But if you look at nature more carefully, you will find that it does not always seem that way. You may see animals that are strikingly unselfish, most of the time for their own species, such as giving a warning of approaching predators, sharing food, licking others to remove parasites, adopting orphans. And occasionally they are unselfish to other species as well. They fight without killing or even injuring their enemies. Such behavior poses a problem for the Darwinian view of nature; this behavior is known as altruism. But is there really a problem?

Yes, there is!

One of Darwin’s greatest challenges was explaining how altruism could have evolved. For example, consider how a single bird within a flock might act as an emergency alarm, giving a warning call when a predator approaches. By receiving advance warning, the other birds in the flock have a better chance of escaping from the predator. But this comes at a price to the bird that guards the flock. A warning call attracts a lot of attention, making the guard an easier target for the predator.

How could a character for such altruism be passed on from generation to generation if it is the altruists who are more easily eliminated, and should there not be some kind of reward or motivation for this self-sacrifice? At first glance, it seems that if altruistic birds are more likely to be preyed upon, then fewer altruists would survive to reproduce. Eventually, altruism should die out. In fact, it should have died out before we discovered it.

Altruistic behavior

How can we explain this behavior? It is not possible to do so from an organism-centered view. So, let’s imagine a gene that causes the organism containing that gene to behave in such a way that copies of it are made in other organisms. In other words, a bird is only helping the other birds if they have the same type of gene. A gene that makes its owner behave in this particular way, all other things being equal, is likely to survive. But then the natural question is that altruism is only directed to those with the altruistic gene. If the birds without the altruistic gene benefit from the help as much as those with it then how does the survival of the fittest theory favor this gene? It is not easy for a gene to recognize other such genes in other individuals. There must be another solution.

Sharing the same gene

One way of increasing the likelihood for altruism to reach its true target is to keep it within the “family.” If there is a gene for behaving altruistically, then the members of the family are more likely to inherit the same gene than a random member of the population. The closer the family member, the greater the possibility of sharing the gene.

If, for example, an individual had the choice of saving his own life or the lives of two sisters or eight cousins then the survival of the fittest theory should be indifferent about the choice as they will save the same number of genes. But on the other hand if I could save three sisters instead or nine of my cousins then the theory would favor the self-sacrificial act, “saving my kin rather than saving my skin!” Hmm, what do we know, maybe indeed there is a way to be both Darwinist and altruist.

The idea of the “fittest” in Darwin’s theory is the ability of an individual to survive and reproduce and therefore to pass on some of their genes. If a mother gives up her life for her offspring, the mother ceases to exist. But, from another point of view, the mother continues to live on in her child genetically. Although the mother as an individual has not benefited from her altruism, half of her genetic code survives.

This new definition of fitness shifts the focus from individual fitness to family fitness, which takes into account the survival of an individual’s relatives. Evolution is no longer seen simply to be a process of individual selection, but also one of family selection.

Although this selection based on family seems to be a good explanation for our puzzle, at least in theory, there are many immediate questions that spring to mind. Assisting one’s kin often goes in one direction, although one would expect it to be a two-way process as there is symmetry between the genes. And how practical is the process of selecting one’s relatives? How would you differentiate the members of the same flock as to whether they are family or not, the ones that are getting the help secretly “connected”!?

Mathematics and game theory

At this point at least we have arrived at the conclusion that it is quite difficult to explain altruistic behavior in all circumstances. Maybe there is a solution to be found in mathematics, which has solved so many abstract problems.

It would be useful to take a different point of view for the entire matter. Maybe what looks like altruism is indeed to the advantage of the altruist. Two parties could be exchanging altruistic favors and in the end they both are better off. Another question that comes to mind is “Even when everybody knows that cooperation is good for all, why shouldn’t one cheat as this is more beneficial from a selfish point of view?” If everyone were to cooperate, everyone would be better off; but the best for an individual is to pursue their own self-interest, in which case therefore everybody ends up worse off.

A similar change of understanding also happened in economic theory in the 1950’s when the game theory was first introduced into economics. Initially, this theory was intended to deal with the problem of providing a theory for economic and strategic behavior where people interact directly, rather than through the market. Here, games are only used as a metaphor for more serious interactions in a general ecosystem. But the game theory addresses the serious interactions using the metaphor of a game: in these serious interactions, as in games, the individual’s choice is essentially a choice of a strategy, and the outcome of the interaction depends on the strategies chosen by each of the participants. On this interpretation, a study of games may indeed tell us something about serious interactions.

In neoclassical economic theory, to choose rationally is to maximize the rewards for the individual. From one point of view, this is a problem in mathematics: choose the activity that maximizes rewards in any given circumstances. Thus, we may think of rational economic choices as the solution to a mathematical problem. But in the game theory, the case is more complex, since the outcome depends not only on one’s own strategies but also directly on the strategies that have been chosen by other individuals; we can still think of the rational choice of strategies as a mathematical problem – and maximize the rewards of a group of interacting decision makers (Nash equilibrium).

Now that we have realized that we have to move in a somewhat similar direction to the economists, maybe we should consult the experts of the game theory at this point. In the 1980’s Axelrod and Hamilton worked on a famous problem in the game theory, the Prisoner’s Dilemma, exactly because it deals with this problem. The rational pursuit of individual self-interest drives everybody into an outcome that is not favored by anybody. Imagine two partners in a crime being interrogated at the same time. Each one has two options, cooperate with the other and keep quiet or betray the other and confess. Case C, we can say, is if both cooperate then the police cannot get much out of them and they will both get a light sentence (2 years); if one defects and the other keeps quiet then the traitor will get an even lighter sentence (1 year) – this is case B. If the one who cooperates gets the longest sentence (10 years), this is the worst end of the deal and we can call this case S. In a case when both betray one another they will both get a sentence (6 years) longer than if they had cooperated but lighter than if one had kept quiet and the other spoke, and this is case D.

Out of the four outcomes, B is the best and S is the worst from an individualistic point of view, while the order of preference is B, C, S, D. We should realize that this is a non-zero sum game. In a zero-sum game, my loss is your gain; for example, if we are trying to divide a certain amount of money in the bank into two, anything over fifty percent for me is a loss for you. On the other hand, in a non-zero sum game I can actually win without you losing. Each suspect has to make their decision without knowing what the other has done. What would a rational suspect do?

The answer is simple; he would betray his partner in crime! Regardless of what the other suspect does, betrayal always pays better than cooperating. Here is the simple reasoning one would follow. Suppose my partner in crime cooperates. I could do quite well by also cooperating, I would get 2 years, (C). But it is even better to betray him, since I would then get 1 year instead of 2, (B). What if he betrays me? If I keep quiet then the worst is going to happen and I will get 10 years, (S), therefore I should defect and get 6 years, (D). In summary, all we are saying is that the second row in the chart is always more favorable than the first row, hence no matter what, a rational prisoner would always betray his partner!

“And here comes the dilemma: it pays each of them to defect, whatever the other one does, yet if both defect, each does less well than if both had cooperated. What is best for each individual leads to a mutual defection, while everybody would be better off with mutual cooperation.”

Fortunately, the dilemma has a solution in our case. So far, we have only played the game once. What happens if the parties play the game repeatedly and for an indefinite number of times? After every single time they play they know that they are likely to meet again later. Under such conditions there is actually a cooperative strategy for the players that could be successful; this is a somewhat twisted version of the cooperation defined earlier in the prisoner’s dilemma case. First of all, we immediately realize that always defecting is clearly not the smartest strategy, knowing that you will meet the other individual again in the future. Instead, consider this natural strategy, called Tit for Tat, which is never to be the first to defect, always imitate the other from his previous move and retaliate only when you have been betrayed. It turns out that this highly cooperative strategy can survive, even though initially it withstands the challenges of readily defecting strategies. And it can be stable against diminishing altogether.

In order for this Tit for Tat strategy to have a chance to work, a critical proportion of the individuals have to cooperate. Otherwise the readily defective strategies would simply destroy the cooperative ones and dominate the whole system. But once the number of individuals who adopt a Tit for Tat strategy exceeds a critical ratio in the population then it survives and reaches a stable ratio able to withstand any other strategy.

Axelrod’s theory is nice and easy to understand, but once again it prompts all sorts of other issues. How frequently the population is able to reach that critical level in the first place? On the other hand, what kind of a memory do individuals need in order to be able to execute a Tit for Tat strategy?

What do we make of it?

We could keep working on expanding these explanations and models, or at least the biologists should. But in any case, in order for any of these models to apply in what we see in nature we have to be demanding of the individuals who form the population. Every single time we come up with a new approach or an extended model it is difficult to explain many of the characteristics of altruistic behavior, even in idealized cases. Either there must be altruistic genes that can recognize the other altruistic genes carried in other individuals, or we all individuals have a well-developed memory that actually remembers all the moves that have been made by other individuals in the population, or one starts from an idealistic state in order to maintain the stability of the system without knowing how we are able to get there in the first place.

It seems that the smarter we get, the better our theories are developed, and the more flawless our models become, the more we realize that all the individuals in the great ecosystem of nature that show some kind of altruistic behavior must have a great deal of knowledge and power over the rest, they must have eyes that see many things about the whole picture and they must have an authority that has a great impact on others, on and on and on.

“A man was going down from Jericho, [The road from Jericho to Jerusalem was steep and winding, a place where criminals regularly assaulted travelers at the time when Jesus lived] and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest [A holy man] was going down that road, and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, [a religious leader] when he came to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan [Samaritans were people who were despised by the ethnic group to whom the lawyer belonged.] while traveling came near him, and when he saw him, he was moved with pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, [two coins equal to two days wages] gave them to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I will repay you whatever more you spend.’”

Then Jesus asked the lawyer, “Which of these three, do you think, was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?” The lawyer said to Jesus, “The one who showed him mercy.” Jesus then said to the lawyer, “Go and do likewise.” The moral of this story is that if one wishes to have eternal life one must be a good neighbor.

The medieval Christian monk Bernard of Clairvaux shares the great theme of the love of God with the Sufi master Rumi. A big portion of Clairvaux’s writing includes the idea that of all the attributes of God, the one most important to humankind is love. Father Clairvaux was not a poet like Rumi but a fine scholar of the Bible and found many important verses of Scripture that speak about the idea of God’s love being manifest through the actions of human beings. This love of God is expressed most graphically in the activity of being a good neighbor. He writes, “True love is precisely this: that it does not seek its own interests. And you cannot love your neighbor unless you love God. God must be loved first in order that we may love our neighbor in God” (from, On the Love of God).

From the Christian perspective neighborliness is one of the most important characteristics a follower of Jesus can possess. The two sections of the Bible, the book that gives Christians their primary guidance for living, are the Old Testament and the New Testament. These two parts of the Bible are full of verses that emphasize the high moral value placed on the practices of love of God and of neighborliness.

The Old Testament concept of neighbor often referred not only to the person who lived in the house next door to you but to anyone in your tribe. The good deeds of neighborliness were emphatically applied to care for the widow or orphan and those in need of one’s help.

God says, “If you take your neighbor’s cloak in pawn, you shall restore it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor’s only clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am compassionate” (Exodus 22:26–27). Later in this same Old Testament book, speaking to the Israelites, God says, “You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt. You shall not abuse a widow or orphan” (Exodus 22:21–22). It is written in the book of Deuteronomy, “Cursed be anyone who strikes down a neighbor in secret” (Deuteronomy 27: 24). The prophet Jeremiah writes, “Act with justice and righteousness, and deliver from the hand of the oppressor anyone who has been robbed. And do no wrong or violence to the alien, the orphan, and the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place” (Jeremiah 22:3). And the prophet, Micah says, “What does the Lord require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?” (Micah 6:8).

The New Testament concept of neighbor becomes even more universal through the teachings of Jesus and the writings of Paul of Tarsus. These ideas are derived from the thought that if God loves all people we should, in turn, love ourselves and especially others, including our neighbors, our enemies and those in need, the widow and orphan.

Jesus says, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets” (Matthew 22: 37–40) And Paul writes, “For the whole law is summed up in a single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself’” (Galatians 5:13–15).

Therefore, to be a true Christian one must take care to obey the first and second commandments, to love God and also to love one’s neighbor as one’s self.

We Christians have to be alert to what some call the constant presence of evil, others call this negative force in our living the devil, and still others call it the distractions of daily living; such things as television and the media in general, the North American impulse to consumerism, self-aggrandizement, preoccupation with the accumulation of wealth, politics and the list goes on and on. These distractions, against which Christians must be constantly alert, are what our holy Scriptures refer to as our “having other gods before the one God.” The reason we want to be alert to distractions such as these is that our primary goal as Christians is to first love God and second, to love our neighbors and not to place a higher value on worldly things than we do on neighborliness.

The spiritual director and Presbyterian minister, Diana Nishita Cheifetz, writes about ways people can be good neighbors in a world where air travel and the internet have brought a great diversity of culture, political ideology, ethnicity and religion together. She talks about “graceful neighboring” which is a kind of interpersonal “dancing with our diversity.”

Graceful neighboring recognizes differences while at the same time it dwells on the positive nature of our similarities. Through the art of graceful neighboring we become more aware of people different than ourselves who are on this metaphorical “dance floor” with us. This is an important, other-focused view observed in the more accomplished “dancers”. That more mature, other-focused view, dear reader, can be possessed by you and your families and friends, and by me and mine when we are all committed to interfaith dialog. When we engage in the dance of life we do not see the stranger as black or white, Christian or Jew, rich or poor; we acknowledge them as partners, people of equal value in the eyes of the one God, people who are moving to the rhythm of life with us. We gaze into their eyes, and smile and thereby recognize their humanness and our collective joy in our living together. To behave this way is to understand what Rumi and Bernard of Clairvaux would call a kind of whirling dance of faith, a moving out of darkness into light.

Graceful neighboring also recognizes differences. We do not stand too close and invade the boundaries of the others whose culture and religion ask for more room on the dance floor. Being a good neighbor is to be willing to respect the needs and differences of the dancers.

If we are able to be vehicles of graceful neighboring in these ways others will observe our joy, we will be the good dancers whom others watch and respect, and the one God will bring all of us together into a great dance of life.

Sam is a Presbyterian pastor, a husband, a father, a grandfather and a friend. He is actively involved as a member of the Advisory Board of the Austin area Institute of Interfaith Dialog, an avid bicycle rider and environmentalist.

Notes

1. Diana Nishita Cheifetz, Weavings: A Journal of the Christian Spiritual Life, July/August 2006.

The nineteenth century, particularly towards the end, was a period that was intensively preoccupied with human-centered theories and movements that would be implemented later in the twentieth century. When focusing on the theory of crime developed by Raskolnikov, the protagonist in Dostoyevsky’s Crime and Punishment, it is possible to see the traces of a variety of philosophical or criminal theory approaches that were developed in this era.

The most well-known of such views was that of Karl Marx (1818-1883), which advocated a completely new and revolutionary world order based on economic equality. Because he held the view that all human behavior was determined by social conditions, Marx maintained that it was social circumstances which were responsible for the crime, not the individual. In fact, Marx did not recognize crime as such. Crime to Marx is a responsibility which a society that has been established on unjust grounds has burdened the victimized individual with. It is Mark’s primary assertion that the only possible way to break free from such chaos is a revolution aimed at establishing a Communist order, which would in turn lead to the construction of a society based on social and economic equality.

It is possible to see significant traces of what Marx describes as a society of injustice in Raskolnikov’s crime theory. In the novel, Raskolnikov is a poor student who murders an old woman pawnbroker. The principle factor pushing Raskolnikov to commit the crime is anger at the social circumstances that surrounded him, such as his own poor economic conditions and that of his family, the huge economic imbalance within society and the atrocious tyranny over others of those who have economic power – like his landlord. As such, similar to Marx, Raskolnikov does not consider the crime he is about to commit a crime. For Raskolnikov, the theory is much more than revenge taken on an unjust society, it is a reform carried out on behalf of society. Raskolnikov envisions hundreds of people being saved with the money he will get from the old woman after he has killed her.

Marx was not the only one whose ideas had an influence on those represented by Raskolnikov. For Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) the theory of crime is relevant to psychological influences; childhood, social pressure and values all have an influence on the individual. It is possible to recapitulate Freud’s approach to crime as, man commits the crime, but he is not the criminal. Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) developed Freud’s human analyses within his own nihilist philosophy and had the greatest impact on Raskolnikov’s theory of crime.

Before moving on, let us clarify exactly what Nihilism is. It is, in Nietzsche’s own words, “the self devaluation of the highest of values.”¹ In other words, the old Christian ethical worldview is no longer welcome. Nietzsche describes this situation through the famous statement “God is dead.” It is important to point out here that this statement was not made against religion or God per se, but against their corrupted forms. Along these lines, Nietzsche states in The Anti-Christ:

“What sets us apart is not our rejection to recognize God behind history or nature; but our inability to see he who is revered as God to be like God.”

Collapse of the belief in an Absolute Being, which Dostoyevsky considers to be the worst disaster in the history of mankind, consequently eliminates the belief in a real world. This leaves the human being with two alternatives. One is the hopeless and depressive state that is caused by the thought life has no meaning, all is in vain; the other, in the words of a hero in another of Dostoyevsky’s works, is “if there is no God, then God is I”²; or, in other words, Nietzsche’s notion of “Now, I’ve got the power.”

Regarding power as being essential to life, Nietzsche defines power to be “holding a view independent of all other judgments and limitations.”³ His solution to the chaos that is brought forth by the idea of an absence of God can be realized only through the new superior man, who Nietzsche states has the ability to exist beyond the norms of good and evil.

It can be said that it was this desire to become a superior man that resulted in Raskolnikov’s theory of crime. It is possible to see this will in Raskolnikov’s article in which he divides people into two groups; those who join the herd and the heroes. Instead of the first group, whom Raskolnikov designates as victims, he prefers to be affiliated with the second group, whom he groups under the name of Napoleon. A theme even in the poems of Pushkin and Lermantov, Napoleon, the personification of the man for whom nothing is impossible, symbolizes the will to do anything for the sake of one’s ideals for Raskolnikov. This will necessitate the overthrowing of the old value system that states “thou shalt not kill” and the establishment of a system of new values. In this new order, “there is no such thing as ethical phenomenon. There exist only ethical interpretations of phenomena.”⁴ And beyond this is the idea that, “the worst of vices is necessary for the best of virtues,”⁵ amounting to the fact that crime is henceforth licit. This is why we can say that it was the determination to become a Napoleon or a super man that formed Raskolnikov’s crime theory, for he justifies the crime on the grounds of an ideal – the eradication of vice.

Up until this point, the theories of Marx, Freud, or Nietzsche would not consider Raskolnikov’s murder to be a crime. It is the author himself who regards the murder as a crime, because for Dostoyevski, crime is a sin, it is a departure from God. In the novel, Dostoyevsky reveals Raskolnikov to be someone mentally tormented by his crime, so much so, that he finally confesses to it. As a solution, Dostoyevsky prescribes the repair of the human soul, which in a society where all the boundaries between vice and virtue have been eliminated Dostoevsky considers to be possible only through a return to the Absolute Being. For him, to believe that there is an immortality of the soul and that there is a God who takes care of human beings is necessary if one is to attain happiness and to create a moral life.

Notes

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Will To Power, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1967.
2. Fyodor Dostoyevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, translation by Richard Pevear, Larissa Volokhonsky. North Point Press.1990.
3. Friedrich Nietzsche, The Anti Christ, translation by H.L. Mencken, 1920.
4. Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good And Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future, translation by Walter Kauffman. New York: Random House, 1966.
5. Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, translation by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, 1995

The first group of people carry a “pump” in their chests, but it cannot be said that they have hearts. The second group of people live in the cloudy, misty atmosphere of their surmises and doubts, separate from God, and are unable to reach their destination. The third group of people, those who have traveled some distance toward the destination, are at risk because they have not yet reached the goal. They advance falteringly, struggling on the way of God, experience cycles of defeat and success, and spend their lives trying to climb a “hill” without being able to reach the summit.

On the other hand, those who have a firm belief live as if they see God and in the consciousness that God sees them, enjoy complete security and are under God’s protection. They study existence with insight, penetrate the nature of existence, discover their reality through the light of God, and behave soberly and with self-control. They tremble with fear of God, full of anxiety and hope concerning their final goal, and pursue His pleasure by seeking to please Him and living in a way that shows their love for Him. In return, God loves them and causes other believers to love them. They are loved and esteemed by humanity and the jinn, and receive a warm welcome wherever they happen to be.

Prophet Joseph, upon him be peace, the truthful hero of Sura Yusuf, is mentioned five times in this sura as a man of perfect goodness and deep devotion. All of creation, including the Creator and the created, friend and foe, Earth and the heavens, testified to his strict self-control and self-supervision: When Joseph reached his full manhood, We bestowed on him wisdom and knowledge. Thus do We reward those who are perfectly good [worshipping and acting in consciousness of being always seen by God] (Yusuf 12:22). Here, the Almighty states that Prophet Joseph was a man of perfect goodness and self-control at the age of puberty. During his imprisonment in Egypt, every prisoner, whether good or evil, discerned the depth of his mind and purity of his spirit, and appealed to him to solve their problems: Tell us the interpretation of events, including dreams, for we see you [to be] among those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:36). Joseph succeeded in every trial he faced, and won a place in everyone’s heart, both friend and foe.

Once more God mentions him as a man of perfect goodness, a perfect embodiment of goodness, as his character did not change when appointed to a high government post: Thus We established Joseph in the land, to take possession of it where he pleased. We reach with Our mercy whom We will, and We never cause to be lost the reward of those who are perfectly good [worshipping and acting in consciousness of being always seen by God] (Yusuf 12:56). When his brothers, who had always envied him, acknowledged his goodness and truthfulness even before they discovered that the charitable minister in the royal palace of Egypt was Joseph. They said: O exalted sir. He has a father, aged and venerable; so take one of us instead of him, for we see that you are among those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:78).

Lastly, as a man perfectly matured and having acquired full spiritual contentment, Prophet Joseph himself testified to God’s blessings on him: God has been indeed gracious to us. Whoever acts in fear of God and full submission to Him and is patient, surely God does not waste the reward of those who are perfectly good (Yusuf 12:90).

It is inconceivable that an individual with such a sound heart could deviate or be deprived of God’s blessing. Such a heart has the same meaning with respect to its owner as God’s Supreme Throne has with respect to the universe, and is a polished mirror in which the Almighty looks in full appreciation. Such a mirror is not something to be discarded or allowed to break, for it is the essence and spirit of human reality and is praised by God.

In the following couplets, Rumi recalls this:

The Truth says: I consider the heart,
Not the form made from water and clay.
You say: I have a heart within me, whereas
The heart is above God’s Throne, not below.

She stopped in front of a vast puddle. “What do you think? Is it possible?” she asked her reflection in the murky water. “No way,” snapped back the image. “With a bunch of brothers and sisters and cousins donating their hand-me-downs every year you stand no chance.”

“Oh well! Hope springs eternal,” muttered the little girl and avenged the answer by stomping on the cruel “other.”

She hurried up to the school just around the corner. There was no one in sight. She was late again. Teachers’ voices blended from the broken windows. She entered her classroom. The teacher let her take her seat with a reproachful look that set her cheeks on fire instantly. The little girl wondered how her cheeks could burn while her feet were ice cold.

She scanned the class discreetly after she had taken her seat. All she saw was a bunch of freezing kids, a door that would not close, and windows that, like her shoes, welcomed everything in. She tried to think of something funny to lift up her spirit. Alas! Even jokes were scarce in her life. Patience was the only thing she had in abundance to help her survive till the end of the school day.

The little girl took the same path in the opposite direction toward home, lost in her thoughts. She felt very insignificant and the fact that her problem seemed irrelevant to the rest of the world increased her desperation.

* * *

At home Mom heard the little girl bark a terrible cough by the burning stove. She fixed her stare on the little shoes drying nearby, then grabbed the shoes and checked them as she had done several times before, only to confirm that in their desolate state the shoes could not stand one more nail. They were about to fall apart. Now it was Mom’s turn to worry.

“Mom, let me buy her new shoes!” Big Sister saved the day. She was volunteering to buy them from her pocket money, usually spent on stuff for her trousseau. Mom consented to Big Sister’s proposal, despite Grandma’s strong belief that it was past the time for her to get married anyway.

The little heart leapt with joy. “For real? Brand new shoes? Tomorrow?”

* * *

The next day came with a lethargic sun, as much anticipated tomorrows always do. The little girl was anxious.

“Let’s go!” The two sisters walked along the street, the big one squeezing her money, the little one squeezing her heart to keep it in place.

The shoe store struck the little girl with terror. It was unpleasantly cold. The saleswoman snailed around, making things worse. Most unfortunately, there was nothing on the metal grid shelves except for a pair of papa-sized boots and a couple of black slippers. Her little heart sank.

The saleswoman and Big Sister exchanged pleasantries. The saleswoman spoke annoyingly slowly as if chatting for the first time in a very long while. Finally the chitchat was over.

“I would like to buy a new pair of shoes for my sister,” Big Sister said, emphasizing the “new” unnecessarily. She was handling the situation so calmly you would think she was buying her daily bread.

The saleswoman stared at the little girl from head to toe and back, though all she needed to inspect were her feet. “I don’t think I have anything for her,” she said matter-of-factly, ”but let me check to be sure.” She disappeared into the unlit back. The little girl wished the saleswoman might disappear completely rather than come back empty-handed. She could take waiting a lifetime, but facing empty hands would be unbearable.

The saleswoman came back with a box. “What’s her size?” The big sister muttered the number. “A one-size-fits-all size,” translated the little heart. “This pair is one size smaller, but this is the closest I can get.” The saleswoman was obviously paying attention only to Big Sister.

The little girl took the right shoe. She almost swooned at the smell of new leather. She squeezed her foot into the shoe. “It hurts, but don’t show it,” said her little heart. She suddenly turned into Cinderella’s stepsister, ready to cut off her toes if need be. Big Sister, not easily fooled, bent down and felt the curled toes. “No, no, you can’t walk straight with these shoes.” The little girl stepped back, defiant. “You’ll have to cut my feet off to take them off me!” her eyes challenged.

The saleswoman, sensing a storm approaching, made a move to prevent the family crisis. “Why don’t you come on Monday?” she said. “A new shipment will be available then.” The girl watched the saleswoman’s face intently for a wink at Big Sister. Deadly serious, the saleswoman did not even blink. With no other option, the little girl dragged herself out of the store.

The two sisters walked silently on the street, the big one squeezing the money, the little one clenching her fists. Too bad there was no one to punch. The little heart was ice cold, yet a flickering flame of faint hope kept burning in a far corner.

“Who am I kidding?” thought the little girl. “Even if she gets new supplies, who says she will get my size? Besides, in two days there is plenty of time for my sister to change her mind or spend the money on some you-can’t-find-it–elsewhere bedspread. By Monday there is even enough time, God forbid, for some distant relative to materialize from nowhere with a pair of very old, smelly shoes, and that would be a nightmare.”

They entered their small apartment. The little girl went straight to her room and sat on her bed, painfully hearing Big Sister explain to Mom and Grandma why they had returned empty-handed. She heard the door open slowly, but she did not turn to look, knowing that no one else but Grandma could be coming in.

Grandma sat by her side with a frown. In her story-telling voice she spoke:

“Once upon a time, there lived a young man in a very far land. He walked down the streets of his little town looking at his shabby shoes, feeling very unhappy, and wondering why he couldn’t have a new pair of shoes. At that moment he passed by a beggar leaning on an oak tree, his hand stretched out asking for alms. As he looked closely he realized that the beggar had no legs. The young man grew very sad and felt ashamed of himself. ‘Shame on me! This man doesn’t have feet and I am feeling miserable because I don’t have decent shoes.’ He reproached himself and gave thanks to God for his feet.” Smiling and caressing little girl’s hair, Grandma continued, “See, my dear, do not despair. God willing, you will get what you don’t have. Meanwhile be thankful for what you already have. Contentment of the heart is the greatest of treasures.”

The little girl, having understood very swiftly the message of the story could not help but comment, “But Grandma, I want to be grateful for my feet and a pair of new shoes.” Grandma smiled at her and whispered, as if revealing a well-kept secret, “God increases the bounties when we thank him. If you are thankful for your feet, he may grant you a pair of shoes as well. Remember, contentment of the heart is the greatest treasure.” After kissing the little girl on the forehead, she left the room as quietly as she had entered it.

The little girl tried to reason, although her brain was turned upside down. “That seems like good advice. What could I be thankful for?” she asked herself. “Well, I have a wonderful grandmother for a start,” she thought with a smile.

* * *

On Monday afternoon they went back to the store. First, the saleswoman smiled at them, and then she sluggishly disappeared into the back. “Thank goodness this time I was spared the torment of pleasantries,” the little girl thought, relieved.

With a box in her hands and the air of a savior on her face the saleswoman returned. She lifted the lid and handed the right shoe to the little girl. It fit perfectly. Ta da! Boy, would Cinderella be surprised, or should I say jealous! Stepsister or no, this time she got the shoes. Her little heart was overflowing with bliss until Big Sister stepped into the middle of the majestic celebration. Now what?

“The color…,” she said. “Dark red is not a very appropriate color. Only black and brown polishes are available. They’ll soon get muddy.”

“I did my best,” the saleswoman announced in surrender. Little eyes pleaded with Big Sister, the shoebox crushed in an unyielding embrace. With the saleswoman no longer an ally, Big Sister waved the white flag.

They left the store with the new shoes inside the box. The new shoes would look wonderful under her desk tomorrow. The whole school would marvel at them. Her little heart was beating like a crazy bird in a cage. Her prayer had been answered.

Wait a minute! The girl stopped. Remembering what her grandmother had told her, she paused and whispered, “Thank you,” to the One who had given her all bounties.

“I will never forget this day,” the little girl promised.

* * *

But the little girl did forget her promise for many years until the day she witnessed a father trying hard to convince his whining little child that plain shoes are as good as the ones with Pooh Bear printed on them. She once again longed for that sincere thank-you, craving the genuine way it came out of her lips on that memorable day of her life when she got her first ever brand-new shoes.

Mirkena Ozer had her major in Turkish language and literature. She lives in Atlanta, Georgia.

There is no similarity between the systems through which insects produce or receive sounds. Furthermore, even the frequencies of the sounds they produce or hear may not be the same. The wisdom behind this might be that the receptors of some insects are devised in a way that will enable them to detect sounds produced by their enemies. Moths can be given as a typical example of this. They can detect sounds between 1,000-140,000 Hz. Their sensitivity is best between frequencies of 20,000-40,000 Hz, but interestingly, most moths do not have any organs to produce sounds at these frequencies. In other words, moths do not seem to use their tympanal organs in order to communicate with one another. Discovering the real function of the tympanal organ of the moths has taken researchers quite a long time.

The mysterious relation

Every being in nature is created to assume a role in the ecological balance and no creature has been equipped with a useless organ. Researchers have discovered that the tympanal organ plays an important role in defense. Moths spend the day resting in corners and only become active after sunset. Researchers have come to the conclusion that they are not searching for food, since the nutrition they need is stored in their bodies during the larva stage. Thanks to this blessing, moths do not spend their short life span in search of food. The aim of their night flights is reproduction.

The essential duty of moths is to find the plants where they will lay their eggs and on which their larvae will feed. As slow moving animals, it is almost impossible for the moth larvae to go and find their own food. As all creatures are provided in accordance with their need, these helpless larvae are born on their food. Another amazing fact about their nutrition is that the moth larvae eat their own protein-rich eggshells before eating leaves. Research has shown that those larvae which eat their eggshells are more resistant to environmental conditions.

As the moths try to continue their species by laying their eggs in the darkness, some other creatures try to continue their own existence by feeding on the moths. Bats eat insects and are also active at night. As is well known, bats fly comfortably in the dark thanks to the radar system they have been equipped with. This innate system is perfectly devised to enable bats to pinpoint a tiny insect flying through the darkness, and moths are a prey that is easily spotted by bats. The astonishing fact is that the moths’ sensitivity to the sound waves is perfect for picking up the sounds emitted by bats. The moths are able not only to detect the bats, but also to judge their distance from the frequency of the waves. If the distance is greater than 30 meters, the moth leaves the area immediately. If the bat is closer however, the moth takes a zigzag course or tries to avoid danger by plunging down and staying still.

The balance here is so perfect that while bats are skilled enough hunters to obtain provision, the moths are good defenders and are able to continue their existence. Both species fulfill their roles in balance with creation. Some bats are able to catch some moths, but there is no excess on either side. Nothing is left to blind chance in nature; not only did the Creator equip the bat with a perfect radar system, He did not leave the moth helpless but granted them perfect receptors to rescue themselves from bats. If it were not for the Power that established the mysterious balances in the universe, how would a bat find its way through the darkness and how would moths be protected from extinction?

Every different type of moth which forms another ring in the chain of food in nature lays its eggs on different plants. If moths did not feed on certain fast-growing plants and if their growth is not kept under control, these plants would invade the space of other plants and wipe them out. The moths and other creatures that feed on plants ensure that no one plant is allowed to upset the balance of the chain of nutrition. Similarly, the perfect balance established between bats and moths prove that nothing in this universe is left on its own. When confronted by the perfect order in nature, one cannot help but think about the verse:

You do not see any fault or incongruity in the creation of the All-Merciful. Look yet again: can you see any rifts?

Then look again and yet again, (and however often you do so, with whatever instruments to aid your looking) your sight will fall back to you dazzled (by the splendor of God’s creation), and awed and weakened (being unable to discern any flaw to support any excuse for claiming that there could be any sharing in the dominion of the universe). (Mulk 67:3)

The way scientific prediction generally tends to approach matters is as follows: “do this and you’ll see that”. The discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, one of the early successes of physics, still remaining fresh even today, is a particularly nice example: In the nineteenth century, by observing the trajectories of the planetary motion of Uranus, the most remote planet in the Solar system at that time, astronomers discovered that its trajectory was not exactly the way it should have been. Taking into account the gravitational action of nearby planets did not help either. By that time, however, Newtonian mechanics had already gained enough authority so as not to be immediately abandoned. To circumvent the problem, instead of abandoning gravity altogether, scientists proposed that there must be a celestial body, hitherto unseen, that was disturbing the trajectory. After elaborate calculations were made, the astronomers were told to direct their telescopes at a specific time at a specific region of the sky and they would see a shiny dot. They did as instructed, and the dot was present exactly as calculated. Significantly, it does not matter who was actually sitting by the telescope. Under the same conditions, a famous scientist or a lay person should be able to see the same. This is an example of what is called “objective reality,” the shining star in this case. In general, objective reality may be defined as anything which exists independent of the observer, implying that if something objectively real is encountered by observer 1, then reproducing the conditions of the first experiment, observer 2 should see it as well.

“Objective reality” is the scope of science and the science is unbelievably successful when dealing with it. The agreement between theory and experiment in the case of the so-called “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” for instance, is to the order of 1 to 100,000,000,000. To give a sense of this truly mind-blowing degree of precision, one can say that it is like sending a rocket to the Moon and predicting its landing coordinates up to the nearest millimeter.

This shows us the might of science, but what makes science so effective also sets the limits for the range of its applicability. The key factor for the conventional scientific method is the reproducibility or the regularity of the event. Whatever does not fit this condition finds itself outside the circle of phenomena that are conventionally called “scientific.” For example, ghosts are not scientific, although there are many more people who claim to have seen them than there are those who routinely observe, for example, the fractional quantum Hall effect, which is absolutely real, despite its exoticism. The number does not matter in this case. There is a certain prescription of how the quantum Hall effect should be observed, whereas there is no such thing for spiritual contacts. One has to be careful to distinguish non-scientific phenomena from non-existent phenomena. The concept of reality and existence itself is a subtle question and has traditionally been a philosophical battlefield that is heavily dependent on definitions; in any case, whatever the truth is, the fact that there is no 100% guaranteed technique of, for instance, summoning the spirit of the long-deceased Genghis Khan does not present sufficient evidence to rule out its possibility.

To illustrate what has been said up to this point, and to look on the subject from a different perspective, the following story might be of some use.

The pond story

Imagine Mr. Smith is sitting by the pond. To study its content our researcher has a sieve that he can use to scoop the water and see what is left inside. After some time he is certain that there is ooze in the pond. Later that evening, by the fireplace, he tells his wife, Mrs. Smith, about what he’d seen during the day at the pond. On the next day, to make sure her husband had actually spent his day the way he said he had, she takes the sieve and goes to the pond. With the first scoop, she gets some ooze and on the evening of the second day the ooze is elevated to the level of an objective reality. It is unimportant who is scooping the water, Mr. or Mrs. Smith. From now on whenever they want to watch the ooze, they just scoop the water with the sieve, and they are guaranteed to get some. In addition to this important discovery, Mrs. Smith also tells Mr. Smith about some rapidly moving shiny longish objects that she saw from time to time in the muddy waters of the pond. However, none of these, unfortunately, have ever made their way into the colander. That evening Mr. Smith has trouble believing the confusing story of his wife, as she doesn’t have much evidence to support it. At the end of the day, the self-confident ooze pioneer has convinced the excessively susceptible scooper that she has had a hard day, and shiny objects won’t bother her anymore. And so they lived a long and happy life. Actually long after, Mr. and Mrs. Smith Jr. discovered that the silver objects also existed objectively, for that, however, a sieve had to be upgraded to a net. These are called fish. But that’s a whole other story.

The moral is obvious: the fish here symbolizes some phenomena that are unobservable with the available accessible technology, but which do actually exist in the pond, which represents the universe; it is solely the problem of the master of the colander, who is of course identified with a researcher, that his gear is not advanced enough. At this point, one should avoid falling into another extremity, that is, denying science altogether, for Mr. Smith was right to a certain extent. At that point the fish, or to be more precise, a fish dinner which would be the manifestation of the fish, was not real for him at all. And this being so there wasn’t much point in talking about it. He preferred to talk constructively of what he could do at anytime with, to some extent, guaranteed success, that is, of what was real for him. Though, again, one should keep in mind that they should not be so opinionated to deny the existence of anything they cannot trap or measure. These ideas should always be kept in mind when thinking about the compatibility of metaphysics with the conventional, quantifiable material world.

The fact that science is based on positive knowledge is very inconvenient for proving the absence of something as opposed to proving the existence of it. To perform the latter involves locating the object or giving a concrete example of it. On the contrary, to prove the absence of something, the whole range of possibilities must be exposed. The task grows ever more difficult as the generality of the statement grows, ultimately becoming impossible.

While thinking of the universe and the role of science which is so successful in understanding it, one should be aware of the fact that science deals with the idealized models of phenomena, describing them with a certain degree of success, not the phenomena themselves. A good model has a small error, poor ones have greater error. A nice example illustrating this matter is the electrical model of a mechanical oscillator. For those who are not familiar with electronics, we can say that the capacitor and the coil act as a spring and the mass, respectively. The charge is to be associated with the expansion of the spring, the electrical current with the velocity of the block.

In the first approximation everything goes well: if we want to determine what the position of the block of the oscillator would be after 3 seconds, instead of oscillating the whole system, we can build a model circuit with the capacitance and inductance adjusted properly, and measure the charge accumulated on the capacitor after 3 seconds. However, once we begin to demand higher precision, we begin to encounter one problem after another. The capacitor might be leaking, hence it no longer ideally represents the spring; the coil has resistance and so on. Even if we somehow get ideal electronics, the oscillator has some air drag, and the spring does not ideally follow Hook’s law) [Hook’s law states that the force the spring produces is directly proportional to the degree it was stretched or compressed to]. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible to determine what the oscillator would do exactly without letting it run. However, there is no reason to fall into despair: generally we don’t need to know what it does exactly; depending on the particular case, a fairly good approximation is fine for most of the applications we might ever encounter.

This is how science works. No one has ever observed the “free bodies” moving on a “straight line with constant velocity” that are mentioned in Newton’s first law, the so-called “law of inertia.” What we actually do encounter are the almost free bodies, moving on an almost straight line, with almost constant velocity. But that doesn’t mean, of course, that Newton was wrong: as long as we don’t force his laws into the subatomic region where quantum physics dominates or try to use them nearby the black holes where Einstein’s general relativity takes over, they work unbelievably fine. The rockets we send using these very laws make it quite well to the Moon.

There is an interesting aphorism which is ascribed to Sir Arthur Eddington, a prominent British astronomer: “The law of inertia is true as long as we believe in it.” Newtonian mechanics states that “An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force. An object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external and unbalanced force.” However, since no one has ever seen bodies that are totally isolated from “an external and unbalanced force,” we just believe in this law. Now imagine that someone has nevertheless succeeded in shielding away all the external forces. Being given an initial velocity it is expected to maintain this; but what a disaster: the body doesn’t do so! What should be done in this case? One choice is to renounce Newton’s first law altogether, the other is to say “Hey, what if I did not eliminate the forces completely, what if there is some other force, unknown to me? Both ways are good, but in the latter one you save the ability to describe the world, whereas in the first you are left with nothing. We assume the law of inertia is true and the world becomes describable. Actually, this is what one has to do to understand anything. You have to begin somewhere. State an axiom and assume it is true. Infinite skepticism just doesn’t work. “Cogito ergo sum” was Descartes’ axiom which he had to accept to begin with.

This being so, modern science in the way it exists now does not provide the only model for the Universe; instead, it just realizes one of the possibilities. In the same way that one can use either electrical circuits or a special computer program to model a mechanical oscillator, there is more than one way to deal with the Universe. For example, how can we explain that the parameters of the planet Earth happened to meet the criteria needed to support organic life so ideally? One can say it just happened to be this way by coincidence and we are very lucky. We are very lucky, for instance, that the magnetic field of the Earth stops deadly solar winds, that the ozone layer stops destructive ultraviolet radiation, that the atmosphere is the most transparent for radiation in the yellow-green part of the spectrum, which just miraculously happens to coincide with the intensity peak of the Sun spectrum, which, in turn is the spectrum part plants use for photosynthesis and that to which the human eye is the most sensitive, etc, etc, etc. And though the probability is ridiculously low, low enough to rule it out in normal practice, it is still not impossible, although it is extremely improbable. Or one can say it was God Almighty who created the planet this way so that we can live here. And if it was God Who created the Sun, the Earth, the human eye and the plants then this set of coincidences does not seem so improbable any more. Is there a way to find out which approach is the truth? As long as both are self-consistent internally and do not contradict physical observations, the answer is no. There is no way to choose one version over the other using pure logic alone. However, there is an empirical rule usually called “Occam’s Razor” which states that in case there is more than one explanation for some phenomenon, the one which is the simplest is the true one. Well, the Universe with God in it is the simplest, isn’t it? 

Janibek Alpishev is PhD candidate at Stanford University.

First of all, we need to keep in mind that this world is a temporary place for us. Life after death is our final destination; that is the life about which we need to be concerned. Anything that happens in this world should be judged against the measures of the eternal life. In other words, what happens here on earth is only half the story. The fact that justice fails to prevail in many places on earth is strong evidence for the believer that there will a place where these unfinished accounts will be reopened and brought to justice. God is certainly Mighty and capable of doing so. Just because He gives time to the oppressor does not mean that their accounts will be ignored. In fact, His Mercy is so encompassing that it even engulfs the oppressor; He gives many opportunities for people to correct their mistakes willingly and to be saved on the Day of Judgment. A delayed justice may not be justice at all within the rules of our social system on earth. But this concept does not apply for the Divine Justice. In fact, the Divine Justice is probably delayed so that we have a chance to compensate for our wrongdoings against the weaker and poorer.

Another aspect of the matter is that we have an understanding of the concept that “creation of evil is not evil, but choosing evil is.” God has granted us freewill while we live on earth. We sometimes use this freewill to decide justly, but other times we follow our carnal desires with biased opinions that are in favor of our selves. At these times we commit injustice and evil. The creation of the act and its consequences belong to the Creator. As human beings we do not have control over what happens in our bodies, but our freewill is a very subtle entity that has a confined territory in the decision-making process. Once we make the decision, the actual act is created by God Almighty, Who has power over all things. This can be explained with a simple analogy: The father puts his child on his shoulders and tells him that he will take him wherever he wants to go. The father also gives the child a clear set of instructions as to which places are harmful for him and which ones are safe. Then the child decides to go into a candy shop and fills his belly with chocolate, making himself ill. Yes, it is the father who took the child to the candy shop, but it was the informed decision of the child to go and eat a harmful amount of chocolate. Who is to blame for this mistake? Similarly God gives us the ability to decide and then He creates the actions for us according to our choosing. If the consequences are evil, it is we who committed that evil not the One Who created it.

A third point to think about when going through difficult times are examples from God’s prophets and their life-long suffering. They were chosen to deliver the Divine Message and they were the best people in their times with their service to God and dedication. Yet, the hardships that befell them in many instances were so severe that they would undoubtedly shatter the faith of any ordinary men. Take the examples of Job and Jonah, think about Abraham and Moses, consider Jesus (peace be upon them all). These chosen people of God underwent the greatest trials on earth. The Qur’an points to this fact in many verses, including:

And how many a Prophet has had to fight (for God’s cause), followed by numbers of godly, dedicated servants of God; and they did not become faint of heart for all that befell them in God’s cause, nor did they weaken, nor did they abase themselves (before the enemy). And God loves the patient and steadfast. (Al Imran 3:146)

After a short glance at the lives of the Prophets, we conclude that hardship in one’s life is not necessarily a chastisement from God, nor does it contradict with Divine Mercy. Otherwise, God’s beloved chosen ones, the messengers, should have had the easiest and the most comfortable lives. But, all the messengers underwent major trials, in particular with atrocities that were imposed on them by their own people.

We will certainly test you with something of fear and hunger, and loss of wealth and lives and fruits (earnings); but give glad tidings to the persevering and patient, those who, when a disaster befalls them, say, “Surely we belong to God (as His creatures and servants) and surely to Him we are bound to return” (And they act accordingly.) (Baqara 2:155-157)

In fact, for every difficulty that a believer encounters there is a reward waiting for them in the Hereafter. That is, provided that they are patient in those times of difficulty before their Lord and do not lose faith in Him. The Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, gives the following glad tidings to the believers: “Never is a believer stricken with a discomfort, an illness, an anxiety, a grief or mental worry or even the pricking of a thorn but God will expiate his sins on account of his patience.”

I would like to conclude with a favorite analogy of mine, which helps me to understand some events in this world that appear injustice to us. Those who fast in the month of Ramadan know well that fasting may be a little difficult for the first few days until the body adjusts to it. With some exaggeration, we may think of the feeling we have in the stomach as pain and suffering. Particularly, near the time to break fast it becomes more unbearable. Then we come to realize at the dinner table (as our taste buds fully agree) that even a piece of dry bread is much tastier than the splendid meals we had before Ramadan. The fasting person enjoys the food at the table so much so that he says “all that pain and suffering that I went through today was worth it. Not only can I truly enjoy the food at this table now, but I also have the joy of knowing God is pleased with me.” Similarly we human beings go through difficult times in life. This is nothing but a fast before we are granted with the table of bounties that our Generous God has prepared for us. When we come to know the rewards He prepared for us for being patient on earth with the difficulties of this life we will be overwhelmed and forget everything that happened. We will say “O God, I am so thankful for everything You have given me. Whatever suffering and pain that I endured on earth, it was all worth it. What I find here immeasurably surpasses my expectations and imagination!” Let us have faith in God’s Justice and Mercy which encompasses pre- and post eternity. Let us be aware that He is watching over us even when we are treated unfairly and at times when we cannot defend ourselves. The good news of the Qur’an regarding the rewards that our Lord has prepared for us should always fill our hearts and help us be patient:

And hasten, as if competing with one another, to forgiveness from your Lord, and to a Garden as spacious as the heavens and the earth, prepared for the God-revering, pious. (Al Imran 3:133)

Mesut Sahin is Assistant Professor of Biomedical Engineering at New Jersey Institute of Technology.

It is worth contemplating that humans are in need of microorganisms to survive and that living things as insignificant (!) as bacteria are necessary to synthesize B12 vitamin. Why our so-called bacteria ancestors (!) from which we evolved – as some claim – lost this ability to synthesize B12 vitamin which was, and still is, vital for survival, is a challenging question for those scientists who support the theory of evolution.

The journey of B₁₂ in our body

Cobalamin, which is taken in with food, is absorbed by the final section (ileum) of the small intestine and transported into the blood by receptors on the cell membrane. For B12 to be absorbed into the blood, it is necessary to have an “intrinsic factor” bound to this vitamin. The intrinsic factor is a glycoprotein produced in parietal cells that secrete gastric acid. After the absorption, the vitamin binds to transcobalamin, a carrier protein found in the blood, and it is then being bound with transcobalamin II so that it can penetrate the cells. B12 can be stored in the liver to meet the needs of our body for a long time. A deficiency in cobalamin due to a poor diet (e.g., vegetarians) or a failure to produce the intrinsic factor in the stomach may result in pernicious anemia, which is fatal. Cobalamin deficiency negatively affects DNA synthesis, which is necessary for production of new cells, particularly in the division of the stem cells that are assigned to construct new red blood cells. This is followed by the circulation of cells that will generate underdeveloped red blood cells; these cells will not be able to function properly and will have larger diameters.

The training of parietal cells

If the stomach is removed or cannot produce the intrinsic factor, it is impossible for B12 to be absorbed. It is worth reflecting on the wisdom of why an organ like the stomach, the main duty of which is to partially digest food and convey it to the intestines, synthesizes intrinsic factor. How can the stomach know that our body is in need of this protein? How did it become able to synthesize this very special composition of glucose and protein which is so necessary to absorb intrinsic factor through the gastrointestinal tract? Why doesn’t our body produce the vitamin in the first place, instead of binding it to such a complex molecule? And how do the parietal cells know what is necessary to bind this vitamin, the use of which they cannot understand, although they have never been trained in bio-chemistry, physiology, or pharmacology? In which laboratory did these cells synthesize and test this compound?

The intrinsic factor

In order to decompose proteins into amino acids, the stomach secretes hydrochloric acid and an enzyme called pepsinogen. Parietal cells that secrete acid also produce a protein (intrinsic factor) which is not damaged by the acid or the pepsinogen enzyme. How were these cells able to develop a synthesis in which proteins do not decompose, which can protect them from the acid in the stomach, and bind themselves to a vitamin like B12, which is absorbed only in very small quantities?

The hydrochloric acid secreted in the stomach is like bleach and it irritates anywhere that it goes other than the stomach. Should even the slightest quantity of this acid pass into esophagus (reflux, diaphragm boiling) it can cause severe burning. It is amazing that B12 is found and bound in a cauldron like the stomach, but is not damaged by the acid produced when the stomach is filled with food and drink.

The intrinsic factor bound with the vitamin goes on its journey and it reaches the absorption region in the last section of the small intestines. During absorption, the gates on the cell membrane of the intestines open up only to allow the B12 intrinsic factor compound. Maintained in the intestinal cell for a while, the B12 vitamin binds to the transporter transcobalamin and is conveyed to the cells through the blood. After reaching a cell, the vitamin, needed by the entire body, is bound to another transporter: transcobalamin II.

Some components, although they appear to be very simple, must be supplied from outside our bodies if we are to survive. B12 vitamin is one such component, and it certainly deserves to be studied well.

Dennis Wholey (1986) interviewed experts from the perspective of the pessimists; the conclusion was that perhaps only 20% of all Americans are happy. Father John Powell (1989) agrees: “One-third of all Americans wake up depressed every day. Professionals estimate also that only 10 to 15 percent of Americans think of themselves as truly happy and ‘Happiness is an imaginary condition, formerly attributed by the living to the dead, now usually attributed by adults to children and by children to adults.’” (Thomas Szasz 1987). On the other hand, there is a sharp contrast in the responses of optimists. For example, in Western Europe and North America in total 8 out of 10 people rate themselves as more satisfied than dissatisfied. Less than 1 in 10 rate themselves as more dissatisfied than satisfied. Likewise, some three-fourths of people say yes, they have felt excited, proud, or pleased at some point during the past few weeks, while no more than a third say they have felt lonely, bored, or depressed. Across languages, these self-reports seem to retain the same meaning.

“If you fell happy you are happy, that is all; although we define happiness as consisting of something deeper and more lasting than a momentary good mood, our working definition is simply whatever people mean when describing their lives as happy” (Freedman 1978). Happy people are less self-focused, less hostile or abusive, and less vulnerable to disease in comparison to depressed people. They are also more loving, forgiving, trusting, energetic, decisive, creative, sociable, reliable, helpful, and religious (Myers 1993; Veenhoven 1988).

Sources of happiness

1. Age and gender: Men more often act antisocial or have a tendency to alcoholism, while women more often think deeply and have a greater tendency for depression or anxiety, however, men and women are equally likely to declare themselves as “very happy” or “satisfied” with their lives. This conclusion is based on surveys of 170,000 adults in 16 countries (Inglehart 1990), on surveys of 18,000 university students in 39 countries (Michalos 1991), and on a meta-analysis of 146 other studies (Haring, Stock, & Okun 1984). The results are the same, irrespective of age, with age not being significantly related to the level of happiness a person might have.

2. Culture: Some cultures are favorable to an increased satisfaction with life, if not more positive emotions, in particular affluent cultures marked by political freedom (Diener 2000). Open cultures encourage more individual satisfaction, and therefore garner more happiness in comparison to closed cultures. But the relationship between culture and happiness is not well documented yet.

3. Genetics: Certain characteristics and temperaments also appear to predispose one to experience happiness. Some of these characteristics, for example extraversion, are known to be genetically influenced, which helps explain Lykken and Tellegen’s (1996) finding that about 50% of the variation in current happiness is inheritable. Like cholesterol levels, happiness is genetically influenced but not genetically fixed. Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi (1990, 1999) has observed an increased quality of life when work and leisure engage a person’s skills.

4. Wealth: Most people deny that money buys happiness, but a significant portion supports the idea that wealthy people are happy people. There may be some connection between wealth and well-being. People were asked how satisfied they were with 13 aspects of their lives, including friends, house, and schooling, and Americans expressed the least satisfaction with “the amount of money they have to live on” (Roper Organization, 1984). In particular the question “What would improve your quality of life?” most often received “the answer “More money” according to the University of Michigan national survey (Campbell, 1981, p. 41), and the more the better. In one Gallup Poll (Gallup & Newport, 1990), one in two women, two in three men, and four in five people earning more than $75,000 reported that they would like to be rich. Thus, the modern American dream seems to have become life, liberty, and the purchase of happiness.

The annual UCLA and American Council on Education surveyed nearly a quarter million students entering college; when asked why they were going to college the reason “to make more money” was listed as a “very important” reason “”for one in two in 1971, rising to three in four in 1998 (Astin, Green, & Korn 1987; Sax, Astin, Korn, & Mahoney 1998). The proportion who consider it “very important or essential” that they become “very well off financially” rose from 39% in 1970 to 74% in 1998. As Diener (2000) reports, there is some tendency for wealthy nations to have more satisfied people.

In poor countries, such as India, where low incomes prevent the ability to satisfy basic human needs, being relatively well off does predict greater well-being (Argyle 1999). Psychologically as well as materially, it is better to be high caste than low. However, in affluent countries, where most can afford the necessities of life, affluence matters surprisingly little. In the United States, Canada, and Europe, the correlation between income and personal happiness, “is surprisingly weak (indeed, virtually negligible)” Ronald Inglehart (1990). Happiness tends to be lower among the very poor. Once a person is comfortably off money begins to provide diminishing returns on happiness. All these findings support the idea that wealth or richness may help with being happy in some sense but it is not enough on its own.

5. Friends: People report happier feelings when with others (Pavot, Diener, & Fujita 1990). When asked by the National Opinion Research Center, “How many close friends would you say you have?” (excluding family members), 26% of those reporting fewer than five friends and 38% of those reporting five or more friends said they were “very happy.

6. Marriage: Most people are happier when in a relationship than when not. Repeated surveys in Europe and North America have produced a consistent result: Compared with those who never marry, and in particular compared with those who have been separated or divorced, married people report that they are happier and more satisfied with life. For example, among the 35,024 Americans surveyed by the National Opinion Research Center between 1972 and 1996, 40% of married adults declared themselves to be very happy. Happy people are more appealing marriage partners, because they are more good-natured, more outgoing, and more focused on others (Veenhoven 1988), and therefore they are generally socially attractive. Unhappy people are more often socially rejected; at the same time, positive, happy people more readily form happy relationships.

7. Faith: An active religiosity is associated with several mental health criteria. First, actively religious people are much less likely than irreligious people to get into trouble with the law, to abuse drugs or alcohol, to divorce, or to commit suicide (Batson, Schoenrade, & Ventis 1993; Colasanto & Shriver 1989). Religiously active people even tend to be physically healthier and to live longer (Koenig 1997; Matthews & Larson 1997). For example, compared with religiously inactive widows, recently widowed women who worship regularly reported more joy in their lives. (Harvey, Barnes, & Greenwood 1987; McGloshen & O’Bryant 1988; Siegel & Kuykendall 1990). Among mothers of developmentally challenged children, those with a deep religious faith are less vulnerable to depression (Friedrich, Cohen, & Wilturner 1988). People of faith also tend to retain or recover greater happiness after suffering divorce, unemployment, serious illness, or bereavement (Ellison 1991; McIntosh, Silver, & Wortman 1993). For people later in life the two best predictors of life satisfaction are health and religiousness (Okun & Stock 1987).

Religiously active people also report somewhat higher levels of happiness (Inglehart 1990). The highest scores on a spiritual commitment scale (by agreeing, e. g., that “My religious faith is the most important influence in my life”) were twice as likely to declare themselves as “very happy” as those who were low in spiritual commitment. The National Opinion Research Center surveys reveal higher levels of “very happy” people among those who feel “extremely close to God” (41%) rather than “somewhat close” (29%) or not close or unbelieving (23%). Self-rated spirituality and happiness may be both socially desirable responses (US Gallup Organization survey, 1984).

Seeking to explain these associations between faith and happiness, researchers have considered several possibilities. A partial explanation seems to be that faith communities provide social support (Ellison, Gay, & Glass 1989). Religion is usually practiced communally, involving “the fellowship of kindred spirits,” “the bearing of one another’s burdens,” “the ties of love that bind.” This was the vision of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, who declared, “We must delight in each other, make others’ conditions our own, celebrate together, mourn together, labor and suffer together, always having before our eyes our community as members of the same body.”

Another possible explanation for the faith and happiness correlation is the sense of meaning and purpose that many people derive from their faith. Seligman (1988) has contended that a loss of meaning feeds today’s high depression rate, and that finding meaning requires an attachment to something larger than the lonely self. For Rabbi Harold Kushner (1987), religion satisfies “the most fundamental human need of all. That is the need to know that somehow we matter, that our lives mean something, count as something more than just a momentary blip in the universe. Said Nursi, a leading Muslim scholar of the twentieth century, asserts that true happiness can only be achieved through establishing and strengthening our connection with God. Through the intellect and imagination, the human being is a unique creature who is concerned with every part of creation. Human happiness encompasses not only individual happiness, but also the happiness of our beloved ones, our neighbors and relatives, our fellow countrymen and even the people of the Earth. This can be extended to animals and plants as well. Again through the intellect, our desires and fears are endless. God is the only one capable of answering all of our prayers, satisfying all of our needs, granting all of our desires and protecting us from all our fears. Only in submission to such a Lord can a human heart find satisfaction. A Qur’anic verse indicates the same principle: “It is in the remembrance of and whole-hearted devotion to God that hearts find rest and contentment” (Rad 13:28).

Many religious worldviews not only propose answers to some of life’s deepest questions, they also encourage hope when confronting what Sheldon Solomon, Jeffery Greenberg, and Tom Pyszczynski (1991) call “the terror that results from our awareness of vulnerability and death.” Religion offers a hope that in the end, the very end, “all shall be well, and all shall be well, all manner of things shall be well” (Julian of Norwich, 1373/1901). In Islamic faith, death is not an end, but rather a door to a new life. Just as the death of a seed leads to the life of a plant, the death of a human leads to an eternal life (Nursi, 10^th Word).

Conclusion

Happiness is an expression of a mood which has many meanings for different interest groups. For example, optimists may find different ways in their life to be happy and they are usually happy. Pessimists have more reasons in life to be unhappy. There are many factors that may influence happiness. These are age and gender, culture, genetics, wealth, friends, marriage and faith. Age, gender, and income give little clue to someone’s happiness. Having a supportive network of close relationships and having a faith that encompasses social support, purpose, and hope have the strongest correlation with feelings of happiness. Therefore, faith is significant source of happiness that an individual must pay attention to. All belief systems support being optimistic, having friends, and finding the right path if one follows certain rules. These rules are universal virtues that anyone can obtain, such as honesty, being helpful, love, hard work, patience, forgiveness, submission, and etc. All these embrace and furnish the people’s life, providing infinite happiness for human beings. And as Said Nursi stresses that true happiness can only be achieved through establishing and strengthening our connection with God, and by remembering that it is He Who always satisfies our all needs.

Salih Uslu is an academician and freelance writer. He lives in Boston and teaches at local universities. He can be reached at saluslu@gmail.com.

References

1. Argyle, M. (1986). The psychology of happiness. London: Methuen.

2. Astin, A. W., Green, K. C. & Korn, W. S. (1987). The American freshman: Twenty year trends. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, Graduate School of Education, University of California, Los Angeles.

3. Batson, C. D., Schoenrade, P. A. & Ventis, W. L. (1993). Religion and the individual: A social psychological perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

4. Campbell, A. (1981). The sense of well-being in America. New York: McGraw-Hill.

5. Colasanto, D. & Shriver, J. (1989, May). Mirror of America: Middle-aged face marital crisis. Gallup Report, No. 284, 34-38.

6. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.

7. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). If we are so rich, why aren’t we happy? American Psychologist, 54, 821-827.

8. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a

9. Ellison, C. G. (1991). Religious involvement and subjective well-being. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 32, 80-99.

10. Ellison, C. G., Gay, D. A. & Glass, T. A. (1989). Does religious commitment contribute to individual life satisfaction? Social Forces, 68, 100-123.

11. Freedman, J. (1978). Happy people. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

37. Friedrich, W. N., Cohen, D. S. & Wilturner, L. T. (1988). Specific beliefs as moderator variables in maternal coping with mental retardation. Children’s Health Care, 17, 40-44.

12. Gallup, G. G. (1984,March). Commentary on the state of religion in the U. S. today. Religion in America: The Gallup Report, 222

13. Gallup, G. G. & Newport, F. (1990,July). Americans widely disagree on what constitutes rich. Gallup Poll Monthly, 28-36.

14. Haring, M. J., Stock, W. A. & Okun, M. A. (1984). A research synthesis of gender and social class as correlates of subjective well-being. Human Relations, 37, 645-657.

15. Hart, A. (1988). 15 principles for achieving happiness. Dallas, TX: Word.

16. Harvey, C. D., Barnes, G. E. & Greenwood, L. (1987). Correlates of morale among Canadian widowed persons. Social Psychiatry, 22, 65-72.

17. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shift in advanced industrial society. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

18. Koenig, H. G. (1997). Is religion good for your health? The effects of religion on physical and mental health. Binghamton, NY: Haworth Press.

19. Kushner, H. (1987,December). You’ve got to believe in something. Redbook, 92-94.

20. Lykken, D. & Tellegan, A. (1996). Happiness is a stochastic phenomenon. Psychological Science, 7, 186-189.

21. Matthews, D. A. & Larson, D. B. (1997). The faith factor: An annotated bibliography of clinical research on spiritual subjects(Vols. I-IV). Rockville, MD: National Institute for Healthcare Research and Georgetown University Press.

22. McGloshen, T. H. & O’Bryant, S. L. (1988). The psychological well-being of older, recent widows. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 99-116.

23. McIntosh, D. N., Silver, R. C. & Wortman, C. B. (1993). Religion’s role in adjustment to a negative life event: Coping with the loss of a child. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 812-821.

24. Michalos, A. (1991). Global report on student well-being: Life satisfaction and happiness. Vol. 1. New York: Springer-Verlag.

68. Myers, D. G. (1993). The pursuit of happiness. New York: Avon.

25. Okun, M. A. & Stock, W. A. (1987). Correlates and components of subjective well-being among the elderly. Journal of Applied Gerontology, 6, 95-112.

26. Pavot, W., Diener, E. & Fujita, F. (1990). Extraversion and happiness. Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 1299-1306.

27. Powell, J. (1989). Happiness is an inside job. Valencia, CA: Tabor.

84. Roper Organization. (1984,August/September). Public Opinion, 25[Untitled survey].

28. Russell, B. (1985). The conquest of happiness. London: Unwin. (Original work published 1930)

29. Sax, L. J., Astin, A. W., Korn, W. S. & Mahoney, K. M. (1998). The American freshman: National norms for fall 1998. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, University of California, Los Angeles.

30. Seligman, M. E. P. (1988,October). Boomer blues. Psychology Today, 50-55.

31. Siegel, J. M. & Kuykendall, D. H. (1990). Loss, widowhood, and psychological distress among the elderly. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 58, 519-524.

32. Veenhoven, R. (1988). The utility of happiness. Social Indicators Research, 20, 333-354.

33. Wholey, D. (1986). Are you happy? Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

34. Winokur, J. (1987). The portable curmudgeon. New York: New American Library.

]]>