end of semester, end of subject

Ahh.. it's finally time to hand in the journal. I've got a Time magazine from the last week of January that I wanted to re-read and write about for Week 11's discussions - it's a "Mind & Body special / A User's Guide to the Brain" and one of the articles in the magazine is titled "The mystery of consciousness" - it would have been great to write about in this journal, but time has gotten the better of me unfortunately.

Looking back on the Science & Religion subject, I think it would have been a wiser decision to have studied the gen. ed. during full-time uni, when I would have more time to invest into the discussions and the readings and the research. That said, I think I've done as best I could given my cirumstances, and it's been great fun sharing and contrasting ideas with a group of people whom I've never met nor seen (how bizarre)!

And now it's done, and the final page has been written, and so I bid this science and religion journal a fond farewell :)

mighty mouse to mighty man

This is pretty shocking news. Scientists have created a kind of "super mouse" that can eat twice as much as a normal mouse yet not gain weight, as well as run twice as fast for much longer than your average rodent.

I happened to see this news on TV the other night. To illustrate, they showed two mice running on a treadmill at 20m/min. The mouse furthest from the front of the screen was the wild mouse, and the one at the front was the PEPCK-mouse. As time wears on, you can observe the normal (wild) mouse tiring, as it starts sliding towards the back of the treadmill. Numerous times the wild mouse almost falls off the treadmill, only to force its way back on by running hard, continuing to try and keep pace. Eventually the mouse falls off, and only the 'mighty mouse' is left running.. and running.. and running. It's like a Duracell ad with the energetic toy rabbit. The mighty mouse runs faultlessly for a good 4.9km at the 20m/min speed! It's incredible!

And I thought they'd only created one mighty mouse, but it turns out they've already created at least 500 of these freakish beings. I couldn't help but think "What the hell are they doing?!"

I discussed this story with a few mates of mine last night and we all think it's pretty messed up. Especially because this raises questions for the human race, questions which have already been asked by the scientists. One day, there may not be one superman, but a whole city of supermen, women, and children! Kind of like the Incredibles from the Pixar film. To me this is like playing God to the extreme. It's pretty scary, the speed at which science is advancing in this realm. If this technology DOES flow into the human medical arena, I can only imagine the level of controversy it may generate between the Church and the scientists. Not only the Church, but all those who believe this altering of enzymes is an unethical practice.


A response to the article "Mighty Mouse – he’ll make champions of us all"

week 11 discussion posts #1-3

Slightly altered for the purposes of this blog

Phew! 10-12hr working days for two weeks.. has left me very far behind in tute discussions! Apologies for my ridiculously late replies.

Responding to Miroula's reponse to Ariella (;P), where she's mentioned "Perhaps being a paraplegic would lead the person to learn life lessons or become the kind of person they wouldnt have been able to become if they were able to walk."

I agree with Miroula on this. I've observed from news reports, or from reading about other people's lives/experiences, that when one part of the is damaged or is dysfunctional, another part of the brain seems to light up and become much more stronger or 'focused'.

Take for instance, the blind painter who is able to distinguish between colours simply by touching the dried pigment on the canvas (true story - Mum recently read about this dude in a Korean newspaper). His lack of eyesight appears to have heightened his sense of touch. It's as though the brain is provided with a certain amount of "skill", and depending on its influences, varying portions of "skill" are divided amongst the different functions.

To compare to something more basic, it's almost like those racing games, where you can choose to have a car with high speed but little grip, or good braking but slow acceleration.

----

In response to Alex's question "Will such a machine operate as a human brain does? Will it feel emotion, love, etc?" -

Call me stubborn but I think human emotion is possibly way too complex and unpredictable for us to break it down and "computerize" it, so to speak. Not only that, but it would make life so.. mechanic. We spend enough time with our portable/desktop electronic gadgets as it is, I think that having to converse to a "human robot" would be really, really depressing.

It's a bit ironic hey, that humans are constantly breaking new ground, discovering lots of things about the world and everything around them, yet the hardest thing to crack is ourselves.. :)

----
So Ariella wrote:

Justin wrote:
"If it is possible to effectively transplant our minds into another body, does that mean that our soul or spirit is also transplanted or even existed in the first place? I think this is what some people might have difficulty accepting. Or perhaps I've oversimplified the issue."

I don't think you have oversimplified the issue at all - I think it is just another way of asking the question that someone else asked this week of where the soul is located physically in our body. If we say the soul is a mental thing, then can it be transplanted like (potentially, but not now) the brain? My inclination (from the concept of emergence) would be to say no, that it can't... or that maybe part of your soul could be, but that there would be bits missing. But then, is your soul even your soul anymore if you were to start removing bits of it? Is the soul a whole, or is it too a sum of parts?

(I realise these questions are getting slightly off topic, sorry).




In response to Ariella's questions/reply to Justin's post, maybe the problem is that we are trying think of the soul and/or the spirit as being located somewhere physically within ourselves. Perhaps it's something more intangible, almost like a ghost, or one of those 'feelings' that you just have, the sense of a presence, that you just can't place a finger on.

I would also like to think that the soul and the spirit are things which cannot be transferred from one body to another.. and if the soul IS a sum of parts, then this sum is inseparable.. that is to say, there are so many things that make up the soul, it is impossible to try and "remove" something from it. I would be more inclined to believe that the soul is able to change, in the same way that a personality can change.

week 14 discussion posts #1-3

Slightly altered for the purposes of this blog


So Ashleigh wrote:

If you believe in them, what is your picture of heaven and hell? How did you get this picture?

I don’t know that I believe in them, but the image that I have of heaven and hell stems from storybooks from childhood and things I heard from others when younger. The classic white, bright and soft place above the earth for heaven and a fiery, hot and smoldering dungeon of a place for hell.

When it comes to my concept of Heaven & Hell, I'm much the same as Ashleigh - I'm influenced by childhood images and the media's representation of the pearly gates above and the pitchforks, horns and pointed tails beneath the earth.

I also like Stuart's idea of what lies beyond our current life on Earth. He wrote:

I do believe in there being something after death, and I guess in a way it is either heaven and hell, but tey are both the same. What I think is that when you die you will be surrounded by all that was important to you in life and everything you succeded in. Therefore, if you lived a good, fulfilling life, you will be much happier than the person who wasted their life and fell in to bad habits who would be surronded by a hellish environment.

- to be surrounded by all that was important to you throughout your years, it's a nice thought. That said, I personally have difficulty in believing that the 'afterlife' will be like that.

The more I think about it, the more I feel that it's not possible for there to be anything left for us after death - even if we were to transcend into a new dimension for the post-Earth way of life, doesn't that mean there must be trillions of now-dead people living in this alternate realm? So Victorians would converse with ancient Egyptians who in turn may converse with Bill Gates, and so on and so forth.. can you imagine the incompatibility and intense difficulty of communication these people would have, coming from different periods of time?

I feel that as the concept of time is a human creation, so is the concept of eternity. Neither are necessarily true; they are just a form of measurement, a yardstick of sorts..

-----

I'd have to agree (to an extent) with Ariella & Priyanka here, and say that the task of determining the 'one true idea' of the end of the universe is important if it leads to methods of prolonging the end.

That said, my thoughts are probably more absolute, in that I think it's a fairly pointless pursuit in any case, because if we DO manage to figure out which way the world will end, we're going to spend all our time trying to avoid it, and/or once the end arrives it's not like we'll still be here afterwards (in which case it *wasn't* the end, was it?) to say 'Yes, we were intelligent enough to accurately predict our own demise' or 'Damnit, we were wrong! If only we'd noticed [X] in the [nth] quadrant in the galaxy,' etc.

To respond to Larissa's question of "What is the aim of science anyway?", the pursuit of science, in my opinion, is to be able to explain things in logical/mathematical terms, that seems more reliable than 'Because God said so'. Of course another aspect of science is the ability to make educated 'guesses' or predictions based on the cumulative evidence, which is great for understanding how many years it will be before Antarctica disappears, but realistically anything could happen between now and next week that nobody could have ever predicted..

A bit of a dark post, but this is a rather dark topic of conversation methinks! :)

-----

Danielle, I agree with on your response to question two. I think the media focuses on the idea of "living in the present" and "do what you want, when you want".. the idea of respecting your elders, or saving for your future (i.e. house, family, etc) has taken a bit of a back seat in today's society, from my observations.

I remember when I was watching an afternoon kids' show back in primary school, they presented this 'wacky fact' that in 2050 or so, kids born around that time would live to 150 years on average. But considering today's 'typical' lifestyle of 'go hard' (huge generalisation I know), I'm not sure if that fact still holds..

the religious scientist

I don't actually have much comment on the article below, apart from the fact that I continue to be a little mystified by persons such as Newton, who must have been so scientifically brilliant, and yet despite his deep involvement in science he was also a devout Christian. Such people seem to shatter the concept of a conflict between science and religion.

The article is certainly an interesting read. Will the world really end in 2060, I wonder.. actually no, let's not wonder about that, I don't particularly like the thought of the world ending.
---

Newton's Clockwork Universe

A rare exhibit of Isaac Newton's religious writing, on display at Israel's National Library in Jerusalem, has treated viewers to his interpretation of the Book of Daniel, a prediction that the world will end in 2060, and other biblical notations.

But nowhere in these manuscripts, or his other writings, does Newton speak of a "clockwork" universe, with which he is often associated.

The exhibit sheds light on two misinterpretations of Newton, who died 280 years ago and is considered the greatest scientist in history for his work in physics, astronomy, math, and optics.

The exhibit, for example, shows that Newton was not only a severe-minded scientist, but also an avid speculator in biblical religion. Other scholarship has recently suggested that, although he discovered the laws of motion and gravity, Newton never took the religious view that universe was like a clock set in motion by a distant "clockmaker."

"These documents show a scientist guided by religious fervor, by a desire to see God's actions in the world," curator Yemima Ben-Menahem told reporters at the exhibit's opening this summer. When Einstein saw these documents, he wrote that Newton's speculations "give us a most interesting look into the mental laboratory of this unique thinker," according to a 1940 letter in the Hebrew University archives.

The Jerusalem manuscripts, bought by a Jewish scholar in the 1930s and then housed in the museum, are being shown to the public for the first time. They show that, as a mathematician, Newton was not only interested in calculating Bible prophesy, but also hidden secrets in the dimensions of the ancient temple of Jerusalem.

"He believed there was wisdom in the world that got lost," said Ben-Menahem. "He thought it was coded, and that by studying things like the dimensions of the temple, he could decode it."

After the scientific revolution sparked by Newton, many historians argued that his machine-like universe presented a persuasive argument for the God of Deism, or a God who wound up the clock and then left the scene. The laws of gravity and motion by themselves operated the universe, an idea later applied to biological life. Newton's most famous biographer, the late Richard Westfall, called him a Deist.

But the Newton writings and more recent scholarship argue that Newton still believed that God operated in the details of the world, both in nature and in history.

"Newton's God was not the absentee clockmaker typical of the Enlightenment," says Edward B. Davis, a former student of Westfall who teaches the history of science at Messiah College in Pennsylvania. "Newton believed God was free to make the world, and alter it at times, in any way he pleased. Newton was serious about his belief in an active God who governs nature at all times."

The idea that Newton embraced the clockwork image, according to Davis and others, originated with the German philosopher Gottfried Leibniz, his rival in claiming to have been first to invent calculus. During Leibniz's debate with a friend of Newton, the philosopher Samuel Clarke, he said that Newton had discredited God's perfection by saying the deity adjusted the orbits of planets occasionally.

Leibniz said Newton had introduced a God that had "to wind up his watch from time to time" and lacked "sufficient foresight to make it a perpetual motion." This sort of God was cleaning and mending the universe "as a clockmaker mends his work," said Leibniz. The clock image became attached to Newton, even though Clarke emphatically rejected the idea on Newton's authority. The clock universe, Clarke wrote, "is the notion of materialism and fate, and tends ... to exclude providence."

The Jerusalem documents suggest Newton saw God as governing providential history and even hiding spiritual truths in the biblical commandments on the dimensions of the temple.

In one manuscript Newton uses the Book of Daniel to suggest the world would end no earlier than 2060. "It may end later, but I see no reason for its ending sooner," he wrote. "This I mention not to assert when the time of the end shall be, but to put a stop to the rash conjectures of fanciful men who are frequently predicting the time of the end, and by doing so bring the sacred prophesies into discredit as often as their predictions fail."

Davis says that Newton's massive writings on alchemy, or the use of chemistry to seek spiritual knowledge, also illustrated that Newton was trying to find the "intermediate agents" and "active principles" of God's action in the world. As Newton wrote, "God doth nothing by himself which he can do by others."

Davis says that other leading figures, such as chemist Robert Boyle and philosopher John Locke, were also interested in alchemy. "For all the talk about magic and making gold," says Davis, "alchemy was ultimately about matter itself and how God governed it. It's fair to say that alchemy was the scientific theory of matter at that time. We need to look at science in its real context."

week 9 discussion post #4

To put things in context, Ariella wrote:

The thought strikes me, that the thing about miracles is that they are rare. This is why they are miracles. So what happens then if something is so rare that it has only ever happened once, and it happened to occur a long time ago, and this doesn't give scientists the chance to study it...?

How are people then to know about the scientific possibility or impossibility of this thing...? Could it not be that it is scientifically possible, but everyone thinks it is scientifically impossible, and only a myth, because it hasn't happened again, and so doesn't seem feasible or provable...?

I hope this made sense. I am not sure that it does :)


My repsonse (Slightly edited for the purposes of this blog):

I think I can see where Ariella is coming from with this suggestion, and I like the idea.

It makes sense to me that a scientist would have difficulty understanding an event that occurs, say every 1-in-50 years, because scientific experiments (to me) are all about repetition and comparing against a 'control' of some sort.. so anything that can't be reperformed and tested is classed into the 'miracles' group, simply because scientists don't have the ability to gather additional information about such an event..

African evolution

Article: Out of Africa, But Into What?

The "out of Africa" theory for human origins dominates modern science, beating out a competing theory that modern humans may have evolved in a few locations. But that does not mean the Africa-first theorists are sitting on their laurels.

Anthropologists and geneticists who study African origins are making the theory as robust as possible. They also are trying to answer a few contested questions: After Africa, where did early humans go first, and how does that explain the seeming anomaly that humans fossils at times suggest more than one origin?

This summer, two researchers at Cambridge University, the geneticist William Amos and biologist Andrea Manica, presented what they believe is a definitive answer: The evolution of skulls match up with previously found genetic evidence that pinpoint human origins to central or southern Africa before their rapid migration around the world.

The researchers analyzed the shapes of 4,666 male skulls from 105 places around the world, all of them less than 2,000 years old. As expected, they found that skulls nearer to Africa showed a higher degree of difference, reflecting the early evolutionary branching of modern humans. Human skulls found at great distances from Africa showed less change within their own groups, reflecting a loss of genetic diversity.

"What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos said. This pattern in the skulls also matched research in genetics showing more diversity in older African populations, and less at greater distances, the team reported in July in the journal Nature. "We failed to find evidence of a second origin," they said. Discoveries of skulls that suggest second origins are anomalies, since the preponderance of data show an out-of-Africa pattern.

Although the Cambridge team of skull experts confirmed their findings with previous genetic evidence, a debate has raged for a few decades on which is the best test of evolutionary branching: fossils or genetic samples from modern creatures?

The Cambridge researchers said the skulls often have the best advantage in the study of human origins. "There are so many of them and they come from populations that are not very well represented genetically," said Amos. Although genetic samples for aboriginal Americans and Australians are rare, for example, skulls are in abundance. The global skull data can "open up lots of nice testable hypotheses" on which routes early humans took when they left Africa, Amos said.

Many geneticists have argued that genetic samples are the best proof of migrations, and they are hard at work trying to trace human migrations as well. Since last year, the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C., has led this research. "Every drop of human blood contains a history book written in the language of our genes," said Spencer Wells, a population geneticist. Wells is lead scientist in National Geographic's five-year project to analyze approximately 100,000 DNA samples from people across the globe.

Anthropologists and geneticists tend to agree that modern humans left Africa between 50,000 and 70,000 years ago, but a number of mysteries remain. Scientists are not sure which are the oldest populations in Africa, for example. They also wonder about the role a 5,000-mile network of trade routes called the Silk Road played in dispersing genetic diversity across the Middle East, India, and Asia. The number of times that humans migrated to the Americas is also up for debate, as is the time when they first arrived in the arctic regions.

Despite these mysteries, few experts doubt the out-of-Africa scenario in broad terms, said Erik Trinkaus, a physical anthropologist at Washington University in St. Louis. "The issue is how much modern humans spreading out of Africa after 50,000 years ago interbred with regional groups of archaic humans, where and when," he said. The new studies "reinforce the idea of a special isolation of modern humanity from anything less 'pure,'" meaning an avoidance of mating with other archaic humans.

---
This work is so fascinating - I remember watching a National Geographic documentary titled "The Journey of Man" when I was in high school - unfortunately I don't remember much of it because I was really tired and fell asleep on the couch watching it. But just the idea that we all come from Africa.. it's really exciting.

And with evidence like this, I can't help but wonder how people don't believe in the concept of human evolution. Or perhaps we've got the wrong story, i.e. the Bible is more limited than we think. Maybe, because it wasn't until we developed as homo sapiens that we were able to read and write, our documentation of religion and God is missing the hundreds or thousands or millions of years when God also existed in the earlier humans' presence, when they didn't understand who He was, nor have any means of recording their experiences for future generations to comprehend.

Were Adam and Eve actually a pair of early, early humans, living in a lush Garden of Eden in Africa? Hmmm..!


A response to the article "Out of Africa, But Into What?"

(maybe) it's the end of the male as we know it

Article: The End of 'Man'

The segment of human genes that defines maleness—the Y chromosome—is so meager that some scientists predict it will evolve out of existence in 125,000 years. The ninety genes that determine who is born a boy are so vulnerable, some scientists say, that they deserve labels like DNA "graveyard" or "Adam's curse."

No one has yet predicted the end of the male species, although it could theoretically happen. Males generally carry one Y chromosome, with its few genes, and one X, which has more than a thousand. The Y, lacking a matched genetic partner, exchanges little genetic material with the X. Women, on the other hand, have two X chromosomes that exchange vastly more genes.

Since the Y lacks this high rate of recombination, the scientific mystery has been how the "male" genetic code survives generation after generation. Scientists wonder why maleness, with its lack of genetic resources, has not simply withered away.

The answer, according to new research, may be that the Y has found a way to keep replenishing itself.

During fertilization, when the mother and father exchange their unique genetic blueprints, the mother and father's DNA exchange places with each other at random points. This "crossing over," or mixing, of genetic material is believed to ensure the health of the human genome by adding diversity it its genes. The process weeds out the weak genes and perpetuates the strong ones.

This crossing over is extensive between two X chromosomes. But the Y chromosome lacks a full partner and is denied full genetic "sex," or recombination. The Y only exchanges genetic material at its ends, where it matches the X chromosome. All the other genes on the Y apparently receive no upgrading and repair by the swapping of genetic material.

Nevertheless, genetic "man" has survived for 300 million years, but scientists disagree on how much longer he can last.

That story begins with the apparent history of the X and Y chromosomes. They are believed to have been identical in mammals 300 million years ago. After a major mutation occurred, a male-determining gene appeared on the Y chromosome. The gene is now called the SRY gene for "Sex-determining Region of the Y." This mutation had historical significance because it marked the birth of "sex" and the distinctive journeys of the Y and the X.

Although the Y chromosome has few genes, they are very active in producing sperm for reproduction. But because of this activity, and because they are switched "on" so often, the Y genes are particularly susceptible to mutation.

The Oxford geneticist Brian Sykes, who describes the Y chromosome as a "graveyard of rotting genes," calculates that this high mutation rate will destroy the fertility of the Y in 125,000 years. That means that the Y chromosome will no longer have the genetic power to make males, and the natural reproduction of "man" will end.

Other scientists give the Y a better chance. Biologists Jennifer Graves of the Australian National University calculates that the Y chromosome, and thus males, will last perhaps 14 million more years. Her estimate is based on a more gradual gene decay.

A new theory, however, not only rejects such pessimism, but tries to explain why the weakling Y chromosome has lasted so long. In 2003, David Page, head of the Whitehead Institute and a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), presented his discovery that a major part of the Y chromosome self-corrects its mutations. He studied the region of genes that produced the most sperm and found eight extra gene sequences—mirror images of the genes called palindromes—that allow the Y to recombine with itself.

A genetic palindrome is a DNA sequence with letters that read the same in either direction (such as the word "tenet" or phrase "Madam, in Eden I'm Adam"). Page argues that the Y chromosome makes a hairpin loop (see diagram) to recombine its genes, keeping them healthy after millions of years of genetic reproduction. This process of "gene conversion," Page says, can occur up to six hundred times per pairing.

He and his colleagues compared the DNA in the Y chromosome of chimpanzees and humans and found that even the genes that do not participate in palindrome conversion change very little over six million years—the point at which chimp and human lines diverged. Although the Y has lost genes, Page says, it has also gained them and become very specialized and efficient.

Graves, the Australian geneticist, is not convinced. She doubts that the palindrome effect really recombines genes,and says it may further erode them. Sykes adds in his book, Adam's Curse, "The Y chromosome is just as lonely as ever—though we now know that it talks to itself as it spirals towards oblivion."

But even if this means the end of natural male reproduction, Graves says, other genes might mutate and take over the SRY's role. A new species of humans might result. The Y has disappeared from two rodent species, for example, but males are still being born. At MIT, Page puts his money on the Y as we know it. He sees it not as a graveyard but as a lean, efficient reproduction machine—here to stay.

---
Now this is a slightly bizarre article. I never thought I'd read about the possibility of the extinction of the male human species. I mean, really. Who'da thunk?

What's amusing is how the article notes that the genes that ultimately determine a boy are "vulnerable" - that's the last word I'd use to describe males as a whole, considering the largely male-dominated society we live in. Yes, gender equality has come a long way, but I think it still has a ways to go.

The reason why I feel compelled to include this article in my journal is because I don't think this sits well with a Judaeo-Christian belief of God and the creation of humans. Surely God wouldn't have created Adam and Eve in such a way that the male species would eventually die out before the female race (which incidentally is the total opposite of the movie Children of Men, where there is only one female left on Earth and she is pregnant and it's so-and-so's duty to protect her from everybody else who is trying to kill her, etc). Especially considering that it was Eve who supposedly sinned by eating from the Tree of Knowledge. Nor would He, in my opinion, create humans in such a way that we would evolve into a new method of breeding.

Admittedly, the end of the article notes that perhaps a new species of human will be born from the disappearance or deterioration of the Y chromosome.. thus ending 'natural male reproduction' as mentioned in the article, and creating a new form of human reproduction which would, in time, become 'natural' reproduction.

Genetic mutation - the phrase sounds like such an unnatural activity, but I'm sure it happens all the time. It's like the concept of 'normal'. There can hardly be such a thing as normal in my opinion; one is merely making a huge generalisation over the population when describing something as having normal or usual attributes.

But back to the article. Of course, this is all scientific speculation. Nobody knows what will actually happen.. but the theories put forward in the article are rather intriguing to say the least!


A response to the article "The End of 'Man'"

week 10 discussion post #1

On the topic of Miracles


This seems like a bit of a difficult topic to discuss, in the sense that I don't think there will be many people able to provide examples of their own miraculous experiences.

To me, it seems that the concept of a 'miracle' is fairly subjective, i.e. people use the word to varying degrees. An example: Some people consider the act of giving birth to a child as a miraculous occurrence, even though they know its a result of a woman's egg being fertilised, etc. Personally, I think the building of the Pyramids and the Taj Mahal, and many other 'classic' works of architecture, are miraculous, considering the comparative lack of tools/technology they had in those days!


I've heard of instances where a person's heart has literally stopped, but doctors/emergency crew have been able to revive that person, therefore bringing them back from the dead, regardless of how long that person was 'dead' for.

Then you have the odd story of a person being in a coma for decades, only to wake up to a completely changed society. I recall reading a news article within the last 12 months or so, of a man whose last memories prior to waking from his coma, were of a Germany still divided by the Berlin wall. How somebody can remain unconscious for so long, and then come 'back to life' so to speak, is beyond me.

Although science and technology have progressed far, there are still many things we don't know about, or don't fully understand. Humans made assumptions and devised the "laws" of nature, based on a continuous experience - but I think it's impossible for life and nature to be so straightforward as to follow a set of 'laws'. Hence we the one-off instances, the 'un'-usual events, as strange, and/or miraculous..

playing God?

So I read this article on SMH about how a doctor is developing a 'personalised' approach to treating cancer, and as I reading the article I couldn't help but wonder if the very act of being a doctor is like playing the role of God. After all, wasn't it Jesus who healed the sick and the blind? And for an illness such as cancer, which is quite life-threatening or terminal at times, treating a patient with a "gene chip" sounds like a much better way to cure cancer, rather than chemotherapy.

But has anybody complained about it?

Research for a cure for cancer is a noble piece of work in my opinion. Yet those scientists involved in stem cell research, or genetic research, who are equally as determined to try and cure patients of terminal illnesses etc, seem to cop a lot more flak from the general population. Or maybe it's just a controversial topic because there isn't a great deal known about stem cell (etc) research, considering that humans fear the unknown.

I mean, I'm not too sure what my stance is on genetic engineering. It does seem a bit too much like the scientists are trying to "play God". But at the same time I can't help but think, if I was severely ill wouldn't I desperately want any kind of cure available? Wouldn't everybody else be the same?


A response to the article "Gene Chip Helps Cancer Treatment"

MX's letter of the day

Just thought I'd "paste" this into my journal:

an eye for an eye - or not

What is the value of a human life?

The excerpt from a novel that's quoted in the above link is a bit odd - I think I find it a little difficult to understand because it's taken out of context. But anyways, the discussion that ensues beneath is about one of the Ten Commandments - specifically the one that commands we should not take another's life - and its translation.

I'm not sure where I stand with the death penalty. Sometimes I hear about a crime that somebody has committed, and it's absolutely disgusting and/or devastating for other people who were helplessly involved as victims or bystanders, etc.. and it seems logical that the criminal doesn't deserve to live. But at the same time, it would be greater torment for them to have to live for the rest of their life with the burden of their shame and guilt, if they feel any - otherwise I suppose the police or other official would try their best to instill a sense of intense regret in them.

And then I hear about people who have been sentenced to death for lesser crimes - the example that comes to mind is the young Asian-Australian who was caught in Singapore with drugs in his luggage (I think.. can't remember the exact details) and was subsequently killed for his crime. By the end of it all (and thanks to the media coverage/presentation of the whole event), I felt really sorry for his family as well as him. Even though he had technically broken the law, he hadn't physically taken anybody's life (from my knowledge), so I didn't think that warranted a death penalty.

I feel like I've strayed from the original question a bit. Let's just say, I wouldn't want to be the judge laying down the law in a criminal court.. that would just be too much for me. I don't want to be responsible for taking somebody else's life, even if it was indirect, i.e. by way of a court ruling, and not by a physical weapon.

week 9 discussion posts #1-3

On the topic of Prayer


Like Miroula, I also think that having more people pray for a particular person doesn't necessarily imply that they're competing in a popularity contest against other "teams" or prayer groups. I take a slightly different slant on this concept - maybe its more the peoples' way of telling God that here is this fellow comrade, who needs extra care, or extra strength, as they battle through whatever obstacle or difficulty or illness they are faced with.

And as for the "orphan with no friends" - I think there are many people in the world who pray for "all the disadvantaged", or "all the poverty-stricken families", etc. And if they're really passionate about that prayer, i.e. not just going through the motions, that's fantastic.

---

Anthony wrote:
"I am not sure why God would help the sick or the invalid if he was the instigator of the illnesses originally. It would be like changing your mind and if you are always right as he is supposed to be then he just wouldn't."

This raises a different perspective in my mind - perhaps God isn't always right. Perhaps the concept of 'perfection' and 'Godliness' is a completely delusional goal created by humans.

And another idea - what if God didn't create or instigate illnesses, and such bodily malfunctions were a by-product of humans' interactions with one another, which God may not necessarily have control over (assuming free-agent theory)?

Because the more I think about it, the more illogical it seems for God to be able to know every single little detail of our lives, or to be 100% correct, from start to finish - it's like having to eternally sit through a movie(s) that you already know the ending(s) to.

And Ariella wrote:
"I am not sure that I would interpret G-d being always right as Him being right in every decision that He makes, but rather that He is always right ... in His process, in His sequence of decisions. I think that allows Him room to change His mind."

This makes a little confused - correct me if I'm wrong, but that comment seems a little redundant.. because if God is right in his process, that means he has made the right decisions, doesn't it? If the sequence is correct, then the decisions were also spot-on? Perhaps I've misinterpreted :)

This is a little off-topic, but I think what I'm having difficulty with the idea that God has laid out all His grand, perfect plans, and is now sitting back to enjoy the show, and therefore He has no reason to change his mind.
Rather, it makes more sense to me that He is an active participant in our lives and the universe, tweaking things as He goes because He doesn't know what lies at the end (if there is such a thing).

----

Anthony wrote:
"Does this mean that you don't believe that God is all-powerful and all-knowing?"; and
"If you think that god's relationship with his children is so inspirational, why does he let come to harm?"

To answer the first, I think it's quite possible that God is not all-knowing and all-powerful - in which case, prayer (to me) becomes more of a communication with somebody or something who is more of a friend, albeit a friend who has a bit more power that you do (perhaps). Not perfect, but not human either.
And heck, He might not even exist! In which case prayer is a way of making ourselves feel better, self-therapy so to speak.

To answer the second (which was actually asked to Claire but anyway) - people need to make mistakes to learn. A child knows to stay away from a flame after being burnt. No amount of "Don't do this, don't do that" will teach a child, nor stop them from doing what it is they've been prohibited to do, unless they're really obedient/un-inquisitive. The more overprotective a parent is, the more rebellious a child will be.
Everybody learns through their experiences (an easy example - you learn more in the workplace that you do reading a textbook about your job), and sometimes those experiences aren't pleasant. There will be pain and hurt, and there will be things that you instantly regret. But you become stronger and wiser. It's the whole concept of "you wouldn't appreciate happiness so much, if you didn't experience sadness every now and again"
If God were to protect us from all the "bad" things, we'd just be living, breathing potatoes. Your life is enriched by the plethora of emotions and events you experience.

That response was a little on the not-really-related-to-religion side, but oh well :)

mini reflections on discussion posts

While catching up on a few discussion threads, one Jeff's posts caught my eye.

He said: "After all, if God gave you life, it is his choice to do whatever he wants with it."

But, is it really?

I would have thought that God would have created us so that we could be independent beings, i.e. let us do whatever we want, even if it means that some people will be non-believers.. by creating us as individuals, that's the risk He should be willing to take, right?

Although I suppose that would be a bit stupid. I think we naturally take pride in our work, and similarly, God would like to do the same, so perhaps it makes sense that He should have the ability to steer us in whichever direction He desires, whether it's instilling fear in us so that we don't recklessly jump off a cliff in the name of extreme fun, or whether it's making love blossom between two people, so their lives become brighter.

Jeff also wrote: "Sometimes I have to side with the logic that God knows, but God can't help."

Maybe not a case of can't help, but chooses not to help..

week 8 discussion posts #3-4

On the topic of Providence, Free Will & Suffering
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog


Responding to Priyanka - I felt that Ariella was implying that humans will inevitably live in a world that includes evil and suffering, because it is not possible for them to be "free-willed" and make the "right" decisions all the time. And I agree with this to an extent, in that yes, humans will inevitably make mistakes, the wrong decisions, etc. But that doesn't necessarily mean that we as humans will breed an environment with lots of negativity and general unpleasantness.

Perhaps such an environment would exist temporarily - but surely it would be possible for humans to exist co-operatively with one another and their surroundings - a Utopian ideal, I know, but if you can dream it, perhaps you can live it too. (I hope all the above makes sense!)

---

Miroula had a really interesting question. Perhaps humans had to develop an understanding of right and wrong, good and evil. So the basic emotions such as joy, fear, anger, sorrow were (and of course continue to be) an inherent part of human beings, but perhaps it wasn't until humans were exposed to different situations and a variety of interactions with one another, that they began to develop certain reactions to particular events.. and maybe then they developed a like/dislike of that event, which then caused their mind to separate the 'good' from the 'bad'.

Basically what I'm trying to say is, perhaps humans developed a sense of what was evil and what it meant to suffer, from their own feelings during certain life experiences.. so it didn't actually exist to begin with, it was a human concept, in a similar way that Time is considered to be a human concept (I think?).

keep your friends close, but your enemies closer?

I read this article about a priest who was attacked by an intruder attempting to rob their Divine Word Mission. When interviewed, the priest said:

"I need to pray for the one who attacked me... I feel when I pray for him in the future he can be better - everyone wants to live in harmony."

It's not like it was a peaceful hit and run either. The priest goes on to say:

"At the time I was shocked. After he attacked me I didn't recognise he used a knife to attack me. He hit me but then when I saw my blood shedding I thought 'What happened?' I didn't feel any pain at the time so I was shocked. It was terrible."

Most other people would try and hunt down their attacker to ensure justice and appropriate punishment or penalty. But despite the shock and the injury, the priest chose to forgive his attacker by praying for him. To some people, such behaviour would be viewed as ridiculous. Why pray for somebody who almost killed you?
To me, I think the priest is showing God that he is capable of accepting that we must endure suffering throughout our lives, no matter how big or small, or how frequent, and it is the behaviour we portray in our most trialling moments, that illustrates our faith.

The reason I'm writing about this is because this priest's reaction to his attacker reminds me of the South African church congregation that was mentioned in the Week 8 lecture on Providence, Free Will & Suffering, where "On 25 July 1993 St James church in Capetown was attacked by men with rifles and grenades during the evening service. Several people were killed and many wounded."
And one of the church members then goes on to say that despite the tragedy, they are thankful that God thought them worthy of receiving this suffering. It's a totally different reaction to what you would expect of most people.

I have mixed emotions on this topic. Part of me respects the strength of these peoples' faiths in praying for their attackers, but another part of me feels 'odd' (for lack of a better word), because their attackers won't care about whether or not they're being prayed for. Although I suppose it's not that the victims are trying to communicate with the villains; rather, they're communicating with God in the belief or hope that God will make the villains seek repentance and therefore step away from a path of destruction and darkness, onto the road of truth and light.

A response to the article "Stabbed priest prays for attacker"

did God create life on Mars before Earth?

"An orbiting spacecraft has found evidence of what look like seven caves on the slopes of a Martian volcano, the space agency NASA said...

..'Whether these are just deep vertical shafts or openings into spacious caverns, they are entries to the subsurface of Mars,, said USGS researcher Tim Titus.

'Somewhere on Mars, caves might provide a protected niche for past or current life, or shelter for humans in the future.'"

Although the article notes that it was unlikely that these particular caves would have sheltered any kind of lifeforms (due to their immense altitude), the article got me thinking. What if we really are in a cyclic kind of universe? Maybe we're the nth civilization, and God created life on Mars before creating life on Earth, and once Earth is over and done with, he'll move onto Jupiter.. maybe not, but you get the idea.

It's an interesting thought. There's no real way to prove or disprove it, because we only know ourselves, our own Earthly existence. Perhaps our methods of measuring the ages of the planets are wrong, and they've been around for longer (or shorter) than we think. Of course this is all under the assumption that God exists as Creator, and He's been busy building all these universes, and different planets of different sizes and orbits..

Come to think of it, He must really like circles..

A response to the article "NASA spacecraft finds possible Mars caves"

a quick reflection

It's week 9, and for me the midsemester break is now here. I've been meaning to write a reflection on the Science & Religion course for the last week or two now, but as usual I've been lazy and unmotivated to do much uni work.

The course has been a lot tougher than I expected - in fact, it was different to my expectations to begin with. I must not have really focused on the "science" part of the course when I enrolled, because I definitely wasn't expecting to learn about elements of quantum physics! But that was a good surprise - I've wanted to read about quantum physics for a while now, but never got around to it. Now I've had a bit of a taste test with this gen. ed., and it's pretty fascinating (albeit trippy) stuff!

I was also hoping to be learning more about the different religions in the world, rather than having discussions mainly based on a Judaeo-Christian belief system. Admittedly I can see how it would be quite difficult to maintain a coherent discussion on topics such as Creation and Evolution (etc) while trying to learn about different religious beliefs at the same time - it would probably make the course quite disjointed. That said, I didn't realise we'd be discussing topics like Creation and the Big Band or Evolution to begin with.

Keeping up with the weekly discussion has been difficult for me, mostly because I've been too tired to concentrate after work - the weekly resources and lectures, while exciting and interesting and sometimes fascinating, aren't exactly what I would call light reading, and I always need to be reading the materials in silence (i.e. without music playing in the background) otherwise the words just don't sink in. I'm not a particularly fast reader either, so I've been falling behind and not participating in the discussions as much as I should be. Now my main concern is that I hope I pass the course! I'd hate to fail a gen. ed. subject, and a subject that I chose to do because I wanted to do it, not because I had to do it.

----------------
Now playing: Jehro - Long Is The Way

week 8 discussion posts #1-2

On the topic of Providence, Free Will & Suffering
Discussion posts below altered slightly for the purposes of this blog

In response to the discussion of God creating a world devoid of evil and suffering, I think I've interpreted the question differently to Ariella and Priyanka. I think it's possible that God could create a world without evil and suffering, because I also think its possible that as free agents, humans are the ones who create the evil and suffering amongst themselves.
Ariella/Priyanka/others who agree, I apologise if I've misinterpreted your own repsonses, but that's my 2 cents worth :)

---

After reading Rachel's post on the discussion of how the good die young, I was reminded of how I used to think that "It always seems to be the good people who die early/prematurely..." and I couldn't understand it either. But the idea that came to me was, perhaps God takes the good people away from Earth because they don't deserve to suffer all the stress, the trauma, the evils and the dangers of living in human society. Like Michelle wrote, maybe we do live in a "relatively 'good' world" - after all, we could have been living out WW #101 rather than watching the news on the "War in Iraq", but I still think it's a world which is not as good as it could be.
But back to my main point - perhaps God handpicks the really good people and seriously takes them to a better place..

on providence & good will, amongst other things

So Larissa asks the question,

"Is it logically possible for God to create a world in which there is no evil or suffering, but where humans still have free will?"

To answer this question on a bit of a tangent, I think it's us, the humans themselves, who create the evil and suffering. This of course, assumes that we are created as free agents, and not somebody else's puppets.


Alexander wrote:
"There is the cliched argument that "What is light but absence of darkness?""

It's such a simple yet profound statement.

Reading on further through the discussion posts, I see the topic/question of "Why do bad things happen to good people?", and my fellow students' confusion and failure to understand just why it is that the nicest people seem to be the ones who suffer from terminal illnesses and the like.

I've thought about this before, primarily because of events that had affected me in some way. My kindergarten teacher, her name was Mrs Batty. However she was far from crazy, and did a wonderful job as the teacher of our class, Kindergarten Rainbow. I remember her peaceful smile, and she was all warmth and love. I don't recall seeing her after kindergarten; it's possible that she moved schools, who knows. I was too young at the time to pay attention to such things. By the time I was in Year 5 or 6, I discovered from my teachers that Mrs Batty had passed away due to cancer. It was a shock, and I felt sad.

And when I was in Year 4 or 5 (the years are a blur now), the mothers of one of my best friends passed away on the operating table, while having a brain tumor removed. That was also a shock, and saddening news. She was such a lovely person, really nice and kind, and she left behind 3 wonderful daughters and a loving husband. I felt terrible.

Taking my case to the realm of celebrities et al, Eva Cassidy & Princess Diana are the first who come to mind.

Eva Cassidy was an American singer blessed with an amazing voice. According to friends and family she was very shy, but very generous, and overall had a wonderful heart and soul. However she died at the young age of 33, battling cancer. Why did such a lovely and talented person have to leave so soon?
If you listen to some of her songs, even the ones that weren't ready for album release, you'll soon realise how incredible her vocal talent is. One can only imagine what potential was not realised due to her early passing.

Jeff Buckley is of a similar situation, although he disappeared in the Mississippi River one evening. His albums Grace and Live at the Sin-e are precious recordings of a genius at work. According to his mother, he was a good person too, kind and gentle.

"The good die young."

It's a cliche, but it's cliched because it's true.

And just about everybody would know about Princess Diana. I remember her most for her enormous contribution to humanitarian activities. Of course, there are many, many people around the world doing exactly the same thing, if not better, but my respect for her is from the perspective that she was royalty. She was very well-off; why would she have any reason to go out of her way to do something for people she doesn't know? But Princess Diana used her celebrity status to bring awareness into people's living rooms during the news. And I'm sure we were only seeing the tip of the iceberg on screen.

I respect celebrities who use their celebrity status to do good for the world - but only those who are genuine about their cause. Angelina Jolie was known for working in humanitarian activities long before the news articles on Bono, or Bob Geldof, or Madonna, etc. The most prominent (i.e. receive the most amount of TV coverage for what they do, based on my experience) celebrities who I think are genuinely dedicated to the cause, are Angelina Jolie and Bono.

The fact that being humanitarian has become "trendy" nowadays, is both a blessing and a curse in my opinion. It's great because that means more people are getting involved, donating money, aiding good causes. The bad thing is, what are their ulterior motives? Are they doing it because they think it's 'cool', or because they genuinely feel that everybody should have equal rights in the world, and poverty is unacceptable considering the affluence of many urbanised areas around the world?