticists have identified a "religion gene". Apparently, somewhere in the human DNA there is a precoded gene that tells us that we have to believe in something! I was wondering what the use for such a gene would be...
If we follow Darwin's theory of evolution, it is possible to hypothesize that humans that do possess this gene and do therefore have the belief that there is some sort of a deity out there protecting them, fared better and survived long enough at least to bear progeny and pass this gene along. I suppose that means that people that did not possess the "religion gene" and therefore did not believe in protection from above, did not survive as long. This is not so strange. After all, if you believe that you will miraculously survive, chances are that you are also trying your best to do so and a strong belief does bring favorable results.
There is another school of thought, which bears consideration, however. It is the idea that the body is simply the biomechanical expression of the soul. In this scenario, the human body possesses every single mechanism necessary to attain the desires of the "higher self". If it is in the interests of the higher self then to believe in one or more deities, the gene is placed there to make it easier.
Both arguments have merit and can be debated with relative ease.
Yet, the most important lesson we learn from the discovery of the "religion gene" is that purported agnostics and atheists are either lying about their lack of faith, they have substituted denial in lieu of a deity as a reaction to social pressure, or, quite possibly, they are the exception to the rule and simply do not possess this "religion gene".
Whatever the case may be, there is no denying that for most people there is a sense of comfort and safety, perhaps due to an increase in endopherines, that arise from observing even simple acts of faith, such as crossing oneself or lighting a candle or whatever practice their own religion dictates. Such feelings are useful to humans and to society as a whole because they are intimately connected with a sense of peace and happiness, the human conscience and finally to a reverence for things that are greater than oneself.
If we follow Darwin's theory of evolution, it is possible to hypothesize that humans that do possess this gene and do therefore have the belief that there is some sort of a deity out there protecting them, fared better and survived long enough at least to bear progeny and pass this gene along. I suppose that means that people that did not possess the "religion gene" and therefore did not believe in protection from above, did not survive as long. This is not so strange. After all, if you believe that you will miraculously survive, chances are that you are also trying your best to do so and a strong belief does bring favorable results.
There is another school of thought, which bears consideration, however. It is the idea that the body is simply the biomechanical expression of the soul. In this scenario, the human body possesses every single mechanism necessary to attain the desires of the "higher self". If it is in the interests of the higher self then to believe in one or more deities, the gene is placed there to make it easier.
Both arguments have merit and can be debated with relative ease.
Yet, the most important lesson we learn from the discovery of the "religion gene" is that purported agnostics and atheists are either lying about their lack of faith, they have substituted denial in lieu of a deity as a reaction to social pressure, or, quite possibly, they are the exception to the rule and simply do not possess this "religion gene".
Whatever the case may be, there is no denying that for most people there is a sense of comfort and safety, perhaps due to an increase in endopherines, that arise from observing even simple acts of faith, such as crossing oneself or lighting a candle or whatever practice their own religion dictates. Such feelings are useful to humans and to society as a whole because they are intimately connected with a sense of peace and happiness, the human conscience and finally to a reverence for things that are greater than oneself.
Thursday, November 30, 2006
Anarchy and Democracy
OK, here is some food for thought: Is Democracy the first step towads anarchy?
In order to answer this question we should go back to why and how Democracy came into being as an idea: In Ancient Athens, of course. Now, in order to understand democracy, you must understand the ancient (and most likely modern) Greek. There is a common characteristic that underlies the personality of most Greeks: they were, are, and will probably always be stubborn and resistant to any authority telling them what to do.
Perhaps it was fine for the ancient Egyptians to be ruled by a godlike ruler, the Pharaoh, for the Persians to have a mighty emperor, but not for the unruly ancient Greeks, no way! They wanted to have a say on who rules them and how long they would be ruled by that individual. They wanted to be able to punish their ruler for making the wrong decisions by toppling him from power. Each Greek actually deep down wanted to be the one in power!
If it was at all possible, Greeks would thrive in an anarchist environment. They don't respond well to authority, rules and regulations. Even today, to a Greek, the law is merely a suggestion, not a binding force. Only the dire need for collective safety forced the Ancient Greeks to form some sort of government, and they tried to make it as painless as possible, ergo: Democracy.
It's a miracle that the idea of Democracy took such a widespread hold over the Earth in modern days. Most other peoples believe that it is a very haphazard and inefficient form of government. Even the U.S. who purports to be democratic has watered down the original idea by turning their government into what is more of an oligarchy than a true Democracy. As a matter of fact, oligarchies are much more common than true Democracies and for a good reason: Power is something people want to hold on to and pass it down only to their own families or trusted heirs.
True Democracy - one person one vote - is only one step away from anarchism. The will of the majority only loosely rules the minority, who given half a chance, would take over at the first opportunity. Only the majority's control of the power, such as the army and the police, stops the system from complete collapse.
Anarchism is deemed undesirable for some obvious reasons, the safety of others and the need for some order in society being the major ones. Democracy is the next best thing for the unruly individual who still retains a modicum of responsibility and Oligarchy is the next step towards the concentration of power to a few.
It seems that the pendulum has been swinging both ways in the past between the two extremes: dictatorships and total anarchy being the two end points. For some reason, dictatorships appear much easier to achieve than total anarchy.
Given the historical experience, once more we can conclude that the ancient Athenian Greeks had it right. A society needs government and order, but not too much government and order. Checks and balances are necessary to keep the power from concentrating in too few hands, and the right of the people to get rid of a bad leader is paramount. The democratic system allows for the freedom of the people, while still safeguarding society from extreme behavior.
Perhaps there are better systems of government to be found. Perhaps there is a utopic system of equal treatment and increased social conscience that may be developed in the future. If it does not take into consideration the two extreme forces - the need for people to possess power on the one hand and their equal need to be free and unfettered - it would be doomed to failure.
In order to answer this question we should go back to why and how Democracy came into being as an idea: In Ancient Athens, of course. Now, in order to understand democracy, you must understand the ancient (and most likely modern) Greek. There is a common characteristic that underlies the personality of most Greeks: they were, are, and will probably always be stubborn and resistant to any authority telling them what to do.
Perhaps it was fine for the ancient Egyptians to be ruled by a godlike ruler, the Pharaoh, for the Persians to have a mighty emperor, but not for the unruly ancient Greeks, no way! They wanted to have a say on who rules them and how long they would be ruled by that individual. They wanted to be able to punish their ruler for making the wrong decisions by toppling him from power. Each Greek actually deep down wanted to be the one in power!
If it was at all possible, Greeks would thrive in an anarchist environment. They don't respond well to authority, rules and regulations. Even today, to a Greek, the law is merely a suggestion, not a binding force. Only the dire need for collective safety forced the Ancient Greeks to form some sort of government, and they tried to make it as painless as possible, ergo: Democracy.
It's a miracle that the idea of Democracy took such a widespread hold over the Earth in modern days. Most other peoples believe that it is a very haphazard and inefficient form of government. Even the U.S. who purports to be democratic has watered down the original idea by turning their government into what is more of an oligarchy than a true Democracy. As a matter of fact, oligarchies are much more common than true Democracies and for a good reason: Power is something people want to hold on to and pass it down only to their own families or trusted heirs.
True Democracy - one person one vote - is only one step away from anarchism. The will of the majority only loosely rules the minority, who given half a chance, would take over at the first opportunity. Only the majority's control of the power, such as the army and the police, stops the system from complete collapse.
Anarchism is deemed undesirable for some obvious reasons, the safety of others and the need for some order in society being the major ones. Democracy is the next best thing for the unruly individual who still retains a modicum of responsibility and Oligarchy is the next step towards the concentration of power to a few.
It seems that the pendulum has been swinging both ways in the past between the two extremes: dictatorships and total anarchy being the two end points. For some reason, dictatorships appear much easier to achieve than total anarchy.
Given the historical experience, once more we can conclude that the ancient Athenian Greeks had it right. A society needs government and order, but not too much government and order. Checks and balances are necessary to keep the power from concentrating in too few hands, and the right of the people to get rid of a bad leader is paramount. The democratic system allows for the freedom of the people, while still safeguarding society from extreme behavior.
Perhaps there are better systems of government to be found. Perhaps there is a utopic system of equal treatment and increased social conscience that may be developed in the future. If it does not take into consideration the two extreme forces - the need for people to possess power on the one hand and their equal need to be free and unfettered - it would be doomed to failure.
Tuesday, November 28, 2006
Mutants
Mutants, mutations, people with special powers over and above what "normal" people can do are the bread and butter of Sci Fi.
Why are we so enthralled by this idea? Why are Superman, Batman, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Mutant X and hundreds of other heroes and their equally formidable foes so appealing? Are we not satisfied with the albeit limited but still growing human abilities we do possess or could it be a yearning combined with the suspicion that we are capable of a whole lot more than our five senses and mundaine life provides?
We want more, there is no doubt about that. Obviously, we can imagine more. Of what use is this ability to imagine if not in order to make the things we imagine come true? But I'm starting to veer off the subject.
In the "real world" 99.9% of all mutations are harmful mutations. We may now have "genetically engineered" mutated tomatoes and mutated soya but how beneficial are they? Personally, I'll take the good old home grown stuff grown in natural fertilizer. And these are vegetables! How many harmful mutations would have to be dumped in order to genetically engineer one beneficial mutation in humans? I shudder to think of it.
No doubt people will try. It's human nature to be curious, to experiment, to keep at it until final success or ultimate failure are achieved. It's fascinating to imagine the "finished product", a human that can do and be a whole lot more than we are today. Is it ethical? That is the subject of another discussion.
Why are we so enthralled by this idea? Why are Superman, Batman, the Fantastic Four, X-Men, Mutant X and hundreds of other heroes and their equally formidable foes so appealing? Are we not satisfied with the albeit limited but still growing human abilities we do possess or could it be a yearning combined with the suspicion that we are capable of a whole lot more than our five senses and mundaine life provides?
We want more, there is no doubt about that. Obviously, we can imagine more. Of what use is this ability to imagine if not in order to make the things we imagine come true? But I'm starting to veer off the subject.
In the "real world" 99.9% of all mutations are harmful mutations. We may now have "genetically engineered" mutated tomatoes and mutated soya but how beneficial are they? Personally, I'll take the good old home grown stuff grown in natural fertilizer. And these are vegetables! How many harmful mutations would have to be dumped in order to genetically engineer one beneficial mutation in humans? I shudder to think of it.
No doubt people will try. It's human nature to be curious, to experiment, to keep at it until final success or ultimate failure are achieved. It's fascinating to imagine the "finished product", a human that can do and be a whole lot more than we are today. Is it ethical? That is the subject of another discussion.
Friday, November 24, 2006
I HATE blank pages!
A blank page just begs to be filled, but what to fill it with?
Perhaps I can write about my cat who is lying on the chair next to me, sleeping the sleep of the innocent, certain that he is safe and loved.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we too could feel safe and loved, at least some of the time?
Perhaps I can write about my cat who is lying on the chair next to me, sleeping the sleep of the innocent, certain that he is safe and loved.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we too could feel safe and loved, at least some of the time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
