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

A review of the Bothersome Man

This is a review of a movie titled: The Bothersome Man. The movie begins with the main character, Andreas,waiting for a subway at a subway station with another couple, a woman and man are aggressively kissing, like get a room type of kissing, but it was passionless it was like they were just going through the motions for their eyes are open and they looked like their minds are elsewhere, Andreas commits suicide by jumping in front of a subway and some time later wakes up with a beard oblivious to where he is on a bus where he meets a man, the greeter, who was waiting at a gas station in the middle of nowhere. The man drives him to a city tells him he'll "get use to it", he is told he has a job as an accountant downtown and would begin to work the next day. He goes to work, is lost and confused, he meets his boss, starts his job and meet his coworkers. After he gets acclimated to his new job and apartment he goes out to a night club. While at a night club goes to the men restroom, finds a man who appears drunk on the floor beside a urinal with vomit on his shirt, he asks the guy if he's okay and then he hear this complaint of nothing has taste from the drinks to pussy from another guy in a toilet stalls in which he only see his shoes, he follows the guy and finds that he lives in an underground apartment, where he hear the most elegant music. He goes back to the drop off spot in the middle of nowhere, waits for the bus to drop off its next passenger, follows the bus whose track end in the middle of nowhere, it disappears, he eventually meets a woman name Anne Britt they start a relationship, move in together but something is missing there is no passion; everyone and everything are banal and bland from the food to even sex. He goes back to the city and starts an office affair with a coworker which he finds she too is banal for he is not her only suitor she casually mentions that she is in multiple relationships and is indifferent and not serious about theirs too for he had earlier told Ann Brit he was leaving her for someone else and Ann too was indifferent to him leaving her. He tries to commit suicide again it is the exact same scene that occurs at the beginning of the movie (same subway, couple kissing, etc.) but he cannot die, he is run over multiple times by the subway and is physically torn-up, he gets up and go back to his girlfriend's Ann home, he is all bloodied and injured and she looks at him indifferent and ask if he wants to go go-cart racing like nothing happened. He finally go to the stranger's apartment and force the stranger, Hugo, to open his door and show him where the music was coming from, Hugo shows him a little hole in the wall. He goes to work and ask his boss did he think this world was strange for where are the children? He goes back to Hugo's apartment with digging equipment starts digging, go back to work fine out he has been replaced by a guy who almost look identical to him, he's told by his boss that maybe he would be "happier" if he opened his own business He find his digging equipment was inadequate so gets a jackhammer because he's now obsessed to getting to where he hears this elegant music and begin to smell fresh pastries. For the first time in the movie you see the elderly they live in Hugo's apartment building, they begin to come to Hugo's apartment because they too smell the fresh pastries, then people on the street start stopping by Hugo's window, they hear the jackhammer, smell the pastries. Just as Andreas is about to breakthrough to the other side the enforcers grabs Andreas but not before he grabs some pastries and tastes them. He and Hugo are taken to the authorities they let Hugo go, but tell Andreas who is still sitting in the enforcers car that everyone is more or less happy then the authorities quickly meet and have the enforcers and the greeter take Andreas back to the gas station in the middle of nowhere, the enforcers throw him in the luggage or baggage area on the bus and it show the world goes on while he ends up in a frozen isolated place,but is this where he was prior to waking up in the beginning, is this frozen isolation where he grew the beard? Is this a Nietzschean reoccurrence of what he was oblivious to when he arrived at the gas station? Throughout the movie he tries to escape the absurd through suicide instead of facing it through confrontation, he tries to escape the banal world but in the end the world he is trying to escape goes on without him for there are scenes showing his love interest with other men, Hugo sweeping the street and his boss playing badminton. Is this movie a depiction of the afterlife? Andreas feels pain so it seems (he cut off his finger, which grew back, but he cries out in pain, he feels emotions (he cries at a movie, whereas others don't, is this something everyone feels when they first arrive but goes away after they "gets use to it"? What is the world on the other side of the wall? Is this an Absurd movie? I don't think so for the main character is trying to escape this world, he is not like Sisyphus who accepts his choices and takes responsibility for his choices including his punishment of pushing a rock for eternity. Should Andreas accepted his fate and became happy too? Or should he continue to try and escape his fate? Think about it. John D. Socrates a.k.a The African Sisyphus

Existential Angst

If the Mayan Calendar right then I only have 17 more days before the end of the world. Perhaps this thought led me to do something that I normally don't do, I read the obituaries in the today's newspaper. The reality of death sunk in, especially when you read about people being in hospice and enduring a prolonged sickness. I felt afraid of death, of the unknown and uncertainty behind the mysterious veil, what awaits us beyond this life? Death is inevitable , there's isn't a damn thing I can do to prevent it. The only logical reaction or solace to death is to ask, what was my existence like before I was born? I didn't exist before I was born so it was nothing, well when I die will it be different than before I was born? Will there be something after death, if there was nothing before life? Both are forms of non-existence so how can they be different, if they are the same thing? Non-existence is non-existence. As Epicurus is alleged of saying Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death aint here. And when it does come, we aint here."Non fui, sum, non ero, non curabo (I was not; I am; I will not be; I will not care)

Parenting God's Way

When I was a Christian I signed-up for an email news letter that I still receive from Ever Increasing Faith Ministries, a mega church in Los Angeles founded by Dr. Frederick K. C. Price, who is now an Apostle. The letter I received this week is titled "Parenting God's Way". It starts off "Dear EIF family, God's perfect plan for His children..." I thought about God (whatever this means) as a parent, the only idea presented to me as someone born in so-called Western Civilization, is Jehovah, a bronze age despot, who put his creation (i.e. his so-called children) in a garden to be tempted by a talking snake to eat fruit that caused mankind in a downward spiral that led to murder, war, crime, etc. He blamed them for falling to the temptation that cause hardship on Adam, Eve and their offspring. He confused mankind's language to divide them when they were united, tempted Abram to sacrifice his own son, only to do it himself 2,000 years later, and from this mankind sin was paid for, but nothing changed, there's still murder, war, crime, etc. I don't think I want to Parent God's way, he has not been an ideal parent in my book. Although I think this is a bronze age myth, if this god Jehovah really existed,then he is a bad role model. Think about it. The Skeptical African

Audio Book review: The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins, MD

Chapter 1: Dr. Collins was raised by Agnostic Parents who allowed him and his brother to join a local Presbyterian's church choir. He graduated high school at the age of 16 went to college at The University of Virginia he was an agnostic became an atheist. He went to Yale for a PhD in Chemistry two years into a quantum Physic program took a course in Biochemistry was hooked, he applied to Medical School and enrolled at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He went into the emerging field of Genetics where look for errors in the genetic code which lead to discoveries in down syndrome, sickle cell anemia, etc. (Doesn't these Genetic errors show that no personal god exist?). After graduating from medical school he was a resident at UNC, an elderly woman, who was a Christian, and dying from a painful disease asked him what was his belief,he was uncertain, this hunted him for days, he saw his willful blindness and arrogance. He looked at the facts what he called the cliff-note version of the world religions, he visited a local Methodist minister in Chapel Hill and asked him various question, the minister gave him a book by C. S. Lewis titled Mere Christianity. He found a book that answered the questions he was asking. He became a Deist due to Lewis' argument from the Moral Law i.e. the universal awareness of right or wrong (what about psychopaths and sociopaths? How is the Moral Law missing in them?) and selfless altruism. He believes that atheism is a failed explanation for the moral law and altruism and that agnosticism is a cop-out. Chapter 2 1. Is belief in God wishful thinking? The longing for something that transcends us could be a guidepost that there is something there that can fill it. He uses C. S. Lewis as his answerer, people feel hungry therefore there must be food, a duck feel the need to swim therefore there must be water, etc. Which lead to since there is a longing for something that transcends us there must be a God. 2. Hasn't religious belief caused a lot of harm? 1. Many wonderful things has been done in the name of religion ex. Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Mother Theresa, etc. 2. Religion (i.e. what he calls "the church") are made-up of flawed people which why we know there is a moral law that we cannot keep and God has provided the remedy his sinless son. 3. Why does God allow evil or suffering? He argues that we have free-will and if god always intervene this could lead to chaos. Also, a lot of the suffering is self imposed we create weapons, drugs, etc. He gave a moving example of his daughter's rape as an example of suffering and admits he does not understand why God allowed it to happen, (Is one person free-will more important than another, like the rapist free-will vs. his daughter's; why was her free-will not to be raped not honored?). Natural Disasters? God plans are not our plans i.e. God works in mysterious ways. He quotes C.S. Lewis again in that we want a benevolent grandfather, perhaps God uses suffering for soul-building, perhaps we learn more from suffering than good experiences. he uses Dietrich Bonhoeffer suffering and death in a Nazi camp. He could in a dim way see his daughter's rape was a lesson in forgiveness. 4. How can a rational person believes in Miracles? C. S. Lewis in his book Miracles "Every event we call miracles are eventually presented to our senses" Dr. Collins uses Bayes Theorem to explain the probability of miracles. He admits miracles are rare but goes into how the Universe is something that can't be explained by our sciences, and ask is this a miracle? Chapter 3 Origins: He discusses the Big Bang, Anthropic Principle, Heisenberg principle of uncertainty. He argues God is supernatural he is not limited by time thus he concludes he could create us via natural selection by evolution. He discusses Literal Interpretation vs. Non-literal or Allegory, where he quotes Saint Augustine "In matters that are obscure and beyond our vision we find in Holy Scripture passages that can be interpreted in various ways... in such cases we should not rush head long on one side so that further progress in search for truth, justly undermine our position, we too fall with it..." Chapter 4: Life on Earth: Of Microbes and Men Intelligent design: Paley's Watch Maker Analogy, Paley argues 1. Watch is complex 2. Watch has an intelligent designer 3. Life is complex 4. Therefore, life has an Intelligent Designer. Dr. Collins shows the flaw in the argument by using lightning as his example if the watch maker analogy is true and thus intelligent design then one could argue that 1. Electricity comes from the flow of electrons. 2. Electricity comes from an electric company. 3. Lightning comes from the flow of electrons 4. Therefore, Lightning comes from an electric company. In the remainder of Chapters 4 to 6 is his case for the evidence for evolution from a genetic and biological evidence. Chapter 7 Option 1: Atheism and Agnosticism (When Science Trumps Faith) Dr. Collins believes Atheism is like theism it is blind faith. He quotes Stephen Jay Gould claim assertion that science cannot neither prove nor disprove god. He next defines agnosticism that the term was created by T. H. Huxley, which is defined as the knowledge for the existence of god is unknowable. He could in a general statement that agnosticism is a cop-out; and it is rare to find an agnostic who have looked at the evidence and that most have become believers once doing so. Chapter 8 Option 2: Creationism (When Faith Trumps Science) In this chapter he defines the Young Earth Creationism (YEC) as the belief that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, and the humans are special creations. YEC accepts micro-evolutions but doubts macro-evolutions, believe in a worldwide flood; approximately 45% of Americans believe in some form of YEC. He thinks YEC and modern science are incompatible because Young Earth Creationist think a literal interpretation of their sacred books i.e. the Bible, Quran, etc. is necessary and that any other belief is on a slippery slope. He thinks the bible is to reveal the nature of God not a scientific book. YEC at least some argue that God is using science to test believers faith. Collins believes YEC eventually leads to spiritual and scientific bankruptcy for that risk what Saint Augustine warned about falling with YEC when new evidence disproves it. Chapter 9 Option 3: Intelligent Design (When Science needs Divine Help) Intelligent design argument comes from the idea of irreducible complexity and Phillip Johnson a Law professor at UC - Berkley is considered the father of ID, created the Discovery Institute, (what have they discovered?), other proponents of ID are Dembski and Behe. Three propositions of ID is 1. Evolution promotes an atheistic worldview and must be resisted by believers in God. 2. Evolution is fundamentally flawed because it cannot account for the intricacy complexity of of nature an example they often use is the complexity of the eye and bacteria flagellum. 3. If evolution cannot explain the complexity of life then there must be an Intelligent Designer. He concludes that scientific objection to ID is that it is not a scientific theory, because it does not present any falsifiable evidence. Chapter 10 Option 4: BioLogos (Science and Faith in Harmony) He opens the chapter with a Presbyterian minister , a father of one of the graduates, at his graduation asked them to consider three things 1. What will be your life's work? 2. What role will love play in your life? and 3. What will you do about faith? He joined the American Scientific Affiliation and briefly discuss how it is evidence of faith and science in harmony. He then discusses theistic evolution which he claims has six proposition 1. The universe was created by God, approximately 14 billion years ago. 2.The properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life. 3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, it is possible that the development of living organisms was part of God's original creation plan. 4. Once life began, no special further interventions by God were required. 5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. 6. Humans are unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanations and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the knowledge of right and wrong (Moral Law) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures through out history. He concludes that God who is not limited by space or time created the universe and established natural laws that governs it, seeking to populate an otherwise sterile universe with life using evolution was the mechanism to do it. He gave these creatures free will, intelligence to know the moral law of right and wrong and knew they could not obey the moral law. He admits that belief in God will always require a "leap" of faith. Chapter 11 Truth Seekers He discusses his trip to Nigeria and his experience of Agape love when he helped an poor Nigerian farmer. He concludes the chapter quoting Einstein Science without religion is Lame and how science can be a form of worship, quotes Proverbs 19:2. What barriers prevent belief in God? Of all the worldviews he concludes that atheism is the least rational. He believe there are pure waters of spiritual truth carrier in rusty containers. Appendix In the appendix he discusses Stem Cell, specialized medicine based on DNA, cloning, SENT, PGD, etc. He believes and concludes that faith-based bioethics is not recommended due to religion's historical suppression and false piousness. I agree with e-Skepic's conclusion that Dr. Collins dismisses the Young Earth Creationist and Intelligent Designers when he claims they are arguing from the god the gaps i.e. ignorance but then Dr. Collins uses a god of the gaps (i.e. ignorance) when he refuses to acknowledge that there could be other answers for the so-called Moral Law, mankind's desire for transcendence, and the anthropic principle/fine tuning. He ultimately admits belief in God requires a "leap" of faith and thus in admitting this he knows there is and thus provides no evidence for belief. Therefore the language of god is a lost translation because his evidence is not based on science (knowledge) but on faith. Indeed,Truth cannot conflict with truth. Think about it...

Review of The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives

I just finished listening to an audiobook by Leonard Mlodinow titled "The Drunkard's Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives". It is an interesting book on how our lives is rule by chance. If one thinks about how the random events happen in their lives, for example, my parents were both from rural towns in the South, NC and VA but met in New York at the Savoy Ballroom and I am here writing about it. As for whoever wrote Ecclesiastes(if you agree with Bart Ehrman's Forged:Why the Author's of the Bible Are not who we think they are:) he states, Ecclesiastes was not written by Solomon, but a forgery, however the alleged forger got one thought right when he wrote in Ecclesiastes 9:11 "I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." (NIV) This is probably the best one sentence summary of a book. I think the best part of the book was his advise for overcoming confirmation bias in Chapter 9 in which he states: 1. Understand that random events too produces patterns 2. Question your perceptions and theories 3. Look for evidence that we are wrong, as we spend time looking for evidence we are right. He states in his conclusion "What I've learned, above all, is to keep marching forward because the best news is that since chance does play a role, one important factor in success is under our control: the number of at bats, the number of chances taken, the number of opportunities seized. For even a coin weighted toward failure will sometimes land on success. Or as the IBM pioneer Thomas Watson said, "If you want to succeed, double your failure rate."The anonymous author of Ecclesiastes 9:10 states something similar "Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with all your might, for in the grave, where you are going, there is neither working nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom. " This book made me ask the questions, does randomness rules or are things determined? Or Is determinism an illusion and randomness reality? or Do things start off random and then determinism kicks in? Think about it.

Random Thoughts

I am thinking about how the idea of something does not mean it actually exist. When someone say for instance, do you believe in god? I understand to a certain extent what they mean by god, but at the same time if someone ask me if you believe in unicorns? I understand what they mean, but this in no way means that a unicorn actually exist nor for that matter, does this means a god exist. In other words, just because you understand the idea of something does not mean it exist. Also, I was listening to a presuppositionalist on The Thinking Atheist podcast, and the only comment I would say to a presuppositionalist is; I agree we all start off with a preconceived notion of something, but what happens if what you're presupposing is false, you're stuck. However at least with science, if whatever I am presupposing is not backed up with observation or others cannot duplicate my hypothesis then I have to accept that I could be wrong and have to look for another explanation that matches or best explains what we observe. I finally get why the fine tuning argument is an ultimate failure of an explanation for the existence of god. My refutation of the fine tuning argument is called the lottery, in a universe with billions of billions of galaxies, solar systems, stars and planets, I would find it more improbable that none of them would have life. For example, someone in the United States even with odds of 1 to 330,000,000 eventually hits the lottery (a matter of fact in the recent Mega Millions 640 million jackpot three states had a winner), thus with billions of galaxies, solar systems, suns, and planets eventually you will find one with life, because here I am thinking and writing about it, and I feel like I hit the lottery, if one thinks about the probability of even being borne, it seems improbable but yet I am here and it does not mean it was fine tune, but means we happen to hit the jackpot in a universe that has a lot of lotto balls. Think about it.

God, The Afterlife, and the meaning of Life

Does belief in god(s) gives "our" life meaning? According to Oxford Dictionary The definitive record of the English language, meaning is defined as the significance, purpose, underlying truth, etc., of something, etymologically it means to intend. I understand how the idea of an objective force which create something implies a purpose or intention. However, if we don't know what this purpose is, does it give us meaning? Or is it a purpose to the one who created it and not necessarily to what was created? I have heard god at least Jehovah, created us for a variety of reasons from caprice to having dominion over his other creation. However, as Thomas Paine once wrote unless this was revealed to me too, this is hearsay and nothing more and thus it does not give my life a meaning. Also, how does an afterlife give this life a purpose? Some argue that this life is a precursor or a reward/punishment for the next, however how does a two year old who died when he was killed by his 12 year old brother or a four-year old girl with down syndrome who was stabbed to death by her mother life has a purpose or a meaning in the next one? ( these are two examples that I found when I searched the internet with a simple phrase "two year old murdered by..." and these two incidents where some among many that the Google search found) In other words, how does a very short life span demonstrate that life has a purpose? For even if life has a purpose of what Schopenhauer called the will to live, then everything would live at least long enough to procreate? However, my examples clearly shows everyone doesn't live long enough to reproduce. Is there a purpose to life? If there isn't does this mean, that life is meaningless? I know that I don't know.

Happy Winter Solstice - The Real Reason for the Season

Kirk Franklin thinks Jesus is the Reason for the Season, but history tell us something different. Unless, Mr. Franklin is admitting that Christianity is really the worship of the sun god(s), not the son (sun) of god. It doesn't take much to link the hope of a new sun with the hope of new life, to a babe in a manger, which is another symbol of the hope of life, like the pine and fir trees symbolizes the hope of life in the cold of winter. Think about it...Happy Winter Solstice, Happy Birthday Mithra.

Remembering Hitch

Although his voice is now silent, he empowers ours in the Free-thought community. To Hitch. (1949 - 2011) We will continue to speak truth to power.

Guess What, We're Still Here!

If I am writing this and if you're reading this, the world did not end on October 21, 2011. Harold Camping and Jesus had a lot in common, both of their prediction about the end of the world did not come true. Jesus supposedly said "Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in "this" adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." i.e. Jesus was supposedly talking about to the "adulterous and sinful generation" who were alive when these words were spoken. Jesus predicted that some of his audience would be alive when the "Kingdom of God or Heaven" came with power. Mark 13:30-33: Jesus is recorded as saying: "....This generation shall not pass away, until all these things be accomplished....But of that day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. I interpret this to mean he was not saying that it was not going to happen within the generation, but it was going to happen in "this generation" but no one knows the exact day or time but to be ready within this generation. A "generation" is normally a forty year period. If Jesus spoke those words circa 29 CE - 30 CE, then all of the events predicted in Mark 13:24-27 would have happened on or before 70 CE: "“But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; 25 the stars of heaven will fall, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 Then they will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then He will send His angels, and gather together His elect from the four winds, from the farthest part of earth to the farthest part of heaven." Sound a lot like Harold Camping prediction doesn't it, here's Mr. Camping words on May 24th, 2011 "The great earthquake and rapture and the universe melting in fervent heat will be happening on the last day – October 21 2011... It’s all going to happen on the last day...The great earthquake didn’t happen on May 21 because no-one will be able to survive it for more than a few days or let alone five months to suffer God’s wrath because everything will be leveled and destroyed after that earthquake and there will be no food or water to keep everyone alive." Yes Mr. Camping and Jesus have a lot in common they both are failed apocalyptic prophets. Think about it.

Occupy Wall Street and Reality

I was listening to Dead Prez, song "Police State" in the introduction of the song Omali Yeshitela states "You have the emergence in human society of this thing called the State. What is the State? The State is organized bureaucracy. It is the police department…the Army, the Navy It is the prison system, the courts. The State is a repressive organization. The reality is the State becomes necessary only at that juncture in human society where it is split between those who have and those who ain't got!" He seems to be summarizing what we are seeing in the Occupy Wall Street movement. Several Months ago I blogged about Socialism vs. Capitalism, I asked are we as a species more inclined with socialism or capitalism? In other words, which system is more our true nature as a species, socialism or capitalism? Socialism is any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of means of production and distribution of goods. In other words, it's a system where everyone collectively gets a share of the pie, because the collective owns the pie. Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. In other words, it is a system where only a few own a piece of the pie and sell the crumbs to the rest, it automatically creates a class based system. I think we lived in social groups because the need to bond and band together to survive and pass on our genes (DNA) , and this bonding and banding occurred for millions of years and evolution selected groups who bonded and banded together that out competed groups that didn't. Why did humans move toward egalitarianism? On a website Anthropology.net an article entitled Modeling The Egalitarian Revolution states: "The observation that Gavrilets et al. make is that while our closest living evolutionary cousins form alliances and cooperate in groups, their social systems are extremely hierarchical. The most glaring example can be seen in a gorilla troop where a dominant silverback presides over a few adolescent males and a harem of females. The group dynamic is fluid throughout life history, but each member of the system ultimately plays a role in the dominance hierarchy. But early human societies, such as the quintessential hunter-gatherer society, is generalized as being egalitarian. Prior to the agricultural revolution, hunting and gathering is thought to have been the only subsistence strategy deployed by early human cultures. Studying modern day hunter gatherers, ethnographers have noted that such societies distribute dominance much more equally and thus tend to be non hierarchical. Leaders are comparatively weaker than their subordinates which reverses the pyramid of power." "So why was there such a big behavioral shift during our evolutionary history? We may never know for sure. There are ideas floating around that all seem to suggest the lack of food and realization that cooperation, rather than competition, was more beneficial for overall survival. When food sources became more dependable, as seen after the Neolithic and the dawn of agriculture and pastoralism, is when we've seen a return to a traditional hierarchy." (http://anthropology.net/2008/10/09/modeling-the-egalitarian-revolution/) In other words, all one needs to do is observe the remaining hunter-gatherers to see how we lived for the most part from 200,000 to 10,000 years ago. However, with the rise of agriculture and the new abundance of food, the focus changed and class or hierarchical social order emerged or perhaps reemerged, and with surplus food, trading developed and this lessen the need for cooperation our (primitive) default natural state reestablished itself. As stated above if all our primate cousins (Chimpanzees, Bonobos, Gorillas, Monkeys, etc.) are hierarchical then this must have been our way of living for millions of years until we broke away evolutionarily from them to a Socialist/Egalitarian system as hunter-gatherers. Therefore, I think our default position is hierarchical for it is the older and primitive state, and our primate cousins are hierarchical and what make us think we are the exception? As a result, egalitarianism is a late player on the evolutionary time scale. However, Egalitarianism is close to Socialist idea of a classless society where everyone has an equal chance and has the opportunity to optimize their talents without regard to the class you happen to be born. As I watch the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations and the little national coverage it is getting and it seems to be a reaction to the 2009 petty bourgeoisie revolt of the Tea Party. Which side will win, will we evolve or default to our primitive hierarchical or class system? I think it depends on which system gives our DNA the best chance to survive and continue the game, for nature does not care which system exist, its only function is to keep the gene (DNA) successfully replicating itself and how it is done Nature does not give a damn, it does it by any means necessary! Think about it.

What's your Answer to Life?

I ask this question because so often I am bombarded with inside and outside influences telling me to find my life somewhere other than where I am, in other words, there is a 10 billion dollar industry for personal development, plus all the nonsense religion propagates, everyone telling us how f@cked up we are and how they can fix us or they have the cure. My philosophy or way of living and thinking is life is its own point, it does not transcend itself to get to somewhere else, but I will be the first to admit that I could be wrong. However, if life transcend itself where is it going and what will it do when it get there and will there still be another point beyond that point that it need to transcend? These are interesting questions, at least to me. As I stated before, I think life is its own point and this means to me it is something that cannot be improved but, it is something that as one who is "in" life should participate. In other words, I will take an active role in life, its good, its bad and its indifference, it is like Sisyphus with his rock, it is mines and this existence is all I know and is the one thing am certain of, anything that transcends it is to me irrelevant or meaningless to the life I am experiencing for it is not "in" life but outside of it. It is like Epicurus conclusion on death, Death is nothing to us, since when we are, death has not come, and when death has come, we are not or to put it in slang, death aint sh!t to me, for when I am, it aint and when it is, I aint, why should I fear sh!t that does not exist when I do? This is why suicide philosophical or physical is not an option because to me it is trying to escape the one certain thing we have for something we don't. My answer to Life is "hell yeah!" Think about it.

Think for yourself?

On the way home, I was listening to George Hrab's Song entitled "Think for Yourself", the Beatles had a song with that title as well. It is a song, that I as a Free Thinking advocate agree, it is a song about learning how to be a critical, skeptical thinker, to don't accept what someone else say, believe, or sale you without asking who, what, when, where, how, and especially why. As I listened to the lyrics, I had an insight in which, I thought about evolution, especially Human Evolution. We primates emerged on the scene about 30 million years ago, then the hominids separated from Chimps and Bonobos about 6 to 8 million years ago. The most famous of our early ancestors is Lucy also known as Australopithecus afarensis who lived 3.2 million years ago in Ethiopia although she wasn't the first hominid, a recent fossil of Ardi (Ardipithecus Ramidus) pushes hominid evolution back to approximately 4.4 million years ago when, due to probably climate change some primates begin to walked on two feet. Being bipedal in an environment where the ancestors of lions, leopards, cheetahs, and hyenas where looking for their next meal was a tremendous risk but also gave them advantages it freed up their hands and allow them to see their predators in the changing environment, and this with many other variables led to higher development and evolution of the hominid brain, which eventually gave us an advantage on the East African plains and here I am writing about it,(isn't evolution da bomb!). In order to survive the early hominids had to cooperate and work together in order to survive. This led to us being a social species and it led to human primates having longer childhoods than our primate cousins. For example, a Daniel Dennett wrote in Breaking the Spell, Religion as a Natural Phenomenon, "Natural Selection build child brains with the tendency to believe whatever their parents and tribal elders tell them", it had survival benefits because it you were warned about going near the water hole because of crocodiles, if someone disobeyed and was eaten this reinforced the authority and social order of the clan or tribe. Another example, would be if someone was kicked out of the group and was later found dead or eaten by hyenas this reinforced the social order.Therefore, my argument is thinking individually or thinking for yourself is a recent phenomenon in our species way of thinking for a species who lived for millions of years who lived in social groups in order to survive, and propagate they had to think collectively therefore, I think group-thinking is the default position in our brains and to think for yourself take effort and practice and we don't do this well as a species, because for most of our evolutionary history we had to groupthink. What is Groupthink? Groupthink, "a term coined by social psychologist Irving Janis (1972), occurs when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of "mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment" (p. 9). Groups affected by groupthink ignore alternatives and tend to take irrational actions that dehumanize other groups. A group is especially vulnerable to groupthink when its members are similar in background, when the group is insulated from outside opinions, and when there are no clear rules for decision making. source: (http://www.psysr.org/about/pubs_resources/groupthink%20overview.htm) This is why religion thrives because it's probably a byproduct of groupthinking. In Summary, I think groupthinking evolved out of our sociology need to survive, cooperate and pass-on our genes (DNA) and thinking as an individual is a new phenomena and we default to groupthinking because we evolved in social groups that banded together to survive on the East African plains. Think about it or think for yourself, but it will take practice to override our default towards groupthinking. John D. Socrates a.k.a. The African Socrates.