Dedicating his working career to the natural sciences, Dr. Eagleman has been able to articulate a perspective that not only I but countless others can relate to. Regardless of your faith, I strongly recommend you watch the following video in its entirety.

The fundamental creed of Possibilianism centers around not subscribing to anything. Using our ever-growing pool of scientific knowledge, we can narrow down the likelihood of certain possibilities and accept the fact that there are things which we just don’t know. There’s a lot more to it, so please watch the video!

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Now I’m going to keep my opinion short as I’m eager to read your comments, but I think religion inherently commands us to preserve life above all else. If conventional treatment (chemotherapy and radiation in Daniel’s case) has an 85% or better chance of eliminating the growing tumor (which experts are saying), I would accept that I’m violating my religion in favor of the scientific community… in favor of continuing life.

In the case of Daniel, though he and his family made his “no-treatment” wishes clear, a court order demanded that he receive the chemotherapy. The result? Daniel and his mom have fled to an unknown destination. As Daniel’s tumor continues to grow, he will gradually lose the ability to breath and ultimately suffocate. Was the court right in ordering the chemotherapy, or should the patient and his family have the last call?

How did the universe originate? When did time begin? How did humans come to be? Some may elaborate on the Big Bang theory, while others may quote religious scripture (and some like myself may do a little of both) . Nevertheless, in our pursuit of higher truth, a variety of abstract and rather complex opinions attempt to explain the same simple questions. But why? Why can’t we just adopt some sort of existentialist mentality and agree that our lives are independent of our origins and purely based on our actions. So what if the Big Bang is correct? It really isn’t going to change whether or not I wake up tomorrow. Sure, I may have fulfilled that burning question of “how the universe came to be”… but now what?

I think sometimes we’re too preoccupied with wanting to know everything that we forget how blissful ignorance can be. There’s simply too much to learn and not enough time to do so.

Note: There is a poll embedded within this post, please visit the site to participate in this post's poll.

Furthermore, I’m left in a state of contemplation amidst the sacrifices of my peers. Which items in my life am I hopelessly addicted to? Well, for better or worse, I can only think of one – the Internet. As for giving up the Internet, I really don’t see a point. It’s my primary means of earning money, educating myself, gaming, entertainment and communication. It’s a crucial part of my daily routine as it provides me with essentials that other mainstream items (televisions, phones, etc.) cannot.

Every time I go out of town, I usually have to abandon the Internet for a few days, and let me tell you… I feel like I’m back in the Dark Ages. I’m totally out of touch with the world and oblivious to recent events. The first thing I do when I get home is run to my laptop, check my e-mail, check AIM, check Facebook, check Google News, check PubMed… ehhh… you get the point.

So what would you give up for Lent?

In a ridiculously broken and uneasy voice, the two simultaneously rejoiced:

We’re missionaries spreading the word of our Lord Jesus Christ!

Now don’t get me wrong. I seriously envy those with faith. Those who are passionate about following their Lord in the pursuit of living a better life. Those who accept scripture (in this case, specifically the Book of Mormon) as the written word of God. But for those who know me well enough, my religious views are greatly influenced by scientific fact. Since I was at home, I happened to be wearing a cutoff shirt which exposed my Hindu (“om”) necklace. They quickly got a glimpse of that and asked me my religion. 

Oh, this is an “om” necklace. It’s a symbol of Hinduism, of which I’m a follower.

Again, a frantic stare of disbelief… as if I said I was the devil incarnate or something. After having explained that I went to a Catholic pre-school and Baptist university, the two men were significantly relieved. They continued to talk about their religion while I stood there, nodding away, thinking about the Colts’ football game which I was watching prior to this engagement. I kind of felt bad. I didn’t want to tell them “sorry, I’m not interested”, but I also wanted to convey the fact that they were better off talking to one of my Christian neighbors. Eventually, the conversation got to a point where they asked me a final question.

Would you be interested if there was a decisive way to show you that Christianity is the true religion?

That put me over the edge, and I basically thanked them for their time and bid them farewell. So take note – do not try to convert me. It’s a waste of your time, and you will lose. Also, if you ever want to educate someone about your religion, never claim that you can prove it’s true.

Here’s my analysis:

God creates science —> Science creates Man —> Man creates religion —> Religion explains God.

This model is a prime example of how the ends justify the means and is consistent with my previously mentioned agnosticism. No religion can lay claim to being “correct” (no reproducible evidence has been obtained); however, nothing scientific has disproven religion either. It’s kind of a stand still in which the realms of science and religion are interdependent on each other. How can science exist if nothing put it into motion? How can religion exist if the products of science didn’t have the mental capacity to comprehend it? If you ask me, it’s a cyclic chain.

I know I’m treading on thin ice by discussing religion, but it really makes for some of the most interesting and rewarding learning opportunities.

In reality, I’m not a devout Hindu by any stretch of the word. In fact, I teeter more along agnosticism than any other viewpoint. I acknowledge there is a “higher being” but simultaneously believe that science can explain the overwhelming majority of our universe. If I go back far enough in time (human beings –> earth’s formation —> Big Bang —> ???), I have substantial evidence to understand how the present came to be; however, there comes a point where I have to accept a higher being putting everything into motion. Some atheists share similar perspectives in that science can explain everything, but we differ in that they’re plain wrong and I’m at least eligible for partial credit. (Don’t get me started on atheism). Let’s just assume that the Big Bang is not a theory but actually what happened billions of years ago. What created the energy? What put time in motion? My mind can’t comprehend the possibility that energy and time have always been around, hence, my belief in a deity (outlined in Hinduism) being responsible for their creation.

So what about extremism? Is a Hindu living in America who eats beef considered an act of outright disrespect? How about a Muslim who disregards that their religion views pork as unclean but still consumes ham or bacon? Not to offend anyone, but being an evolutionist, I can only look at how our race came to be from a survival aspect. Joe the Plumber’s great ancestor (the caveman who invented the wheel) did not deprive himself of meat, vegetables, or any other specific item. He consumed whatever nourishment was available. Therefore, I find it disturbing that religion (which is only a few thousand years old) would contradict survival mechanisms developed much earlier. This is just nonsense. Religion is intended to be an institution which guides people towards leading lives rooted in happiness, productivity, kindness, selflessness, etc. Since when did the content of one’s diet directly affect this? I know some Hindus argue that eating beef is horrible since cows symbolize life and have a profound interconnection with the religion itself, but come on. If the worldwide agricultural market suffered disease, drought, infestations, etc… would you rather die and take your precious religion to your grave? Or would you rather be a little rebellious but continue to uphold your faith as a living person? Seems like a no brainer to me.

As far as the Islamic extremists who point to their religion as a justification for attacking America, seriously, who are they kidding? What religion advocates the voluntary murder/hatred of anyone? Heck, if there was a small group of Hindus who attacked my beloved home country (America… not India ), I would expect HINDUS to rally up and fight off the disgraceful extremist minority.

When in Rome, do as the Romans do. People refer to this action as “keeping the status quo.” A Hindu living in America should not be considered an extremist if they eat beef. They’re just trying to assimilate into the culture and lifestyle (“doing as the Romans do.”) An Islamic terrorist who plots to kill American civilians on behalf of his or her faith is not keeping the status quo. They’re trying to get a message across. Trying to instill fear to gain pleasure. Though a minority, these extremists represent an ever-growing population of individuals who need to be held accountable by members of their own faith.

In summary, I believe that the way to gauge if something is an “extreme” action is by whether or not the motive is rooted in good or evil. Sounds simple and it is since everyone has an intuitive idea of what constitutes both ends.

I invite you to share your own perspectives on religion and how you draw the line between accepted and extreme actions by commenting!