Bio-Science at the Crossroads

If religion were just a private club for loonies and the misguided and those being taken advantage of, carrying on its practices behind closed doors with its incense and its candles and its dressing up and its peculiar rituals and its collections, that would be okay, more or less.

But it isn`t just a private club. It has taken custody of ``good``. Religion claims the right to determine what is good, and what is bad/evil, and it appropriates unto itself the right to tell the rest of us what to think and how to think on various subjects, and what `being bad` is.

We are put in this club or that (Muslim, Christian, Protestant, Church of the Yellow Rabbit) before we can think for ourselves. There, often, we tend to stay, even once we can think for ourselves. The music may be rather nice. The social gatherings may be rather nice. What being religious (and therefore righteous?) says about us may be rather nice. Too nice to leave, whatever we believe.

If religion can`t say, hand on heart, ``this is definitely what a god thinks, he told us so``, then they should shut up and stop making it up.

The problem with debates on religion is that they turn into an ``us-versus-them`` affair with all secularists branded as unreconstructed atheists and enemies of the faith, and all believers as irrational and fanatical.

Will the world ever manage to get rid of religion? Probably not. We are stuck with it.
I am always shocked when those who consider themselves to be `intelligent` (I am thinking of Bush and Blair, among others) continue to believe that their lives are controlled by a man who lives in the sky.

If an alien landed from another planet and was told `I have never seen God, I just know he`s there, and he can see what everyone is doing at the same time, and I go into a building and sing songs to Him..` they would faint with incredulity.

Not to mention `when I am dead, I will carry on living, if I behave myself now`...

Unfortunately people who believe this sort of stuff have the ear and maybe heart (if not brain) of the world`s only remaining super-power. Christianity doesn`t have the monopoly on religious bigots. Religion and its obsession with genitalia may be mildly amusing at first glance....but sadly I don`t think it`s harmless and I don`t think it`s going away.

Prathaab

Hats of to you sir! well said. I do believe we need more freethinkers to capture and take custody (no joint custody) of ``good`` and spread the word. However, in our lifetimes, Gill Sahib would agree, the religious cults will be in majority. They will continue to alter history and knowledge untill science prevails. Science will prevail inevitably.

Gill saheb,

A thoughtful article as ever. There may be an argument that human cloning may be anti-God but that would be only if we accept the Abrahamic model of God. In Hindu mythology we come across rishis - great and exalted humans but humans nonetheless- fashioning humans out of animals or sometimes just out of thoughts/sacrifical fire etc- for eg Draupadi, Drishtyadyumna etc.. Usually the humans so fashioned had exceptional characteristics. And there is no suggestion that such practises were frowned upon. So to make a blanket statement that cloning/artifical reproductive methods are anti-God may not be universally valid. Quite apart from the fact that some may argue that God does not exist or that God could be least bothered about such acts.

The ethical, scientific, environmental points about cloning, crossing species may be valid but being anti-God is something that can be safely ignored.

Regards

Re: # 1

parthaab,

excellent post ........

among the mile stones of cellular biology research -- cloning stands as an earth shaking discovery -- a little too ahead of its time for a 21st century`s unreformed medieval mindset....

the tragedy in the good USA is that such illiterate, uninformed science-deprived -- God-diseased -- WMD-loving -- unethical minds like those of George Bushes and Bill Clintons become the sole arbiters of what is `ethical` and what is unethical in biological sciences.

Natural Science must not be fettered by the fantasia of supernatural superstitious religious paganism.

Re: # 2 by zarrar2

[I do believe we need more freethinkers to capture and take custody (no joint custody) of good and spread the word.]

If it is indeed an `us-vs-them` thing, then why ``take custody`` of this commodity? Why not create / invent your own ``good``, so that none other than you can claim its custody?

[Science will prevail inevitably.]

The key operative in this assertion is ``inevitably``.

Considering the meaning of the word above, there would be a small chance, and that too only if the visible universe is to live forever.

Unfortunately, today`s scientists unanimously concur otherwise.

Re: #3 by majumdar

[In Hindu mythology we come across rishis - great and exalted humans but humans nonetheless-]

Please note the boldened word `mythology`; meaning the concept without ``scientific`` basis; pertaining to unseen and/or unknown.

[fashioning humans out of animals or sometimes just out of thoughts/sacrifical fire etc- for eg Draupadi, Drishtyadyumna etc.. Usually the humans so fashioned had exceptional characteristics]

This is far away from ``cloning``. The process above needs scientific verification and validation, just as the existance of God, to be justified as science-friendly or in sync with it. The closest words to describe this process are miracle or magic, which are again something scientifically unacceptable due to its inexplicability on tangible basis.

Nice try, though...

The two mustn`t be pitted against each other, lest both fail the humanity.

Life starts and ends with religion, because what happens before and after life is unknown and cannot be determined by science, at least not yet. Religion, on the other hand, fill in these blanks whether it matters to one or not. This is where atheism fails a free thinking mind.

The tangibles of the interim period is the knowledge, specifically for this period, and is called science. The unseen forces that influence the life in this period can only be explained via religion. Hence, science is only a subset of, or a means to reaffirm / reject, religion.

:-)~~

Dr. Gill,

Your article leaves one unclear on what is the ADVANTAGE of cloning. Shouldn`t we spend our resources on common-sense items like providing food for the hungry rather than creating clones?

#5 Nasah sahib

You left ME out. :(

I would like to add the following information to the article:

Louise Brown`s baby is due next month.

According to Senator John Dansforth (Faith and Politics, p. 91), “Numerous scientists at leading research institutions have expressed hope that stem cell research may be key to discovering cures to ALS (Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and other terrible diseases, including Parkinson’s disease and juvenile diabetes. Stem cells are formed at the earliest stages of life, before they begin differentiating into identifiable body parts such as arms and legs. Because they are capable of becoming any part of the body, scientists think that the study of them may provide the answers to diseases that have largely eluded searches for cures, especially diseases of the nervous system.” Senator Dansforth’s elder brother was killed by Lou Gehrig’s disease.

Senator DAnsforth wrote in his book, ``I think of Don (his elder brother) every day. I would give anything to have him back.``

Sad story of soul sarching for HOME like a bird for a nest .....

The Partition of India
``A moment comes, which comes but rarely in history, when we step out from the old to the new, when an age ends, and when the soul of a nation, long suppressed, finds utterance.`` -

Jawarhalal Nehru

Good Artikool Mister Mohammad Gills(as in Anglo lastname), since pure Momin like you cannot have a Sikh lastname.


Anyways, I think that cloning should be allowed for following reasons.

1) Rich people can clone themselves and keep them frozen and when we need spare parts then we can cut/paste as we like.

2) We need to clone good looking woman and save them in freezers and this way they will be immortalize.

thank you for not listening.......

#6 ntsyed, majumdar can speak for himself - but i don`t think he`s claiming hindus invented cloning, rather it`s not an anathema to them.

Re: # 9
Watch the Fun Mohammad Gill!

Wait for few days. Soon contents of your post will be forgotten and some readers will throw this into hurling mud , religion and politics match at each other and insult each other with unpalatable names. Mualim Vs Non-Muslims, Zionism and so on!!!

That is how the intellectual exchanges will take place in Chowk !!

Kamath

Kamath sahib,

(Soon contents of your post will be forgotten and some readers will throw this into hurling mud , religion and politics match at each other and insult each other with unpalatable names. Mualim Vs Non-Muslims, Zionism and so on!!! )

And if my two fave chowkies- YLH and HYD make their appearance you can add MAJ-MKG to the list.

NTsyed sahib,

(Please note the boldened word `mythology`; meaning the concept without ``scientific`` basis; pertaining to unseen and/or unknown. This is far away from ``cloning``. The process above needs scientific verification and validation)

I think you have misunderstood my point. I am not suggesting that the ancient Hanuds had perfected a way of cloning or that Hanud epics depict reality, it is just that at least one religious systems of the world (Hinduism) did not consider cloning as being an act of rebellion against God.

Regards

Re: # 14 by majumdar

I stand corrected. I thought you were equating cloning to the mythological epics.

Unlike Test Tube babies, etc., Cloning does give birth to some very tricky questions though, and not necessarily pertinent to religion(s).

If I`m to have myself cloned, legally,

- will that being be considered my son or my brother?
- if he becomes my son, then what rights does he have on my parents, siblings, wife, and children, and vice versa?
- if he becomes my brother, who should be named as the father - me or my father?

...and so forth.

So, it`s not just the religious experts pulling their hairs out to address all the pertinent issues, I think secular legal experts, especially the ones dealing with human rights, will have a nightmare on their hands too.

I don`t think the policy wonks are keen on adding to their troubles at this point.

:-)~~

NTsyed sahib,

You are right. Even if God was to be left out of the picture, cloning would still leave behind a lot of scientific, legal and ethical issues. And for that reason it should be properly debated rather than brushed under the carpet saying that it is ant-God. Becuase ultimately at the end of the day, cloning is technically and economically a viable proposition it will happen irrespective of what God may have to say. God may not like nukes either but they are there.

Regards

PS: Merry X-mas, Happy New Year and Eid Mubarak in advance