Where is The Wisdom?

We live in an age of easy information. This is a most unusual situation. Historically, nearly everyone has been information poor. It took time for information to travel from one place to another; even between places that are relatively close to each other. Even 40 years ago, it was not common for news to be transmitted internationally. Indeed, in nearly all parts of the world, news and information was essentially local. In the early 90's, many companies were still using telexes for international communication - a decades old method of transmitting information. Locally typewriters (by this time electronic ones) and hand written memos were still being used. Fax had recently been introduced. In many subsidiaries of multinationals, fax machines were kept at the chief executive's office.

All this changed within a decade. The transformation has been astonishing. The simultaneous development of email and the web transformed the way businesses and individuals communicate. Information, which previously had been hard to find suddenly became easily accessible; to the extent that a new term - information overload - had to be coined. Earlier generations would have found this concept most intriguing. An entire generation has grown up with easy access to incredible amounts of information. Yet in all this deluge of information, we seem to have lost knowledge. More importantly, we seem to have lost wisdom - the ability to couple information with right and wrong.

A Question of Ethics

Science has advanced at a far more rapid pace than our capacity to assimilate these changes. A good example of this is the debate on stem cell research. Should this be allowed or not. Both sides have their point of view which they are unwilling to change. Proponents say that stem cell research will result in break-throughs in medical advances. New types of treatments and cures for existing ailments will be developed. Opponents generally rely on the argument that all life including fetal life is sacred.

Another example: developments in genetics will soon allow people to screen for genetic abnormalities in fetuses. However, what is to prevent couples from making changes that are cosmetic in nature like increasing height? Is it ethical to do so? What about couples who opt not to do these kind of changes? What about couples who cannot afford to have these kind of changes done? Won't these be steps towards creating a society where opportunities are not equal because of genetic manipulations? Would we want to live in a society like that? These questions have been raised in books like Brave New World (by Aldous Huxley) and in movies like Gattaca.

What about using sperm banks to inseminate a woman when her husband is infertile? Should this be allowed?

Can You Say God Willing?

I recently read The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs. This is an account of a personal experiment carried out by Mr. Jacobs in which he attempts to live a year by adhering as strictly as possible in accordance with the various rules and regulations specified in the Bible. An often funny account, it also illustrates how disconnected the average Western person has become from their religious roots.

One thing caught my eye in the book. At one point the author starts adding the words "God willing" to every future tense sentence. This was apparently in accordance with Proverbs 27:1 which states "Do not boast about tomorrow, for you do not know what a day may bring forth." As a Muslim I found this most interesting because most Muslims as a matter of routine add "God willing" (actually its Arabic equivalent InshaAllah) whenever they have to commit to an action in the future. For most Muslims, this is a routine and natural statement said without any hesitation or embarrassment but it was obvious from reading the book that the author and his family were uncomfortable with his saying it.

This got me to thinking why this could be so. Can it be that people in the West are uncomfortable with the idea that they are not completely in control of their lives? Why is it easier to say f--k for example than to say God willing? Anyone got any idea?

Is Religion a Conservative or a Liberal Force?

Most people would answer the above question very forcefully as conservative. Throughout the world, religion - and here I am not talking of any particular religion - is considered to be a strongly conservative force. A large number of people who think of themselves as liberal would insist that religion is not only conservative, it is reactionary. This is an assessment that I would disagree with. I believe that contrary to general opinion, religion is actually a liberating force. Let me add that here I am not talking about cults; I am talking religion in the traditional sense of the word.

Why do I make this claim? It is important to distinguish between what a religion teaches and the actions of the adherents of that religion. Consider Christianity. It is considered to be a religion of love. Yet throughout history, the most violent and intolerant actions have been those of people who considered themselves devout and pious Christians. Again consider Islam. A religion of peace. The very name means submission and is a root for peace in Arabic. Yet today, many non-muslims regard it as a violent religion. So the actions of a religion's adherents can be at a disconnect with the teachings of that religion. Again, take Islam. The religion gave women rights to property and inheritance at a time when they were universally considered to be the property of males with no rights of their own. This is an astonishingly liberal act done in a strikingly conservative milieu.

It has been said before that anyone can read whatever they like in the holy texts of their religion. That is undoubtedly true and generally speaking, a strongly conservative interpretation has been done on these texts. Yet the fact remains that many of the positions taken in these texts are unambiguously liberal.