Thanks for a well-written critique on Critchley’s book, “The book of the dead philosophers”. What I got from reading it is the following string of thoughts.

It has all resulted from giving a thinking mind to some animals, or some animals acquiring a thinking mind. The animal in us appears to resist death and wants to live as long as possible, comfortably, as if it is programmed to do so and the human in us wants to know the reason behind this urge to live.

The religions could be accused of providing a false hope of an afterlife, but that accusation in itself calls religion devious at best; for the religion links better afterlife with the so called good deeds. “Life after death” has been discussed in almost all religions, in some cases it takes the form of re-incarnation and in some it becomes an eternal life after death, full of torture or full of pleasure depending upon deeds.

Deeds have often been classified good or bad at the whim of some religious figures that get ratified by folks who follow them and vilified by those who do not. So, it is a confused mess at best. The best example that you have provided, which is a cheap shot, by the way, is in “As Critchley points out, if we delude ourselves about the nature of our deaths (say, by believing that if we martyr ourselves for radical Islam we'll be welcomed into heaven by 72 virgins), we are likely to make a mess of our lives”. The part “martyr ourselves” involves suicide which is strictly forbidden in Islam.

The best reason provided for following Islam was provided by Ali the fourth Caliph of Islam. His line was akin to Socrates’ and he said something like: If you die following (true) teachings of Islam there are two possibilities. You go into oblivion or there is everything that Islam has promised. If you go into oblivion nothing is lost, you lived a (good) life. If on the other hand you see the afterlife, as promised, you will be rewarded. So, perhaps following a decent religion is the best approach.

Finally the philosophers were ordinary humans given to thinking, so why not think for ourselves knowing that death is the end of our physical lives too, so why not make our lives count by leaving examples of good conduct. This leaves me with the suggestion of a Muslim saint who said something like: Know that when you were born you were crying and others were happy, so make sure that when you die you are smiling and others are sad at losing you. The good thing about this advice is that you do not have to be a Muslim to follow it.

Muhammad Zafrullah

I am worried. Have we ruled out, scientifically, the possibility that some children may have a genetic disposition to developing autism as a reaction to some vaccines? What increases my worries is the very idea of vaccination. We introduce some organisms inside a system and the system reacts to those organisms and develops immunity, by creating antibodies etc. In this process of developing immunity some gates are shut and some are opened, so it may be probable that some children have systems whose immunity response results in autism.

This thought is also strengthened by the common observation that our bodies react to some foods and medicines differently. For example some medicines for hypertension are contra indicated for folks with liver problems and some of us have allergies to certain foods, such as peanuts. The other day I was reading an article on DNA’s. The author seemed to hold the opinion that once we know more about the DNA’s we would be able to develop personalized medicine. Perhaps that would be the day when we would know for certain if some vaccines could cause autism or not. For now there is my usual rant: There are so many parameters and we know so few of them, so it is hard to say something for sure.

Finally let me end by saying that length is the most basic measure and the best instruments we have for measuring length come with a margin of error. So, making big decisions keep in mind the fact that we can only be certain to a degree.

We seem to be giving too much importance to Rush Limbaugh; perhaps because there is not much to talk about the Republican Party, other than Mr. Limbaugh, these days. He talks like that because it helps him earn his living, by keeping happy a certain section of our society.

He used to yap about "Democracy held hostage" during the Clinton Presidency in such a way that I thought Clinton would somehow be ousted within a few months. But look what happened. Bill Clinton not only completed his two terms, balanced the budgets, put the economy on a firmer footing but also did the most un-Republican thing, i.e. left a huge surplus for George Bush to squander.

So, I think it is a good sign that Mr. Limbaugh wants Mr. Obama to fail. Mr. Limbaugh in opposition may be a good luck charm for the Democrats. For if Mr. Limbaugh with his chant of "Wish Obama to fail" becomes the face of the Republican party then the party would soon become the party of illegal pill poppers.

Muhammad Zafrullah