Monday, March 23, 2009

Disabled or super-abled?

We live in a fascinating time. Its easy to loose track of the breathtaking advances we as a species are making in technology in the mundane affairs of day-to-day life.

Tools have played a critical role in enabling humans scale greater and greater heights over the ages; from the ability to make impressions on stone, the ability to carve materials into useful objects, the ability to disseminate information through books, making cars and ships and shuttles to make traveling great distances possible, curing and healing our bodies to reduce suffering to making long distance communication cheap and pervasive, the depth and breadth of our achievement as a species is truly awe-inspiring.

We stand at a unique point in our history in that the most likely next evolutionary leap for our species might not be made by natural selection but by our own collective intelligence. The appearance of the first transhuman might not happen in our lifetimes, but I am optimistic that it won't take a very long time either. The possibility of going beyond your limitations and of even defying life and death itself makes you wonder what being human is all about.

What triggered this train of thought was something much more humble and mundane in comparison: prosthetic legs.

Aimee Mullins is an athlete, actress and fashion model whose legs had to be amputated when she was just a year old. Her story is one of courage, strength and the promise of human potential. Her talk at this year's TED made me look at prosthetic legs in an entirely different light: not as mere aids for a disability, but as potentially beautiful tools that push the boundaries of what is possible.

Prosthetic legs are a far cry from the futuristic vision of post-humanity I was thinking about, but they do serve as a simple, tangible example that clearly feels as part of the self. They serve as a stimulus to the mind for dreaming what the future might hold.

I wouldn't be lying if I said that I had thoughts of amputating my legs and having them replaced by super-cool even more powerful ones several times during the presentation.

Have fun watching.


Saturday, March 21, 2009

Separating God from religion

God and religion have been deeply and inextricably intertwined through our human history. You either believe in the God of this religion or the God of that religion but belief in a God without religion is alien to most people.

This deep and pervasive conflation of God and religion leads to a number of interesting side effects and consequences.

Firstly, since people solemnly believe their religion to be the literal word of God, any attack on religion is seen as an attack on God. Religions are full of inaccuracies, contradictions and commandments which at times go against our intrinsic human morality, but when these are pointed out, people start taking them as arguments against the existence of God which they clearly are not. People fail to see the faults in their religion because they consider God to be faultless. Only if they could separate their God from their religion can the light of awareness and clarity shine upon them.

Secondly, all religious people can clearly see the absurdity and fallacies of all religions except their own. Asking ourselves why can shed a lot of light into the nature of religious belief.

We are able to see other religions for what they really are because we don't have any emotional and spiritual ties with the God of those religions. We are blinded to the imperfections and fallacies of our own religion precisely because we have built emotional and spiritual ties with the God of our religion. It is not difficult to see how it is the notion of God that binds followers to their religions and yet how this notion can bind people to any religion provided that they are indoctrinated with its beliefs since early childhood. The ties we build with the God of our religion effectively blind us from objectively and critically evaluating our religion.

If you really care about the truth, and don't just pretend to, then the above should give you a pause. It should make you self reflect and question your deeply held beliefs. It should make you realize that you can NEVER honestly evaluate your religion unless you separate your God from the God your religion talks about. Until and unless you make that subtle but critical distinction, you will be swept away by your own emotions and bias and won't be able to think straight. You owe this separation to no one but your own self -- after all, self-deception is the worst of all forms of deception.

In addition to this personal lesson, separating God from religion can also be a good strategic move for humanity. The human species has come to associate a lot of reverence, awe and respect with the God word over the ages. People have wildly different notions of who or what God is but everyone associates it with the highest and purest of virtues we as humans can aspire for. It will serve all those arguing against the absurdities and fallacies of religions to refocus their efforts on refuting the religious beliefs and the particular God(s) talked about in those religions rather than the notion of God in general.

Throughout our human history, religions have hijacked God over and over again and used him for their own purposes. They have hidden their fallacies and absurdities behind the facade of a beautiful perfect God. It will serve humanity well to rescue the God word from the clutches of religion.

The notion of an irreligious God might be alien to most of us, but I believe that it is what is needed to save humanity from the collision course between religions it is headed towards.

Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Swastika


You are constantly surprised by how much you can learn by interacting with people from other cultures. A Bangladeshi friend recently introduced me to the Swastika, a symbol traditionally associated with well-being and good luck, and a symbol I had grown up associating only with the Nazis.

It turns out that the symbol has been in widespread use both in the East and West by innumerable number of religions and cultures. The symbol was adopted by the Nazis because of its association with the Aryan civilization from which the German nation has been conjectured to have descended. The wikipedia entry says that the Nazis claimed that the early Aryans of India, from whose Vedic tradition the Swastika sprang, were prototypical white invaders. It also says that the Indian caste system might have been created by those Aryan invaders to preserve their "racial purity". Quite interesting, if there actually is any truth to it.

Its fascinating to see how one symbol has come to stand for goodness as well as pure evil over the last century. Given that I never came across this symbol in its older historical context in Pakistan, it surprises me as to how far we have drifted away from our Indian origin.

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Evolution and religion

Beautiful streams of vapor rise from the hot comforting cup of tea on my side as I sit in front of my computer today; the controversial topic of evolution and religion preoccupying my thoughts.

We celebrate the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin this year. No theory has shaken the foundations of religious belief as much as the theory of evolution. On the surface, the theory of evolution is a benign theory which beautifully explains the diversity of life on this planet. Its beauty lies in its utter simplicity -- simplicity which leaves the mind in wonder and stupor as to how it could give rise to all that we so deeply cherish and revere: life.

But simplicity has been the hallmark of all great scientific theories, not just evolution. Newton's laws of motion were utterly simple but they managed to explain an astoundingly wide variety of natural phenomena with astonishing accuracy. Those theories didn't disturb us because they didn't contradict so deeply with our religious beliefs.

Charles Darwin himself was raised a religious man. He believed that there was a God who created the world and life around us, and who was responsible for its smooth functioning. I am left in complete awe, admiration and respect for the intellectual honesty of Darwin when I contemplate how he had to grapple with the uncomfortable evidence which pointed in a direction opposite to what he wanted to believe in. His wife remained a devout Christian. I almost found it innocently cute when I read how his wife expressed her concerns on how his honest doubts might cause them to be separated in the hereafter.

Each one of us has to go through a similar spiritual struggle that Darwin did when confronted with the evidence for evolution. While accepting evolution doesn't mean you to have stop believing in some sort of higher power, it does mean that it will be dishonest of you to say that you believe in evolution and still think that your religion is nothing but truth. Nearly all religions make claims about the origin of humans, and their demise, and thus the beef with evolution.

Humans invented religions to serve as anchors and guides for leading a good life; to help people make sense of the world, even if that meant believing in elaborate accounts of supernatural beings without a shred of evidence. There are reasons why evolution scares so many people. One reason is that it points them to the troublesome evidence of their religion not being the True and Right account of Reality. The other reason is they might be troubled by the gruesome and brutal way natural selection works. The fittest survive. There doesn't seem to be a room for morality and kindness. But from that gruesome brutal fight for survival, we have evolved feelings of kindness, niceness and love because they provide an evolutionary advantage to us as a species.

I remain hopeful. If our ancestors could come up with the set of religious beliefs and practices that helped them lead lives of righteousness, honesty and loving kindness, even if it required believing in superstition, I am hopeful that we can do a better job, now that we have a better grasp on the actual nature of this universe and life within it.

I came across this interesting documentary last night which answers some questions that people have regarding evolution and its interplay with religious belief. I particularly liked the following line by Dawkins when he was discussing the menace of social Darwinism:

"We humans are the first and only species that are able to escape the brutal force that created us: natural selection. "

There is hope for a gentler, kinder, loving and more spiritual world. Hope that doesn't require us to run away from and reject the truth and hide away in our little comfortable imaginary cocoons but which exhorts us to embrace the truth and work for a beautiful and loving future for our descendants.

Have fun watching.




Or click here to go to youtube's playlist so that you don't have to manually select each part.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Allah to Ole

Came across this beautiful presentation today on creative genius.

Elizabeth Gilbert talks about how artists of all sorts have this sudden flash of insight and inspiration when everything comes together and works in concert to produce a brilliant piece of work. She talks about the unpredictability of such flashes of brilliance and inspiration, and how this puts undue pressure on the creative artists.

Today we have this notion of someone "being" a genius. Elizabeth mentions that the Greeks didn't believe that genius was something intrinsic to a person, but was something that came from the outside. You were not a genius. You had genius with you for a short duration of time. Genius was something external to you, that visited you for a while.

This is a fairly odd way to look at things, but I can understand how this can take a lot of pressure off of the creative artists when they mentally separate that sudden flash of inspiration and brilliance from themselves. All of this should have neurological explanations, but its still interesting to see how previous civilizations coped with ways to deal with the unpredictability and magnificence of such flashes of insight.

Another interesting tidbit. She mentions how people in Northern Africa used to chant Allah, Allah, Allah when they saw a beautiful, almost transcendental, dance performance. They saw that performance not as a work of man, but as a manifestation of God. When the Moors invaded Spain, they took this tradition with them, and this chanting of Allah, Allah, Allah changed to Ole, Ole, Ole that is so synonymous with Spanish music today. Interesting.

Have fun watching the presentation.

Sunday, March 8, 2009

Scared of my own thoughts

I don't interact a lot, and mostly stay within myself. There is plenty to preoccupy my mind with. But as of late, because a few things didn't go according to plan, I was feeling uncertain of the future. Suddenly, there was nothing comforting to preoccupy my mind with. Uncertainty can be a very unsettling feeling.

I talked about my state of mind to a friend of mine to which he replied that perhaps I was scared of my own thoughts. The place where I found comfort and refuge had suddenly become a scary place to be at. That was a profound realization. He was partially right. I needed someone to save me from myself. Someone external to me.

Talking to friends and family, and realizing the source of the problem helped me a lot. That also got me thinking about the utility of believing in a God. This perhaps explains why people have always wanted a God, someone external to them, someone to turn to in times of uncertainty and need.

I still think that I have all the resources to deal with such conditions myself, but that is not always my first response. I am still learning. It takes effort and practice to build internal strength. We humans always turn outside for help. We can be so desperate that we can hold on to all manners of absurdities just because we want someone external to cling on to. Or perhaps its because we are always taught to look outside for help instead of inside.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

A case against the religious moderates

Today I want to share a thought provoking speech by Sam Harris.

Some people are offended by the arguments atheists make for the implausibility of God and claim that they don't really understand the kind of faith that most religious people have. Those people have a point. After all, we don't take God and religion to be the forces of evil that atheists seem to suggest.

Most religious people argue that its a reasonable philosophical position to believe in the existence of God, if not a reasonable scientific one. I won't argue against that. However, belief in the existence of God does not entail the truthfulness of the entire baggage of extra beliefs that define us as Muslims, Christians, Hindus and Jews. Most religious people don't have solid arguments for why all those other set of beliefs are a good set of beliefs to have -- beliefs in angels, heaven and hell, and getting 72 virgins when you die fighting in the way of God. Most religious people don't have good reasons for why they are Muslims or Christians or Hindus other than the fact that they were born in a culture where that religion was followed and blind faith.

Most religious people allege that atheists take the religious texts literally whereas most religious people don't. I agree. However, their religious moderation blinds them of the religious fanaticism of the minority that does take the text literally. The major religions of the world are mostly incompatible, and this makes it a really alarming situation.

Sam Harris spends most of the latter part of the lecture making a case against religious moderation. Religious moderation is no doubt MUCH better than religious extremism, but Sam Harris' points are thought provoking and worth listening to, even if controversial.

One line that I particularly liked from the speech:

"There are spiritual experiences that human beings can have, and there are ethical truths. Whatever is true about that, has to transcend our cultural differences."

I couldn't agree more.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Marasi


Marasi is a derogatory term used to refer to musicians in Pakistan. Even though television, film and music are quite popular among the Pakistani masses but actors and singers have always been looked down upon by the more religious circles of our society.

Music is forbidden in Islam. Some people say its not, but it is a controversial topic of debate. Why is it forbidden you ask? I have heard various explanations but none of them made any sense. At the end, the debate is closed by saying the catch all phrase: God knows best.

The ban on music is an interesting topic of discussion in itself but I don't want to delve in to that in this post. What I want to discuss is the schizophrenic attitude of our society towards the fine arts.

Most of us listen to music, watch dramas and films yet these professions are still not considered respectable in our society. It is believed that going in to such a profession is a sure ticket to hell fire.

A friend of mine commented that he was surprised to see how people got emotional when Shoaib Mansoor's film Khuda Kay Liye (In the name of God) came out. Shoaib openly professed that he didn't believe that music and painting were haram and the film contained arguments for that. My friend commented that he hadn't realized how many people actually believed music to be haram, even music buffs.

The change in the attitudes of our society will be a slow and gradual process, but as individuals, its better that we either clearly state that something is wrong and stay AWAY from it, or we get our thoughts and beliefs sorted out so that we do what we say and be less hypocritical. Its a tough journey either way.

I realize that the human state is full of contradictions, and we often times do things we consider to be wrong in principle, but I do think that each one of us owes it to himself to at least try to walk his talk.

Sunday, March 1, 2009

Steven Weinberg & Richard Dawkins

I recently stumbled upon this fascinating discussion between Richard Dawkins and Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize along with Abdus Salam and Sheldon Glashow. The discussion contains a segment where Weinberg discusses Abdus Salam's religious beliefs as well. Its a rather long discussion, slightly over an hour, but worth every minute of it. The discussion touches topics ranging from physics, string theory, evolution and science to religion. Have fun watching.



Or click here to go to a page containing youtube's play list so that you don't have to manually select each part.

Too much work

I frequently have these discussions with my roommate in which we both agree that religion has done quite a lot of harm in addition to the good. We both agree on how its immoral of any religion to condemn non-believers to hell. We both agree that people usually believe in the truth of their religion because it gives them spiritual fulfillment and comfort, but since that's true of every religion, its not a criteria for determining the rightfulness or truth of a religion.

In all of these cases, my question to him is that if you recognize the harmful and divisive nature of religion, if you realize that the reasons you follow your religion are more of an accidental than an essential nature, then why do you still follow it?

His reply always is that its too much work to leave my present religion and find another set of values and beliefs. He seems perfectly okay with following his religion despite knowing its weaknesses and contradictions. He is content with his religion because it provides him with comfort and is generally useful to him.

While this attitude makes personal sense, I am not sure it is ethical. If you realize and recognize that the values you profess to follow are causing harm in the world, then it does not seem ethical to just close your eyes and pretend nothing is wrong. You have to call a spade a spade, at least at a private individual level, if not a public social one.