Only science can remedy genetic disease

Medical science is required to manage many diseases, especially genetic diseases - it therefore puzzles me why people think that it will make a difference in condition or psyche to pray for someone who has a genetic disease. It is the medicine you take for the condition that makes you feel physically better and gives you peace of mind to cope with it emotionally. Before you argue that God gives you that strength to cope emotionally, take a second to think that knowing how your medicine works to combat your symptoms is much more empowering - realising that "I WILL be OK if I take my medicine" is so much easier emotionally than praying that "God will give me the strength to get through this". The latter statement is so vague and filled with maybes....in my mind its better to understand and deal with it than to just hope for the best that some external force should make it easier.

Genetic diseases cannot be seen as something prayer can change in any way, just as it cannot be seen as a punishment from God. Let me explain - a genetic disease is caused by a mutation to DNA. This mutation is present at the moment of conception or created by damage due to poor choices such as smoking or being in the sun without sunscreen. The mutation can predispose the body to developing disease or it can be the sole cause of the disease. Genetic predisposition to a disease means that under certain environmental conditions such as diet, climate, lifestyle and chance infections by pathogens (like viruses and bacteria), a mutation to the DNA results in the body not being able to cope under those environmental conditions. A DNA mutation is permanent and irreversible so no amount of praying will cause DNA to "unmutate". In the same breath, such a mutation is not a punishment from some external force because if present later in life it is due to poor choices and if present at conception it would mean that God decided to punish you before you did anything to deserve it. Of course some people do believe this: since God has a plan and knows everything, He knows u will reject Him later in life and so mutates your DNA so that your punishment awaits you duly. This of course means that one had no choice in the matter of rejection at all because the mutation was there from the start o it was inevitable. The points I am bringing up here is the matter of a wholly different debate about whether fate/destiny/God's plan can co-exist with free-choice. That is to say whether man's own choices can over power God's plan or whether it just means God planned for man to make the wrong choice and punishes him for it anyway.

I digress but my main point here is that realistic, practical and proven means are necessary to cope with genetic disease; undefined 'help from above' won't make a difference in genetic conditions no matter how real or imagined the force behind it is.

Real world coping: It is what it is.

Does blaming a higher power for a terrible event provide comfort or only more questions? From a religious perspective, there's two ways to look at it of course: One can ask 'Why me?' or one can say 'Give me strength through this difficult time.' From a (my) non-religious perspective, there is only one way to look at it : It is what it is.

The adressee of the questions and statements from a religious mind in my opinion exists purely to facilitate some of the five stages of grief. That is, a Person exists who apparently controls everything and may have the answers. These famous stages, first described by Elisabeth Kübler-Ross, are Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression and Acceptance. As I said, some of these stages are experienced by means of directing questions to Someone who is 'in control' of the terrible event. If we use the example of cancer diagnosis, the stages may be exemplified by these questions/statements:

1. Denial - "The doctors probably read the results wrong or mixed them up with somebody else's; I feel fine anyway." This first phase is experienced by all - we all (religious or not) hold on to some hope that there's been a mistake.

2. Anger - "Why did this happen to me? I don't deserve this - what have I done wrong?" Who are these questions directed to? For some people it is God of course. For other people this phase is much easier because they come to the realisation that their diagnosis is simply the result of faulty genes or bad choices earlier in life. It is not a punishment; it just is. The real question here is whether we as humans need someone to blame? That is, the person who can blame God may feel more comforted than the person who doesn't see it as a punishment. Or do they?

3. Bargaining - "Please just let me see the birth of my grandchildren before I'm bedridden." Again, as with Anger, the patient is asking for a favour from Someone whereas the more realistic person may realise that the progression of the disease depends only on physiological/biochemical changes. Who feels more comforted and...does it matter if the comfort is real?

4. Depression - "What's the point? I'm going to die soon anyway so why bother?" This phase is also experienced by most people since the question is addressed to yourself - you have to make the decision here, not a higher power. Those that don't experience this phase may have so much deluded hope that they will be saved that they don't even ask these questions - is this a bad thing? As a pragmatist I ask myself wether it is better to face the truth and be depressed or be deluded and happy?

5. Acceptance - "I can't change the facts so I will deal with this as best I can." Consider my earlier arguments regarding the Anger and Bargaining phases - a realistic person already accepts the facts early on because they know that their diagnosis is the result of physical and explainable circumstances, not a punishment or a challenge set by a vengeful higher power.

It is impossible to say whether a religious or non-religious person will find it easier to get through a difficult diagnosis but the bottom line is that everyone should let science do what it can to improve the situation lest one wants another Kara Neumann. I therefore think it is better to live in the real world - it is what it is.

Moral vs Immoral = Christian vs Atheist??

People often regard 'atheist' and 'immoral' as synonyms. As soon as you say "uh...no, I don't really believe in God...", some people have the tendency to assume that you also don't know the difference between right and wrong. Here's the thing folks: you can have one without the other - you can behave morally without religion, just as you can claim to be a Christian without displaying morality.

So many people will put 'Christian' under 'Religion' on Facebook...but then you scroll down and you see they're a member of 'hot chicks with big boobs' or 'bring back the old South Africa', and they brag about their ultimate hangover in their status. In real life they also do drugs for fun and get freaky with random people. And after all this, they still have the nerve to argue for God in a religious debate. Seriously?!? I am more 'Christian' than that and I don't even believe in God.

Of course it's not really about being the better 'Christian'; its about morality. Frankly I don't care if you call yourself a 'Christian' or not but if your immoral behaviour is obvious to everyone, don't attack me for not believing in God. Ask yourself the question: Which is better - a Christian who judges others based on religion and engages in morally questionable behaviour, or an Atheist who accepts that people have different beliefs and upholds values universally regarded as 'good'?

I can defend my lack of belief; its my right to do so and I have no agenda to convert anyone to atheism. And yet, when I post something promoting atheism many people feel offended. Should I feel offended when a Christian posts a Bible verse? Of course not.

If you took a moment to consider the two possibilities that 1) God exists and 2) God doesn't exist, you may also consider that many people feel there is not enough hard evidence to confirm EITHER of the two options. That is what my atheism can be reduced to - you can't prove or DISPROVE the existence of any God; a true answer is unattainable. Therefore, as a purely philosophical viewpoint, it has nothing to do with the practical aspects of life such as morals and values.

Don't assume that I am a bad person because I am an atheist because I don't assume that you are a good person (or a bad person for that matter) just because you are a Christian.



"Believing there is no God gives me more room for belief in family, people, love, truth, beauty, sex, Jell-o, and all the other things I can prove and that make this life the best life I will ever have." – Penn Jillette

"What do you actually do?"

People always ask me what is it that I actually do, and I always find myself at a loss trying to explain it....I think I should start blogging about complicated (well depends on your perspective) things in my field that people can't understand as is the trend with IT folks....so here's a start:

I am a biochemist...not a microbiologist, not a chemist, not a zoologist and not a botanist;

In layman's terms: I work with the chemistry of living things (e.g. DNA molecules), not with microbes perse (an even more lay term here is 'bugs'), not with dangerous chemical processes, not with aminals (yes, I said aMiNals) and i don't hug trees.

Hopefully these nerdy biochem jokes will become clearer with time:
"I wish I were your substrate so I could fit into your active site"; "If I were an enzyme I would be DNA helicase so I could unzip your genes"