Roots and Belonging to the Cosmos

The remake of Roots was recently shown on the History Channel as well as other channels like Lifetime Network, and LMN. It is a faction (i.e. based on fiction and facts) written by the author Alex Haley concerning his possible ancestor Kunta Kinte and following Kunta's lineage up through his offspring freedom after the Civil War. From science I come to the conclusion that I belong here on this planet from my understanding of evolution of the universe and my species by Natural Selection: all the events (probably by chance) from the big bang to the first hydrogen atom to fusion of hydrogen atoms into stars and planets to the first eukaryotic cells; the natural selection or environmental filtration of every ancestor from the first replicating DNA to my parents (again possibly by chance), to the probable end by heat death when the universe reach maximum entropy through the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. I think there is probably no point to any of it, and so it is what it is and one shouldn't take any of it too seriously. Nevertheless, I belong or go with the Cosmos for I come out of it like Alan Watts puts it "What am I" "we come out the universe like an apple come out of an apple tree". For what it's worth, it's mine and I will make the most it. John D. Socrates a.k.a. The Skeptical African.

Safe Spaces

What is or how do we define the word "belong"? Belong is defined as to be in the relation of a member, adherent, inhabitant, etc. It also means to have the proper qualifications, especially the social qualifications to be a member of a group (dictionary.com). Etymologically it means "to go along with, properly relate to". I think through evolution by natural selection we were hard-wired with the need to belong. Our species lived in small groups and communities in which they cooperated and worked together in order to survive and pass-on their genes. We are a social species and being an outcast was detrimental to survival. For example, on the African plains if someone in the group was forced out they were an easy meal for predators, it probably wasn't uncommon to see the remains of an outcast shortly after their removal, and so the need to belong was reinforced. We want to fit in and be part of a group. As a result, when African Americans, Latinos, Native Americans, LGTBQ people ask for a safe space they are innately saying I don't feel like I belong here by their fellow students and the institution's actions, policies, and refusal to acknowledge that they do belong. To give you an analogy, imagine a Germany public university putting up statues of Adolf Hitler or buildings named after Nazi war generals, or Nazi war heroes statues after World War II. Yet there are public institutions especially in the South who do such things praising the Confederate State of America's (CSA) treason against the United States of America; for example, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill have a statue dedicated to Confederate State of America soldier (i.e. Silent Sam), until recently they had a building named after a former North Carolina leader of the Ku Klux Klan William Saunders, it was Saunders Hall (built in 1922) and 93 years later they changed the name to Carolina Hall. Why did it take protest for the university to change the name? Moreover, you have so-called groups like Students for Fair Admissions or Project on Fair Representation trying to use so-called model minority group (i.e. Asians) as a front for suing Harvard, UNC - Chapel Hill possibly other PWI's (predominantly white institutions) and the Abgail Fisher and Edward Blum of the world who feel black, brown, or non-white students are not qualified to be admitted to PWI universities; they are indirectly and directly saying to so-called minorities you don't belong here and you wonder why they are asking for a safe space. In other words, so-called minorities groups are saying dear fellow students and institution I want to "belong" but your actions say that I don't, for if it did then I wouldn't have to protest. It's just like people saying Black Lives Matter, if they did they wouldn't have to say so. Think about it...

Embrace The Absurd

Like Victor Frankl Man's Search for Meaning, "Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.", in other words, many feel that they can live with limited expectations, but they can't live without hope. What is hope? Hope is defined as to look forward to with desire and reasonable confidence, it's also a feeling of desire for something and confidence in the possibility of its fulfillment. I am not trying to be a Debbie Downer, but is hope all that? Henry Miller in a book titled The Cosmological Eye, wrote "Hope is a bad thing. It means that you are not what you want to be. It means that part of you is dead, if not all of you. It means that you entertain illusions." Friedrich Nietzsche in Human All too Human wrote "Hope is the worst of evils, for it prolongs the torment of men". How can we live without hope? We should embrace the madness as "it is what it is" this doesn't mean we become apathetic, indifferent, or passive, but engaged without expectation or hope of anything beyond this. This life may be lived without expectation or hope, because life has never promised us anything. Like being good for goodness sake, or to love truth for truth's sake, we should live life for life's sake. I think this means to survive, pass on our genes (if we're able or choose to), and participate or embrace the absurdity of life for life doesn't have any known destinations it's evolving toward. If scientific predictions are true (which they probably are), then the universe and thereby life will end in heat death. I think we may brush our teeth, exercise, take care of our health, etc. not to escape the absurd but to embrace it, this is our revolt, passion, and freedom. Like The Walking Dead we are all infected and no one will escape, yet they fight to survive for as Strand tells Nick in Fear the Walking Dead, “The only way to survive a mad world is to embrace the madness,” in other words, to make it your own. We may stop living like we got something to prove to ourselves and others, we can stop pretending to be someone we are not because it doesn’t matter and we should embrace this as it is, not escape it with the illusion of hope. As Meursault proclaimed in the Stranger “And I felt ready to live it all again too. As if that blind rage had washed me clean, rid me of hope; for the first time, in that night alive with signs and stars, I opened myself to the gentle indifference of the world. Finding it so much like myself-so like a brother, really-I felt that I had been happy and that I was happy again." I think we should embrace the absurd don't try to escape it through hope or as Camus states it is "to live without appeal", in other words, stop looking over your shoulder for there is no one there who cares.

Why We Need Science

Recently, I had several thoughts ranging from agnosticism to The Walking Dead and the role of science. The conclusion of the many thoughts was that besides luck, my species or descendant species best hope for continuation is the advancement and implementation of science and the creation of technologies that results from the advancement of science . Philosophy and religion got us to science in that they both started with wonder, for example, the questions of why are we here; why is there something rather than nothing, etc., were and still are important questions. Most Religions, especially Judeo-Christian based religions, stopped with a supernatural explanation or agent and didn't advanced from there, they hoped to somehow manipulate the supernatural agent, while Philosophy continued to become what is called Natural philosophy the precursor to science. I don’t think philosophy is dead, I think it has a role in science from asking pertinent questions to guiding the ethics around the result of scientific inquiry. The questions philosophy ask should lead to new avenues and falsifiable theories or explanations that describe who, what, when, where, why, and how of the empirical evidence and phenomena that science is trying to describe or observe. Religion at least in Western societies are stuck on a Judeo-Christian paradigm or model that is no longer relevant for the advancement of my species and its future species. In other words, the Judeo-Christian (and Islamic) model stopped at the supernatural explanation i.e. god did it model and has not advanced, this means it has only put forward a mystery to describe another mystery and this explains nothing. I am agnostic why we’re here and whether the universe has a meaning or point that is objective, this is unknowable or if it’s just a brute fact, it is what it is, and there is no objective meaning only subjective meaning, again this is unknowable without additional data. This line of thinking lead me into thinking about why do we as a species study nature in order to understand how the universe work unless there is a hope that we’re able to find a solution to the eventual heat death of the universe, whether it culminates in the Big Chill or the Big Rip, because of a repulsive force called Dark Energy, the place holder name for an unknown force that science doesn’t know what it is, it is the cosmological constant in Albert Einstein’s theory of Relativity. The better we understand the universe there is hope that we can use this knowledge to our advantage to perpetuate our survival as a species or whatever we evolve into. For example, when Sir Isaac Newton gave us a better understanding of gravity, we used that knowledge to develop technologies to overcome the force of gravity to the point that we used his laws to land on the moon, and still use them to land objects on Mars, and other space missions. Likewise, we hope that a better understanding through the scientific methods would lead to knowledge and this knowledge would lead to technologies that will help our descendants whether they’re an entirely different species overcome the heat death of the universe. For example, science with its track record so far for the betterment of life on our planet has done this, i.e. the advancement of science has developed genetically modified food to feed more people, it has developed pharmaceutical advancements to cure and treat biologically based disease and so science has and continue to get the job done, not religion. If our species or a descendant species of ours is going to survive science is our best hope with the guidance of ethics and other areas of philosophical ideas, not religion, for when you stop with a supernatural explanation that explains everything else, without the same time being explained, you explain nothing for you have not further our knowledge. Especially, if you don’t know if this supernatural entity is doing anything without some type of empirically based or falsifiable evidence. We don’t know if someone goes into remission if it is luck or a miracle, thus until direct evidence of a supernatural effect is known it does not add to our knowledge. With this thought I thought about the hit series The Walking Dead and why do they fight on even though everyone is infected, I think it is the evolutionary instinct that want to perpetuate itself in the gene, for life, consciousness, awareness, and existence itself is what Arthur Schopenhauer called the “will to Live”. It is this instinct that evolved in every living cell, when the first replicating molecule adapted to its environment and became alive and aware or conscious, this desire to survive that drive the survivors in The Walking Dead and (in each of us) to live with, within, and beyond their circumstances and my argument is if they are going to survive it will take science to figure out the cause and effect and the solution through some form of technology to a problem that is or will turn them into zombies, in other words, they currently don’t have an answer, but if they stop with a supernatural answer that cannot explain itself in a coherent way or advance a solution to create an immunization protocol then they are all destined to become zombies and this is no answer at all. Think about it....

The Way of a Skeptical African

“What is a Skeptic? The Oxford English Dictionary gives this historical usage of the word Skeptic: "One who doubts the validity of what claims to be knowledge in some particular department of inquiry; one who maintains a doubting attitude with reference to some particular question or statement." And: "A seeker after truth; an inquirer who has not yet arrived at definite convictions." “Skepticism is not "seek and ye shall find," but "seek and keep an open mind." But what does it mean to have an open mind? It is to find the essential balance between orthodoxy and heresy, between a total commitment to the status quo and the blind pursuit of new ideas, between being open-minded enough to accept radical new ideas and so open-minded that your brains fall out. Skepticism is about finding that balance. Here is a definition of skepticism: Skepticism is the rigorous application of science and reason to test the validity of any and all claims. Skeptics question the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. In other words, skeptics are from Missouri -- the "Show Me" state. When we skeptics hear a fantastic claim, we say, "That's interesting, show me the evidence for it."” Michael Shermer, PhD’s Huff Post 2/01/2013 article titled: What is Skepticism, Anyway? What is truth? Truth is defined as something that is demonstrable or proven. I call my way of living “the way of a Skeptical African” because I am a skeptic and I am an African. I believe I should question the validity of a particular claim by calling for evidence to prove or disprove it. I am an African because Africa is my species place of origin. Nevertheless, what I am above all things is someone who seeks truth (i.e. a skeptic) and how or “a way” to apply this truth.

Keep Creationism Out of the Classroom (Teach the Controversy? What Controversy?)

In 1925 the issue of evolution versus creationism (i.e. Intelligent Design) in the classroom began in the United States with the John T. Scopes trial in Tennessee. John T. Scopes, an unknown biology teacher tried to introduce the theory of evolution to his Dayton, Tennessee classroom. The laws of the Scopes trial era simply made the teaching of evolution illegal, but after effectively muzzling scientific opinion for forty years the Supreme Court finally struck down this strategy in 1967. (Scope) Evolution is a theory first proposed by Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, according to which life has evolved from simpler forms, which have survived changing conditions by adapting through natural selection. Natural selection works like this: Since life is hard, not all animals survive. Creatures that were a little faster or a little smarter lived longer and made more babies, so their genes became over-represented in the next generation. After a few billion years, little changes add up to big ones. This is quite a simple idea, yet extremely powerful in its explanatory and predictive power. Thus, according to evolution, as with all species, human beings have evolved from simpler forms, in our case, from more primitive primates. (Evolution) Since the Supreme Court decision there have been a well-organized movement by opponents to evolution to have an alternative theory taught called creationism which ironically has evolved into Intelligent Design. Creationism or Creation Science comes in different versions but in general it is the view that the universe, life, or humanity, or any combination of these, was created by some being or beings. (Creationism) One of this movement successes was when the Kansas Board of Education by a six to four vote on August 10th, 1999 decided to delete any mention of evolution from the state’s recommended science curriculum and its standardized tests. I thought the issue was dead after the decision of the Board was overturned in 2001. Ironically, this issue has now resurfaced in Texas Panel for Biology Textbooks. The situation with regard to evolution versus creationism in this Texas Panel portrays a classic conflict between religion and science. Therefore we are left to explore the questions; 1) what is science, 2) what is meant by theory and are both creationism and evolution a scientific theory and 3) should the two propositions be taught in the classroom? What is science? Science comes from the Latin scientia which, means knowledge. This knowledge is organized with reference to the physical world, both living and non-living, however an appropriate explanation would also have to include the method and theories through which this organization of knowledge is formed. (Science) Thus, the scientific method and its theories normally define science or scientific knowledge. The scientific method as Irving M. Copi article in which Sherlock Holmes is used as a case study, The Detective as Science, indicates it is a combination of three philosophies; rationalism, empiricism, and skepticism, which means it does not based itself on one of these ideas single-handedly. (Burr and Goldinger 502-510) Rationalism is the belief that all knowledge is derived from innate ideas or reason, which also has its basis in a criterion of certainty or a matter of fact. The Rationalist view is brought out by Rene Decartes’ Meditations I and II. He reaches the conclusion of certainty, because he is aware of his doubt, since he knows he is doubting even his doubts, this implies the innate idea that he is cognizant of something and therefore is a thinking being. (Burr and Goldinger 483-492) The opposite of Rationalism is Empiricism, which is the doctrine, that all knowledge is derived from sense experience. Friedrich Paulsen argues that our reason or innate ideas alone cannot reveal what does or doesn’t exist. Paulsen uses two types of sciences to illustrate his point (conceptual science, which includes mathematics and objective science, which includes physics) that rationalism alone cannot answer certainty or matter of fact. Paulsen concludes that absolute knowledge seems impossible, however we can have knowledge if we relinquish rationalism demand that knowledge be certain or absolute. (Burr and Goldinger 493-496) Skepticism believes that the possibility of knowledge or truth is limited either because of the restraint of the mind or because of the diffidence of its object. David Hume in describing his view of skepticism coins his version as migrated skepticism in which the search for knowledge should be within the limits of our understanding and common sense. He argues that if we follow Pyrrhonism or excessively doubting every innate idea or sense experience, we lose the incentive to seek knowledge and the motivation to continue to live. (Burr and Goldinger 497-501) Therefore, science is the knowledge acquired by the scientific method, which involves the innate idea or recognition of a problem (rationalism), the collection of information through examination and testing (empiricism), and the formulation and examination of hypotheses (through mitigated skepticism). Since I defined science as being defined by scientific method and theory. This leads us into asking what is a theory? Theory in science, are sets of propositions put forward to explain facts or observations. They could come to be widely known to be true and thereby become facts (or sets of facts). One example of that is the heliocentric or sun-centered theory of our solar system. Though not initially known to be true, several centuries ago it became a set of facts. A theory cannot be in conflict with independent observations from other areas of science. (Science) Theories typically undergo decades of rigorous experimentation. Therefore, the main standard used to define a theory is: (1) experimentation (i.e., test procedures that appeal to interpersonal observations) and (2) compatible with natural law (i.e., conforming to the known laws of nature). Scientific theories satisfy these two standards, whereas unscientific ones do not. (Science) If a theory is unscientific, it is because it is not part of an experimental pursuit of knowledge but something else, perhaps a system of thought based on revelation or authority, or something derived only from personal experiences or imagination rather than interpersonal observations. As a result, calling a scientific explanation a theory expresses the highest confidence that it is a correct explanation of a set of facts and laws. Moreover, I have defined science as organized knowledge composed of methods and theories, and I have defined the scientific method and theory. This leads to the question; are Creationism and Evolution scientific theories? According to Duane Gish’s article, The Nature of Science and of Theories on Origins, neither evolution nor creationism is a scientific theory, they are inferences based on circumstantial evidence. He concludes that since both are concerning events that allegedly happened in the past and that since they can’t be observed or proven false then neither are scientific theories. He also argues that they are religious, because both involve a philosophical view of the world, he believes that creationism view is theistic and evolution is atheistic. He adds that since they are trying to give an explanation to our origins, they are science, and that both should be taught in the classroom. (Burr and Goldinger 515 - 519) A. David Kline disagrees with Gish, by saying that Gish and other Creationist are using prescientific definitions for the word “theory”. He also states that evolution is a fact, in which the theory of natural selection is the best scientific explanation that describes its process. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Moreover, evolution does not conflict with other areas of science; it is observation of facts in the fields of comparative anatomy, embryology, geographical distribution, and paleontology. (Evolution) In other words, evolution is an observable process, a fact of life. It refers to changes in gene frequencies between generations of animals or plants. It occurs every day and has been demonstrated in many species, for instance in the rapid evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, or the evolution of resistance to DDT in mosquitoes. (Baumgartner) Also, it comes from decades of rigorous experimentation and observation, before it became a theory. It also meets the requirement of natural phenomenon, because it uses the laws of nature in its theory. However, the theory of creation works in the exact opposite way. With creationism, the theory came first and, thousands of years later, the search for facts to support the theory began. As stated by Kline, the creationist theory fails to meet scientific require of natural phenomena, because it requires a supernatural creator. He also adds that if creationists want science to accept it as a theory, they must be willing to say that the Creator is a natural phenomenon like Darwin’s Natural Selection. (Burr and Goldinger 520-527) Therefore, evolution is a scientific theory because it meets the standards of experimentation, also it extracts its data from observable scientific facts; its consistent with other areas of science and it uses natural phenomena to explain its hypothesis. Whereas, creationism is not a scientific theory, because it must use a supernatural phenomenon to explain a natural one and since you can’t observe the creator or creators, it’s unobservable. Creationism is not a scientific theory, but a faith-based one. Faith is rooted in revelation, not observation, whereas, science is root in observation and experimentation. It is obvious that evolution is a scientific theory one is left to ask why does Darwin's idea cause such alarm among some people? There are many other scientific theories which to call merely “theories”, however you don’t see creationist asking for atomic theory to be stricken from physics and chemistry books, nor do they suggest that gravity is "only a theory" and thus advocate stepping out of skyscraper windows. The reason is that creationists would like divine creation presented in biology class as a valid scientific theory is because if Darwin was right, then they know very well that the biblical creation story of Genesis had to be wrong.  And if the Creation story was wrong, then other things in the Bible might be wrong, as well.  This isn’t about true science, if one visit Duane Gish’s organization website, Institute for Creation, it is a “Christ focused creation ministry”, its not a science focused creation ministry, and thus one question their motives. (Institute) As Ernest Nagel and Morrison Cohen concluded faith is based on person choice and divides men, whereas, science unites and is the measuring rods for what we consider civilization. (Burr and Goldinger 511-514) Furthermore, I must ask the question of the two propositions, which of the two have contributed to science or scientific study? When the Church was in power, what was the scientific technology that was brought forth? As I mentioned before, creationism has been believed in for thousands of years, and has not did anything to encourage scientific inquiry. As Bertrand Russell, Why I am not a Christian, argues the Christian religion has opposed every step of progress made by science and technology. (Burr and Goldinger 146-157) In fact the belief in creationism suppressed science in those 15 centuries the church was in power. While in the 153 years since the theory evolution has been postulated, we have an incentive and thereby an explosion in scientific knowledge and experiments. I value science and technology as a tool that could enhance my life. I don’t know what I would do if I did have the conveniences, in which science has produced, like electricity, the automobile, computers, and etc. I am not a scientist, however, I based my personal judgement on whether something has solved problems such as the elimination of polio or small pox, and other things of importance like genetic research. Thus, comparing what evolution and creationism has contributed to science, there is no doubt that the theory of evolution has contributed more to the understanding of mankind and his environment in an 143 years compared to the thousand of years of the belief in creationism. Why do students need to learn evolution, even if it offends some people? The reason is because evolution is the organizing principle or explanation, which composes our knowledge of the biological sciences. Without a clear and unbiased understanding of the unifying theory of life, it is very difficult for students to make sense of biological science. (Baumgartner) Furthermore, to answer this question, we need to go to the polls. A 1997 Gallup Poll posed the following alternatives to Americans and asked which most closely represents their belief:  1. Humans developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process; 2. Humans developed over millions of years, but God had no part in the process; or 3. God created humans in their present form at some time within the last 10,000 years. Forty-nine percent of Americans agreed with either option 1 or 2 (that is, that humans developed over millions of years, with or without God’s help).  Amazingly, forty-four percent chose option #3 (that is, God created that human in pretty much our present form at some time within the last 10,000 years).  (Seven percent had no opinion.)  So, in other words, it appears that Americans are almost exactly evenly divided between those who believe that humans developed over millions of years, as scientists say we did, and those who believe that God created humans pretty much in our present form less than 10,000 years ago, as suggested by a literal interpretation of the Bible. (Chang) Furthermore, this will give parents and children reason to communicate with one another. If my children had a question about their faith and science, whom would I want to give this explanation, a teacher or myself? It is critically important for the future of this country that our schools produce a well-educated, scientifically literate society. I’m afraid; our scientific illiteracy shows only too plainly.  So, with the majority of the organized scientific community supporting evolution and minority of the organized scientific community supporting creationism why in the world should creationism get equal billing with evolution in our schools? Under our Constitution, one religion cannot be promoted over another in school. If creationism were taught, whose version of creation would they use? Many creationists like Gish believe that their version of creation is the only explanation for the existence of life. I guess he has never read Plotinus, whom idea of creation is more of an emanation or overflowing substance flowing from a single entity, which he called the One. (Plotinus) This goes more in line with our idea of the big bang cosmology. That the universe from a single highly condense energy source as small as dime, expanded, then cool, and the various lepton and quarks that existed created the nucleus of an atom and now we have a universe. (Cosmology) Maybe he failed to read Lao Tzu’s Chinese explanation for creation the that the Tao gave birth to One, the One to two, the two to three, and three to the ten thousand things. (Tao Deh Ching 42) Since the US is an amalgamation of various cultures, how then can creationist offer a unified theory that does not violate the US Constitution? To this date, they have not presented a unified theory like the theory of evolution because creationism is based on belief, not interpersonal observation. For those who believe in creationism, go right ahead, this is a free country (I guess).  Therefore, our educational system should be secular, because any other alternative would violate an individual’s constitutional right. As a result, creationism should be taught in Sunday school and in church, where it belongs, but not in our nation’s public classrooms. Plus how can you teach a controversy that does not exist? Evolution is science, and Intelligent Design isn't; end of discussion. Cited works: Baumgartner, Mark “Darwin Takes a Drubbing” ABCnews.com April 18, 2002 Website: < http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/evolution980617.html> Burr, John R. and Goldinger, Milton. Philosophy and Contemporary Issues. Eight Edition New Jersey: Prentice Hall 2000 Chang, Kenneth, “ Evolutionary Belief ”, ABCnews.com April 11, 2002 Website: McKie, Robin “Bishop warns Blair over danger of Creationism”, The Observer Website: “ Cosmology ” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 “Creationism” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 “Evolution” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 “Science” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 “Evolution” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 “Plotinus”, The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2001 December 29 “Scope Trial” The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001 Tao Deh Ching. Lao Tzu, translated by John C. H. Wu, New York, St. John’s University Press, 1961 Institute for Creation Research. Website:

Skeptical Freethinker

As a skeptic, I feel to agree or disagree you have to use the Socratic Method and Scientific method, you have to define what you mean, so you can find fallacies and hopefully correct your thinking and find truth, I am seeking truth, which is defined as something that is demonstrable or proven. Therefore, I must define what do I mean by god, according to dictionary.com, god is "A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." God as defined by Oxford English Dictionary (the definitive record of the English language) is the one object of supreme adoration; the Creator and Ruler of the Universe. Also according to dictionary.com and Oxford Dictionary : An atheist is defined as one who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God. However, Charles Bradlaugh wrote in an essay titled A Plea for Atheism: “The best policy against all prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say "There is no God," but he says: "I know not what you mean by God; I am without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that of which I have no conception, and the conception of which by its affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, however, 'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence of which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is impossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and deny that there can be more than one." An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. Pantheist belief that God and the universe are identical. A freethinker is one who has rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. In studying the above definitions, I am a skeptical freethinker and by default an infidel. If Charles Bradlaugh’s definition is true, then I am an atheist too, for I cannot deny something I am unable to conceive, for as Albert Simmons, a 19th century rationalist, stated “We cannot say anything of the supreme cause as a deity or a god, for to conceive the idea would involve a conception of the inconceivable, and every conception involves relation, likeness and differences, whatever does not present each of these is unknowable.”I cannot call myself a permanent agnostic in principle (perhaps a temporary agnostic) because we are still trying to understand how the universe emerged. I cannot say we will never know which the definition alludes to, this why we have science and are trying to find the answers. I am not a pantheist as defined because although there is proof for the universe, I am unsure what the word god means and I cannot say that god and the universe are the same. I am a skeptic because I doubt and am critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds. I am a freethinker because I have rejected authority and dogma, especially in religious thinking, in favor of rational inquiry and speculation. I think the best summary of my freethinking skepticism was offered by the famous African-American Intellectual, co-founder of NAACP, Pan - Africanist Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois reply to a priest in 1948, in which the priest asked Dr. Du Bois if he believed in God, which Dr. Du Bois replied "If by belief in 'God', you mean a belief in a person of vast power who consciously rules the universe for the good of mankind, I answer 'No'. I cannot disprove this assumption, but I certainly see no proof to sustain such a belief, neither in History nor in my personal experience. If on the other hand you mean by 'God' a vague Force which in some uncomprehensible way, dominates all life and change, then I answer 'Yes'; I recognize such Force, and if you wish to call it 'God', I do not object"... neither will I. I also agree with Dr. Du Bois assessment when he stated “There is no religion which I know of whose dogma and creed is one in which I wholly believe. I do not believe in the existence and rulership of the one God of the Jews. I do not believe in the miraculous birth and the miracle of the Christ of the Christians; I do not believe in the tenets of Mohammedanism (Islam) and Buddhism; frankly I do not believe in the Guardian of the Baha'i' faith has any supernatural knowledge of what may happen, or is any more than a fine, conscientious, and hard-working leader of men.” Nevertheless, what I am above all things is someone who seeks truth (something that is demonstrable or proven) and how to apply this truth to my ephemeral existence. Sources: god. (n.d.). The American Heritage® Dictionary of Idioms by Christine Ammer. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god atheist. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist agnostic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic infidel. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/infidel skeptic. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic freethinker. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved September 19, 2013, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/freethinker http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_bradlaugh/plea_for_atheism.html