Religious Leaders Unhappy About First Synthetic Cell
I always wondered about what life would be like for our ancestors thousands of years ago. Imagine the first Indians walking along the shores of Goa and Kerala on their long journey from Africa about 65,000 years ago (scientists estimate that it took human beings about 5000 years to travel from east coast of Africa to Australia). What were they thinking? Were they happy and did they laugh and what were their main concerns?
We may never know the answers to many of these questions. But there is no debating the fact that life was much more difficult than what it is now (maybe it was a little simpler). Their concerns then probably were mostly the same as it is for Indians today. They were worried about their survival and probably spent most of their time battling the elements, looking for food and keeping themselves safe from each other and the unfriendly surroundings.
The human brain is only 2% of our body weight. Yet it consumes about 20% of the total energy of a human body at rest. This energy consumption by our brain is enormous when compared to other mammals of similar size. Some scientists have speculated that the emphasis on brain power was probably due to competition from other species for food which forced us to become more dependent on technological and social innovation.
In addition to our brain our digestive system is also very complex because human beings are omnivores (our digestive system is capable of handling both meat and plants). Over the years we have understood the concept of heat and learnt to control fire and more importantly to cook. Cooking fires first developed at least about 100,000 years ago (cooking makes food easy to digest).
The news that J Craig Venter Institute has created bacterial cells controlled by genes manufactured in the lab is another step in our effort to understand more about ourselves and the world around us. In that sense it is no different than our attempt thousands of years ago to start a fire, control our water resources, domesticate animals or grow crops.
But the religious community is clearly not happy with this new development. The Kanchi Sankaracharya Jayendra Saraswati said that he believes that creating life is an act of defiance against god. He told the Deccan Chronicle that “Venter’s work violates karma, which alone decides the nature of life for all humans and, besides, creating life in lab could cause cultural degradation as it eliminates the need for marriage and family values”.
He then added “But if a man is synthetically created, he would not be guided by past karma and would behave just like a machine. This should be avoided. God first created the entire world and made man and animals. He ensured man benefited through his creations. The synthetic cell will affect all of creation and should be stopped.” This is classic fear mongering. I am also tired of hearing people talking about Karma, Dharma and so on when you notice abject poverty and human suffering all around us.
Creating an artificial cell does not mean that we can create a “synthetic” human being anytime soon. The Sankaracharya also has to clarify how a synthetically created man would degrade culture and eliminate marriage and family values (it should be noted that the Sankaracharya has been charged as a co-conspirator in a homicide case concerning the death of a temple manager). He is last person who should be talking about family values and cultural degradation.
The Vatican’s response was a little more subdued. Monsignor Rino Fisichella (head of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life) said that “We look at science with great interest. But we think above all about the meaning that must be given to life. We can only reach the conclusion that we need God, the origin of life”. These comments are a far cry from the days when people like Galileo were placed under house arrest for life for suggesting that the earth was not the center of the universe. The Vatican then argued that Galileo’s argument was “false and contrary to Scripture”.
Pressure from religious groups has forced many governments to stop or reduce funding for cutting edge biomedical research. But fortunately there are many highly motivated individuals like Craig Venter and research institutions that are willing to pick up the slack. The decision to lean on our brain power a lot more than anybody else was made by our ancestors a long time ago in the plains of East Africa. In that sense inquisitiveness and innovation are as much a human family value as anything else we believe in today.
Related posts:
- United States Issues Biased Report on Religious Freedom
- Hinduism Needs Reformers Not Leaders
- Lord Krishna and Caste System in India
- We Are All Atheists
- Indian Government Wiretapping Opposition Leaders?
Category: Culture & Religion
‘God first created the entire world and made man and animals. He ensured man benefited through his creations’…I think human beings are egocentric and believe that the earth and its living and non living entities have been created for him to enjoy….sad it comes from his mouth
You are correct Nalini. We tend to ignore the fact that there are very many living things on earth that have been around a long long time before we ever learned to walk upright. But we ignore and abuse them.
This Sankaracharya is a disgrace to his own tradition. By this statement, he has shown that he totally lacks any knowledge of VedAntA, a lofty pilosophy.
According to VedAntA, nothing is created or destroyed. Before Srushti, all things were in a subtle state, like a primordial soup, devoid of name and form. Only Brahman alone existed with all things as His body (Eko Ha Vai Narayana Asit, Na Brahma, Na Isana…). Then, Brahman gave names and forms, and converted the subtle states into the gross state of cit (sentient) and acit (insentient/matter).
Cloning is not against VedAntic philosophy. The AtmA gets bodies based on karmA, and is distinct from matter. The process of cloning merely duplicates the body, and a jivAtmA occupies it based on its karmA.
The explanations of srushti vary for the different traditions of Advaita, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, but all three traditions advocate AnAditvA, or eternality of sentient and non-sentient things.
A Veda BAhya Matam like Christianity or Islam only would be foolish enough to talk of ‘god creating things’ and proposing human-centric theories.
This Jayendra Saraswati has shown that he is not worthy to even be called a ‘Sankaracharya’, let alone the numerous court cases pending against him, for his ignorance of VedAntA’s most basic tenets.
Narayanan.
Welcome Narayanan,
The current Sankaracharya is controversial to say the least. What sacred texts allow and condone really depends on the interpretation. When it comes to new scientific discoveries the religious leaders normally make very conservative interpretations and this is one such example.
“What sacred texts allow and condone really depends on the interpretation. When it comes to new scientific discoveries the religious leaders normally make very conservative interpretations and this is one such example.”
A Sankaracharya must follow the tradition of Adi Sankara. The issue here is that Jayendra Saraswati does not apparently know even the basics of VedA, which is a gross injustice to the hundreds of followers who extol him as a Sankaracharya.
The statement he has made does not represent a ‘conservative interpretation’. There are many other examples of leaders being conservative. This, however, is simply ignorance.
VedAntA does not have a varied range of interpretations when it comes to anAditvA or apAurusheyatvA. For one thing, the VedA is not even regarded as a ‘text’, but as Sruti, that which is endless, eternal and unauthored by anyone, including man or god.
An authored text results in a logical fallacy – God authored a text, so text is divine and God exists because text says so. Hence, VedAntA does not accept authored texts as ultimate authority.
The less said about this Sankaracharya, the better. Time and again, he has shown his penchant for hogging the limelight. His comments about Tirupati in the past reinforce his ignorance of VedAntA.
Narayanan.
Narayanan … anything that we write is subject to interpretation. Your comment indicates your interpretation of what a Sankaracharya must follow or whether he understands the basics of the Veda. Having said that I agree that the current Sankaracharya has had difficulty staying out of the limelight or trouble.
“anything that we write is subject to interpretation. Your comment indicates your interpretation of what a Sankaracharya must follow or whether he understands the basics of the Veda.”
Please focus on the word ‘Sankaracharya’. A Sankaracharya must follow Adi Sankara. I mentioned the interpretation and viewpoints of Adi Sankara himself. And the interpretation of Adi Sankara is not what this Sankaracharya (Jayendra Saraswati) follows.
You will agree that what Adi Sankara interprets as the VedA has an immense relevance to the opinions of a Sankaracharya, no?
If you are interested in VedAntA, please refer to some reliable sites. There are many interpretations of VedA, but all thes einterpretations are based on only one common rule regarding the apAurusheyatvA and anAditvA of VedA. An attempt to argue this point simply illustrates a non-comprehension of VedAntic polemics.
Narayanan.
Narayanan … I am of the firm belief that anybody should be able to read the ancient texts (including the Veda) and then come to their own conclusions about what it means and what it stands for. You do not need any middle man including the Adi Sankara or visit “reliable sites” to interpret it for you.