Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Faith the ultimate Placebo
The human brain is a great mystery and phenomenon, right now if everything is working as it should, my brain is regulating my heart beat, my sugar levels in my pancreas, my digestive system, the amount of oxygen in my blood, and I am not even conscious of what else my brain is controlling, even the processes I briefly mention is not consciously controlled by me, these are all unconscious processes. I have read an interesting article in the skeptic dictionary called the placebo effect. The placebo effect is the measurable, observable, or felt improvement in health not attributable to treatment. (1) From the article there have been various theories as to why the placebo is sometimes just as effective as actual treatment. They all come down to what we perceive or think, if a person feel that the treatment is making them feel better, the brain will make it happen. This is what faith is, faith is the major placebo effect, because what a person believe not only affect their mental state it also affects their action. Religious faith is a big placebo pill. Go to your typical church especially evangelical churches, the music sets the atmosphere, it's soothing, people are literal hypnotized by the atmosphere, and so a person believe that they are going to get healed or feel better compared to the way they felt before they arrived, and so endorphins kick in and they feel better. Look at televangelists who are faith healers, they have soothing organ music playing in the background, the televangelist give people attention i.e. one on one attention, they offer suggestions of healing or health, they perceive that this is a place for getting better and they see others allegedly being healed, just like a person who visits a physician. In fact, there was a report on WUNC on health issues in eastern North Carolina in which diabetes patients who get more one on one time with a health professional will do better than those who don't, in fact in the report that aired this morning the hospitals and health clinic who are partnering together that is offering health counseling to their diabetes patients has shown a decrease in diabetes related hospitalizations compare other area health facilities that do not offer the extended health counseling. Faith is the heart of all Placebo effects this brought up another thought about a recent had a discussion with devout Christian about skepticism and about using common sense. We were discussing a church we both use to attend and how they were hung up on raising money and the pressure tactics they used on the laypeople like having lines when raising "special offering" and lines for tithes and offering, in which if you didn't pay any money, you were left sitting all by yourself, thus making the non-giver feel isolated. This person thinking was skeptical about the church leadership's motivation and I ask them why don't they use the same skepticism or critical thinking with the bible and I gave an example of how, I was listening to a speech in which I had a transcript and how even the transcription did not have word for word what the speaker said, and I asked how it is that scripture which was passed down orally is going to be perfectly transcribed? I brought up that I am like Thomas, I not going to believe unless I have some solid evidence and this person brought up the old "it's a faith thing". What is faith? Is it as Mark Twain said that “faith is believing in something you know aint true”? The bible says that faith is the substance of things hoped for; the evidence of things not seen, but the contradiction is there is no evidence for something not seen; how can something that is not seen have evidence? Because if there is evidence for something, then their must be a way of experiencing it, because if there is no evidence there is no way I prove that the thing not seen exist. In fact evidence comes from the Latin evidentia which means “that which is obvious”. What is meant by obvious? Obvious comes from the Latin obvius “That which is in the way, presenting itself readily, commonplace, plain to see”. It seems that maybe faith is more about psychology and not reality, although psychology is a field of science about the mind and it 's function and what I mean that faith is about psychology is there is such a thing as placebos, in which people in a test show signs of wellness even though it nothing being administered and so the thinking that something is being made better releases endorphins in the brain and gives the illusion of wellness and I see faith as a placebo, which I don't have nothing against, but we should see that it is nothing more than psychology. I don’t have faith the earth will revolve around the sun there is evidence that is doing it as I write this. I know there are things that my senses cannot sense, like an atom but with the right equipment and knowledge of how to use that equipment I can see an atom even though it is invisible to the naked eye. This is how science works. Think about it...
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
African-American Intellectuals?
J.A. Rogers, an autodidact who was an African-American freethinker that wrote many self-published books on African-American history, wrote in From "Superman" to Man: "The slogan of the Negro devotee is: Take the world but give me Jesus, and the white man strikes an eager bargain with him." Is this true? Maybe...
The reason I say maybe is because, I recently watched Cornell West on CNN in an interview with Don Lemon and he said he is a Christian and his allegiance is with the cross first and the flag second (I have heard him say this before). I look at him and see an African-American with a PhD and whom is often called an African-American intellectual. Barack Obama went to Columbia and then Harvard, at first he went to Occidental College in California, he is on the crest of being our first African-American president. Michael Dyson is another African-American Intellectual, he is even a Baptist minister (which he has to propagate this doctrine). Therefore, they believe that a virgin became artificial inseminated by a god and had what is the founder of Christianity. They believe that he died and was rose from the dead and went back to heaven in a physical body that could survive leaving our atmosphere into a cold outer space without an astronaut suit, he could breathe and so forth and that he is coming back to get his followers and set up his kingdom. In addition, in order for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be necessary, there had to be a fall, therefore all of these intellectuals would have to believe that two naked people listened to a talking snake without running away, and was convinced by his argument, ate the fruit and then Jesus saves that day 4000 years later! They all say they're Christians and would have to believe what I wrote. Is this the best of our African-American intellectuals? Why am I the only one who see the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as intellectually irrational, if accepted as literally true, if they don't accept story of the fall and redemption/reconciliation as literally true, then what is a metaphorical Christianity?
I want to read more historical information about W.E.B. Du bios, the great African-American intellectual of the 20th century, before I consider him my hero, but tentatively he is my hero for what he wrote 60 years ago, which is closest to the way I feel. In 1948, a priest wrote to W.E.B. Du Bois asking him whether or not he believed in God. Du Bois replied: "Answering your letter of October 3, may I say: If by `a believer 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 incomprehensible 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." Think about it...
The reason I say maybe is because, I recently watched Cornell West on CNN in an interview with Don Lemon and he said he is a Christian and his allegiance is with the cross first and the flag second (I have heard him say this before). I look at him and see an African-American with a PhD and whom is often called an African-American intellectual. Barack Obama went to Columbia and then Harvard, at first he went to Occidental College in California, he is on the crest of being our first African-American president. Michael Dyson is another African-American Intellectual, he is even a Baptist minister (which he has to propagate this doctrine). Therefore, they believe that a virgin became artificial inseminated by a god and had what is the founder of Christianity. They believe that he died and was rose from the dead and went back to heaven in a physical body that could survive leaving our atmosphere into a cold outer space without an astronaut suit, he could breathe and so forth and that he is coming back to get his followers and set up his kingdom. In addition, in order for the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ to be necessary, there had to be a fall, therefore all of these intellectuals would have to believe that two naked people listened to a talking snake without running away, and was convinced by his argument, ate the fruit and then Jesus saves that day 4000 years later! They all say they're Christians and would have to believe what I wrote. Is this the best of our African-American intellectuals? Why am I the only one who see the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam as intellectually irrational, if accepted as literally true, if they don't accept story of the fall and redemption/reconciliation as literally true, then what is a metaphorical Christianity?
I want to read more historical information about W.E.B. Du bios, the great African-American intellectual of the 20th century, before I consider him my hero, but tentatively he is my hero for what he wrote 60 years ago, which is closest to the way I feel. In 1948, a priest wrote to W.E.B. Du Bois asking him whether or not he believed in God. Du Bois replied: "Answering your letter of October 3, may I say: If by `a believer 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 incomprehensible 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." Think about it...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Reasonable Doubt
Today I am thinking about reasonable doubt, I feel that if a person can live or die in a court of law (especially since the United States has Capital Punishment) and according to our laws, a person cannot be convicted beyond a reasonable doubt. If a reasonable doubt is a criteria for judging the guilt or innocence of an individual why can't we apply the same principles to religious claims or any claim in this regard. According to a law dictionary, beyond reasonable doubt is defined as - The level of certainty a juror must have to find a defendant guilty of a crime. A real doubt, based upon reason and common sense after careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or lack of evidence, in a case. I found a good explanation on Infidel.org by a retired lawyer "In law there are generally three degrees of sufficiency of evidence. They are, in ascending order: 1) preponderance, 2) clear and convincing, and 3) beyond a reasonable doubt. To prove something by a preponderance of the evidence is to weigh the evidence on each side of an issue, declaring the side with the most evidence to be proven. This is the standard applied in most non-criminal trials. The clear and convincing standard is often required when one party is trying to prove something that is out of the ordinary, that is, something which doesn't ordinarily occur. An example in law would be trying to prove that someone who signed a deed or will did so against his will. That is so rare in the ordinary course of things that whoever makes such a claim must provide considerable evidence to support it. The beyond reasonable doubt test is used primarily in criminal trials, where the prosecution is required to prove its case with so much evidence that no reasonable person could doubt the accused guilt. “Man with no heart: Miracle and Evidence by Richard Packman. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt, therefore, is proof of such a convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. However, it does not mean an absolute certainty. All three methods are methods of judgment that are pragmatic and used everyday in issues in courts of law that range from mundane events like will disputes to life and death cases, such as Capital Punishment cases. Therefore starting with preponderance is there more evidence for the existence of a creator than there is not? I won’t go through the arguments because they have been debated back and forth since at least the Enlightenment and the bottom line is if something natural can equally explain the natural then there is no need for a supernatural entity. Clear and convincing simply means extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you claim a miracle then the party making the miraculous claim is responsible for presenting the evidence to back-up the claim and if a natural explanation is plausible then the extraordinary evidence must be empirical. Christians often use Romans 1:20 as their evidence for the Biblical God existence, Paul wrote in Romans 1:20 " For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse." Nevertheless, creation does not present a complete unveiling of God's character. If creation reveals God's wisdom and power, then it gives us a very imperfect presentation. The fall of man doctrine if accepted means creation is under the curse and is flawed because it has been stained by sin. As a result, a flawed creation cannot be an ideal way for revealing an invisible God and hence, the testimony of creation or the argument from design is incongruous. Beyond a reasonable doubt, given two or more explanation which of the two is more practical or reasonable? I will use evolution versus creationism to discuss beyond reasonable doubt. What is the more practical explanation for explaining that humans and chimpanzees share 96 to 98% of the same DNA and both have a vitamin C deficiency; does this means we come from a common ancestor or is a supernatural explanation feasible? Which is more reasonable? If we remove our biases then it is more practical we share a common ancestor and this explanation is more reasonable. Therefore, before we take a leap of faith, when there is evidence, we should go with the evidence. Think about it....
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Find meaning in meaningless
I am thinking about, what I always seem to think about; the meaning of life, why are we here, what is it all about, what does it all mean? Our greatest fear is that life is meaningless,we fear that life is meaningless or pointless and so we seek for something outside of ourselves to validate our existence, and if we cannot find something we will create it whether we call it a god or a tribal affiliation, we want life to have significance. Yet we don’t think an ant's life has a meaning. If we did would we put down insecticide? I have read Thomas Nagel’s argument that if you ask: what’s the point of anything; you find that really when it’s all said and done probably there’s no point to our existence, if we think about it in a million years? Will there be a species on earth called Homo sapiens (i.e. human beings) what are we evolving towards? Is this just a blind and inevitable process, nothing else? Is our existence the conclusion that Thomas Nagel, Albert Camus, and Soren Kierkegaard has come to that life is not only meaningless but absurd? What is the point of a god creating anything, what is the point of creating anything if you’re omnipotent, omniscience, and omnipresent what pleasure would I get if I already know that a black man from North Carolina would be asking these questions and his whole life, actions, everything that he will fail at or accomplish, is already known? What pleasure would such a being get from this? What’s the point of it all? If there’s a point may be that there isn’t a point and I should not take it serious, but yet I do? If I live tomorrow, I will still get up and go to work even though it’s perhaps meaningless. What is meant by meaning? According to The American Heritage Dictionary fourth edition; Meaning is defined 1a. to be defined as: denote b. To act as a symbol of; represent 2. To intend to convey or indicate 3. To have as a consequence 4. To be a specified importance: It comes from the Old English maenan, tell of. I am reading Alan Watts transcript entitled "Sense of nonsense" which covers the meaning of life here's the conclusion of Alan Watts: "It is this participation in the essential glorious nonsense that is at the heart of the world that is not necessarily going anywhere, that is a dance. It seems that only in moments of unusual insight and illumination that we get the point of this, and find that thus the true meaning of life is no meaning, that its purpose is no purpose, and that its sense is non-sense. But still, we want to use the word "significant." Is this significant nonsense? Is this a kind of nonsense that is not just chaos, that is not just blathering balderdash? But rather has in it rhythm, fascinating complexity, and a kind of artistry. It is in this kind of meaninglessness that we come to the profoundest meaning." Alan Watts was so true in his sense of nonsense, he concluded that life’s rhythm, it’s ebb -and- flow, like a dance that isn’t going anywhere but it is the dance that in itself significant and to seek for something outside of would be diminishing to life itself. Life is what it is, which is incomprehensible to put it words, however it means to me (and I could be wrong): life is to be lived, replicated, as I often think, whatever a thing do, that is its purpose. Life to me is a self-replicating matter-energy that is neither created nor destroyed but changes dance partners (in a metaphysical sense) or as science would say it changes from one form to another.In other words, Life is a mean to its own end, there’s nothing outside of it to get to. The meaning to ones life exists in life itself and not outside of it, this is why I feel to subjugate this meaning to an unknown force is not only irrationally but fails to add or give any additional meaning. In others words, if I can't give my life it's meaning; how can a belief in an invisible deity give it meaning? Think about it...
Friday, October 24, 2008
Review of Varieties of Scientific Experience: A Personal View of the Search for God by Carl Sagan
I recommend this book to anyone who enjoy Carl Sagan's writings. This book is a compilation of a series of talk Dr. Sagan gave a the Gifford Lectures on Natural Theology in 1985 at the University of Glasgow, his wife Ann Druyan edited them.
Chapter 1: Nature and Wonder: A Reconnaissance of Heaven:
What I got out of this chapter is: The main point of this Chapter: is that the western theology view of God is too small or seems very small when you compare the vastness of the universe to what concepts these theology claim (i.e. the universe was created in six days, the sun came after light, a snake can talk, that human came on the scene full evolved, etc.). The information backing Dr. Sagan claim is there are a trillion of worlds some smaller than earth, some larger in the Oort Cloud that revolve around around single sun. Our sun is 1 in 400 billion in our milky way galaxy. Our galaxy is 1 in 10 to the 23rd power of known galaxies in the universe. All one has to do is go to Hubble website to see a glimpse of the vastness of the universe. He concludes "I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science; it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.
Chapter 2: The Retreat from Copernicus: A Modern Loss of Nerve
What I got out of this chapter is: We have anthropomorphized the Cosmos in which human psychologically felt the universe/cosmos evolved solely for us and no one or nothing else. Copernicus and others have demonstrated that we are one among many and not the point of the cosmos. Dr. Sagan info backing his claim is we use such terms such as sunrise/sunset because we once thought the sun revolved around the earth. The idea was the earth was the center of the God's creation and therefore was the center of the universe. However, Copernicus, Laplace, Kant, Darwin, and others have shown that we are one among many, our Earth is just another planet, our species share biological and genetics with other plants and animal. It took our planet 4500 million years to get were it is, in which species came and went, stars came and went, and our retreat or fear is that we are insignificant and our need for purpose causes a psychological bias in which hate what Copernicus and others have shown us, and so instead of accepting the facts of science, we cling to the faith of religions.
Chapter 3: The Organic Universe:
What I got out of this chapter is: We are the product of a natural organic universe. It does not take much to jump start or to get life going and for Darwinian Natural Selection to pull out the experiments that works and ignore the ones that don't. In other words, we live in a universe/cosmos that have an abundance of the organic molecules that are necessary for life and we live on a planet that has had the time to experiment with Darwinian Natural Selection that created the life we now know. For instance, if look toward the center of the milky way galaxy in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. We can see a set of dark clouds some extensive, some smaller. In these clouds that are upward of 50 different kinds of molecules, most of which are organic.."And it is precisely in such dark clouds that the collapse of solar nebulae is expected to happen, and therefore the forming solar system should be composed, in part, of complex organic matter. The conclusion is that complex organic materials are everywhere."
Chapter 4: Extraterrestrial Intelligence:
Summary:What I got out of this chapter is: 1) We don't have an appropriate language or concept for extraterrestrial intelligence, not even theologically. 2) John Adams " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." However, as Schiaparelli and Lowell show us even scientist can misinterpret facts. 3) The Drake Formula is given only as an idea of the possibilities of intelligent life.
Chapter 5: Extraterrestrial Folklore: Implications for The Evolution of Religion
Summary: What I got out of this chapter is: 1)We have a hope that someone or something would come and save us from ourselves and 2)This is a dangerous idea because the more we look for someone/something to save us or for a solution outside of ourselves the less likely we are going to solve our problems ourselves. 3)Extraordinary claims require evidence just like anything else that is claimed: i.e. "Is is more probable that nature should go out of her course or that man should tell a lie?" 4)We want miracles because it makes a better story 5) Sometimes history is rewritten to our satisfaction and not for truth. 6) If we have an emotional stake in the answers the more skeptical scrutiny is required.
Chapter 6: The God Hypothesis
What I got out of this chapter is:1) Natural Theology has long meant that theological knowledge can be established by reason, experience, and experiment alone. 2) What is the definition of God? In the West, God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, and personal. How could we establish that the Western God have these qualities? 3) Is God the sum total of the laws of physics as described by Einstein and Spinoza? 4) There is no truly Natural Theology because all arguments or proofs given so far cannot be established by reason, experience, and experiment and are not compelling when held-up to scrutiny.
Chapter 7: The Religious Experience
What I got out of this chapter is:1) Humans are millions of years old with the human species perhaps being one million years old(with uncertainty) 2) Whatever feelings, thoughts, and approaches to the world must have selective advantages. 3)If we analyze for examples of hunter-gathers from the !Kung (i.e. non-hierarchical society) versus Jivaro (extremely hierarchical society)their gods are similar to the society that worship them. 4) Religious experience must has a molecular base because certain chemicals (via drugs like LSD, peyote, etc.) or deprivation can trigger molecules in our brains that can have mystical/religious experience and there must have been a selective advantage for it to have stayed with our species. 5) Religion is hardwired into our species to get us to cooperate, be dominated, to try and control our environment and to understand/explain the unknown.
Chapter 8: Crimes Against Creation
What I got out of this chapter is: 1) In the history of our planet many natural catastrophes or events has happened, yet with nuclear weapons we have the ability to destroy our planet. 2) It is Dr. Sagan's thesis that it is not only imprudent but foolish to an extreme for the human species to have so large an arsenal of weapons of such destructive power simply available. 3) Religion can speak truth to power. 4) Christians should rein in fundamentalist who goals are to expedite the world's end. 5) Not one country who claim to have a Christian foundation or Christian founding fathers, not even the United States has adopted Jesus tenets of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you or Love your enemies, etc." 6) We all are mutually dependent on this small planet, we breathe the same air and whatever divides us it is clear the earth will be here thousands or millions of years from now, but the question is, will we?
Chapter 9: The Search
What I got out of this chapter is: 1) It is the search for the answers to what we are and why we are here that open a two pronged investigation into the nature of the world and ourselves. 2) Our intelligence separates us from other species. 3) Because of our intelligence we have increased in numbers and occupy outpost everywhere on this planet. 3) If we don't destroy ourselves we will continue our expansion to other planets. 4) Our species started off as hunter-gatherers millions of years ago, as we grew and expanded we move from small tribes to city-states to nations to empires, our next move needs to move to being citizens of the planet. 5) We have tow conflicting natures in our hearts one is aggressive i.e. reptilian, the other has the capacity for compassion, sympathy, and love. 6) People are fighting over myth and are afraid that their version of the truth is untrue. 7) So we must be willing to question everything even our own ideas. 8)If we think about where we came from 15,000 million years ago; it is truly amazing that the Big Bang lead eventually to a self-replicating organism. 9) We need to hone the talents our evolution and history has given us in order to increase our chances of survival. 10) History shows us how we went from the divine rights of kings to revolutions(i.e. American, French, Russian, etc.) so that we no longer believe in the divine right of kings, we no longer believe in chattel slavery, 11)Disease have been reduced over time it is no longer thought or taught to be a god-given part of life. 12) We all have a vested interest in the elimination of nuclear weapons. 13) The better we understand ourselves and others the better we understand the framework of how we fit in and not to go to our force our emotional predisposition on whatever our exploration tell us but accept the universe as it really is. The end of the book has selected Q & A that occurred after each lecture my favorite Q & A was Chapter Five a Questioner asked Dr. Sagan How do you recognize truth when it is upon us. Dr. Sagan replied "A simple question: How can we recognize truth? It is, of course, difficult. But there are a few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It should not contradict itself; that is, there are some logical criteria. It ought to be consistent with what else we know....he went to say "The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we have to be. It involves a kind of courageous self-discipline..."
Black Socrates
Chapter 1: Nature and Wonder: A Reconnaissance of Heaven:
What I got out of this chapter is: The main point of this Chapter: is that the western theology view of God is too small or seems very small when you compare the vastness of the universe to what concepts these theology claim (i.e. the universe was created in six days, the sun came after light, a snake can talk, that human came on the scene full evolved, etc.). The information backing Dr. Sagan claim is there are a trillion of worlds some smaller than earth, some larger in the Oort Cloud that revolve around around single sun. Our sun is 1 in 400 billion in our milky way galaxy. Our galaxy is 1 in 10 to the 23rd power of known galaxies in the universe. All one has to do is go to Hubble website to see a glimpse of the vastness of the universe. He concludes "I would suggest that science is, at least in part, informed worship. My deeply held belief is that if a god of anything like the traditional sort exists, then our curiosity and intelligence are provided by such a god. We would be unappreciative of those gifts if we suppressed our passion to explore the universe and ourselves. On the other hand, if such a traditional god does not exist, then our curiosity and our intelligence are the essential tools for managing our survival in an extremely dangerous time. In either case the enterprise of knowledge is consistent surely with science; it should be with religion, and it is essential for the welfare of the human species.
Chapter 2: The Retreat from Copernicus: A Modern Loss of Nerve
What I got out of this chapter is: We have anthropomorphized the Cosmos in which human psychologically felt the universe/cosmos evolved solely for us and no one or nothing else. Copernicus and others have demonstrated that we are one among many and not the point of the cosmos. Dr. Sagan info backing his claim is we use such terms such as sunrise/sunset because we once thought the sun revolved around the earth. The idea was the earth was the center of the God's creation and therefore was the center of the universe. However, Copernicus, Laplace, Kant, Darwin, and others have shown that we are one among many, our Earth is just another planet, our species share biological and genetics with other plants and animal. It took our planet 4500 million years to get were it is, in which species came and went, stars came and went, and our retreat or fear is that we are insignificant and our need for purpose causes a psychological bias in which hate what Copernicus and others have shown us, and so instead of accepting the facts of science, we cling to the faith of religions.
Chapter 3: The Organic Universe:
What I got out of this chapter is: We are the product of a natural organic universe. It does not take much to jump start or to get life going and for Darwinian Natural Selection to pull out the experiments that works and ignore the ones that don't. In other words, we live in a universe/cosmos that have an abundance of the organic molecules that are necessary for life and we live on a planet that has had the time to experiment with Darwinian Natural Selection that created the life we now know. For instance, if look toward the center of the milky way galaxy in the direction of the constellation Sagittarius. We can see a set of dark clouds some extensive, some smaller. In these clouds that are upward of 50 different kinds of molecules, most of which are organic.."And it is precisely in such dark clouds that the collapse of solar nebulae is expected to happen, and therefore the forming solar system should be composed, in part, of complex organic matter. The conclusion is that complex organic materials are everywhere."
Chapter 4: Extraterrestrial Intelligence:
Summary:What I got out of this chapter is: 1) We don't have an appropriate language or concept for extraterrestrial intelligence, not even theologically. 2) John Adams " Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." However, as Schiaparelli and Lowell show us even scientist can misinterpret facts. 3) The Drake Formula is given only as an idea of the possibilities of intelligent life.
Chapter 5: Extraterrestrial Folklore: Implications for The Evolution of Religion
Summary: What I got out of this chapter is: 1)We have a hope that someone or something would come and save us from ourselves and 2)This is a dangerous idea because the more we look for someone/something to save us or for a solution outside of ourselves the less likely we are going to solve our problems ourselves. 3)Extraordinary claims require evidence just like anything else that is claimed: i.e. "Is is more probable that nature should go out of her course or that man should tell a lie?" 4)We want miracles because it makes a better story 5) Sometimes history is rewritten to our satisfaction and not for truth. 6) If we have an emotional stake in the answers the more skeptical scrutiny is required.
Chapter 6: The God Hypothesis
What I got out of this chapter is:1) Natural Theology has long meant that theological knowledge can be established by reason, experience, and experiment alone. 2) What is the definition of God? In the West, God is defined as omnipotent, omniscient, compassionate, and personal. How could we establish that the Western God have these qualities? 3) Is God the sum total of the laws of physics as described by Einstein and Spinoza? 4) There is no truly Natural Theology because all arguments or proofs given so far cannot be established by reason, experience, and experiment and are not compelling when held-up to scrutiny.
Chapter 7: The Religious Experience
What I got out of this chapter is:1) Humans are millions of years old with the human species perhaps being one million years old(with uncertainty) 2) Whatever feelings, thoughts, and approaches to the world must have selective advantages. 3)If we analyze for examples of hunter-gathers from the !Kung (i.e. non-hierarchical society) versus Jivaro (extremely hierarchical society)their gods are similar to the society that worship them. 4) Religious experience must has a molecular base because certain chemicals (via drugs like LSD, peyote, etc.) or deprivation can trigger molecules in our brains that can have mystical/religious experience and there must have been a selective advantage for it to have stayed with our species. 5) Religion is hardwired into our species to get us to cooperate, be dominated, to try and control our environment and to understand/explain the unknown.
Chapter 8: Crimes Against Creation
What I got out of this chapter is: 1) In the history of our planet many natural catastrophes or events has happened, yet with nuclear weapons we have the ability to destroy our planet. 2) It is Dr. Sagan's thesis that it is not only imprudent but foolish to an extreme for the human species to have so large an arsenal of weapons of such destructive power simply available. 3) Religion can speak truth to power. 4) Christians should rein in fundamentalist who goals are to expedite the world's end. 5) Not one country who claim to have a Christian foundation or Christian founding fathers, not even the United States has adopted Jesus tenets of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you or Love your enemies, etc." 6) We all are mutually dependent on this small planet, we breathe the same air and whatever divides us it is clear the earth will be here thousands or millions of years from now, but the question is, will we?
Chapter 9: The Search
What I got out of this chapter is: 1) It is the search for the answers to what we are and why we are here that open a two pronged investigation into the nature of the world and ourselves. 2) Our intelligence separates us from other species. 3) Because of our intelligence we have increased in numbers and occupy outpost everywhere on this planet. 3) If we don't destroy ourselves we will continue our expansion to other planets. 4) Our species started off as hunter-gatherers millions of years ago, as we grew and expanded we move from small tribes to city-states to nations to empires, our next move needs to move to being citizens of the planet. 5) We have tow conflicting natures in our hearts one is aggressive i.e. reptilian, the other has the capacity for compassion, sympathy, and love. 6) People are fighting over myth and are afraid that their version of the truth is untrue. 7) So we must be willing to question everything even our own ideas. 8)If we think about where we came from 15,000 million years ago; it is truly amazing that the Big Bang lead eventually to a self-replicating organism. 9) We need to hone the talents our evolution and history has given us in order to increase our chances of survival. 10) History shows us how we went from the divine rights of kings to revolutions(i.e. American, French, Russian, etc.) so that we no longer believe in the divine right of kings, we no longer believe in chattel slavery, 11)Disease have been reduced over time it is no longer thought or taught to be a god-given part of life. 12) We all have a vested interest in the elimination of nuclear weapons. 13) The better we understand ourselves and others the better we understand the framework of how we fit in and not to go to our force our emotional predisposition on whatever our exploration tell us but accept the universe as it really is. The end of the book has selected Q & A that occurred after each lecture my favorite Q & A was Chapter Five a Questioner asked Dr. Sagan How do you recognize truth when it is upon us. Dr. Sagan replied "A simple question: How can we recognize truth? It is, of course, difficult. But there are a few simple rules. The truth ought to be logically consistent. It should not contradict itself; that is, there are some logical criteria. It ought to be consistent with what else we know....he went to say "The more badly we want to believe it, the more skeptical we have to be. It involves a kind of courageous self-discipline..."
Black Socrates
Monday, October 6, 2008
Genes vs prayer
I had a thought that I wanted to put in my blog while it was fresh in my mind. The thought is so often we seek direction from a god or a dead ancestor,coin flipping, divination, etc. in other words we look for solutions or answers to our problems outside of ourselves. However, I feel that my genes which I received from my ancestors, through evolution and adaptation created the brains in which mental processes occur, has given me everything I need. To seek direction from an unknown god or dead ancestor like conventional religions and traditional religions want us to, is to be a child forever asking someone to save us, to help us and we never grow up and take responsibility for our lives. I catch myself wanting to flip a coin, speaking a silent request for direction on a decision but then I say to myself, I have a brain, which the evolution of my species has given me over millions of years, and thus I have everything I need and thus to ask a god, an ancestor, flip a coin, or consult some divination would be an insult to the legacy of all who have given me their genes,which produced my brain, and my mental capacities to think for myself. This is why when people pray they bow their heads and close their eyes, if you stand back and look at them objectively, it look ridiculous, (the next time there's a public prayer or something see how it looks), they look like little children or a slave begging a master, a mean parent or bully for a something they want. As Fredrick Douglass once stated and I conclude "I prayed for twenty years but received no answers until I prayed with my legs" Think about it...
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
Original Sin and the Atonement
From John G. Jackson's essay the Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth (see web link: http://www.africawithin.com/jgjackson/jgjackson_pagan_origins_of_the_christ_myth1.htm) he states: The cardinal doctrines of the Christian religion are (1) the Fall of Man and (2) the Atonement. He later quotes from T.W. Doanes who points out:
"These two dogmas cannot be separated from each other. If there was no Fall, there is no need of an atonement, and no Redeemer is required. Those, then, who consent in recognizing in Christ Jesus a God and Redeemer, and who, notwithstanding, cannot resolve upon admitting the story of the Fall of Man to be historical, should exculpate themselves from the reproach of inconsistency"
I will substitute Original Sin for Fall of Man and therefore one must ask: What is Original Sin? Original Sin is a Christian belief based on Paul's statement, "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned 13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Augustine of Hippo fully developed the doctrine of Original sin because he stated that is was "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43) and from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "hereditary sin", taught through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve (Genesis Chapter 2-3). The Augustinian doctrine of original sin teaches that every individual is born into a broken world where sin is already active; that they are inevitably influenced personally by the actions of others and the consequences of choices made by others. The Augustinian effectively believes that human nature - and hence every individual person - is flawed. Therefore, according to this doctrine, Original Sin is perpetually transmitted to human beings by Adam and Eve.
What is the Atonement? The atonement is a doctrine found within both Christianity and Judaism. It describes how sin can be forgiven by God. In Judaism, Atonement is said to be the process of forgiving or pardoning a transgression. This was originally accomplished through rituals performed by a High Priest on the holiest day of the Jewish year called Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Since the fall of the second temple, the idea of a mediator is no longer accepted as necessary for atonement in Judaism, to atone for sin all one need to do is simply repent. Also the atonement was for actual sins, the breaking of the Mosaic Law, and not for an original sin. In Christian theology, the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which made possible reconciliation between God and creation thus the Christian doctrine of atonement is more properly understood to be reconciliation. Which essentially mean we were enemies of God through the original sin of Adam and through Jesus Christ giving of himself as a sacrifice for Adam's sin we now have a restored friendship with God in (see 1 Corinthians 11:2-10; 15:22, Matthew 26:28).
Is Original Sin perpetual? I don't think it is. First, according to Judaism, which is Christianity's predecessor, there is no scriptural proof of a Jewish doctrine of original sin. In fact, in Genesis 4:6,7 (NIV) in the story of Cain and Abel, Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.This implies that Cain(the first born after the fall) was not born sinful but allowed sin to overtake him and thus the Original Sin Doctrine has no merit. Also, the Torah(The first five books of the Holy Bible and Hebrew Bible), a person sin will not exceed the 3 or 4 generation (Exodus 34:7 ) even though this text contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16 . Moreover, the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel18:20 which states that every man shall be responsible for his own sin and not the sins of his ancestors. Lets say I take the conservative stance and go with Exodus 34:7 that a person ancestry sin's pass on to the next generation, if Adam and Eve sinned then mankind punishment for Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience should not have exceed their great-great-grand children. If the sin did not exceed Adam/Eve great-great-grandkids i.e. the fourth generation, then the idea of a savoir-god atoning for original sin is unnecessary.
Secondly, I think that the theory of evolution does the most damage to the original sin, according to evolution mankind and other species slowly changed from lower life forms over millions of years, and according to geologist the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evolution is a scientific fact the theory or best explanation is what Charles Darwin called Natural Selection. The reason we have evolved with the great Apes (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc.) from a common ancestor is found in genetics, human and other primates have a vitamin C deficiency, if we did not evolve from a common ancestor then other primates would not have this deficiency.
In conclusion, the idea of Original Sin is a myth or way people try to explain why people behave improperly to themselves and to others. The original sin idea creates a problem which has a ready made solution (the atonement through Jesus Christ). The reason we behave improperly is because we are mammals, because we have an ego, which is a conceived idea about ourselves, we have this notion that we are different from other species. Judaism, Christianity’s predecessor, doesn’t support the idea of original sin and because we have evolved over millions of years. We must concede there was no fall of man in a garden of delight, i.e. , and therefore the idea of a dying savior is not necessary. This is why creationist sees evolution as the greatest threat, but this is another blog.
"These two dogmas cannot be separated from each other. If there was no Fall, there is no need of an atonement, and no Redeemer is required. Those, then, who consent in recognizing in Christ Jesus a God and Redeemer, and who, notwithstanding, cannot resolve upon admitting the story of the Fall of Man to be historical, should exculpate themselves from the reproach of inconsistency"
I will substitute Original Sin for Fall of Man and therefore one must ask: What is Original Sin? Original Sin is a Christian belief based on Paul's statement, "Therefore just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned 13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Augustine of Hippo fully developed the doctrine of Original sin because he stated that is was "the deliberate sin of the first man is the cause of original sin" (De nupt. et concup., II, xxvi, 43) and from the Augustinian perspective, is not a free and individual choice by a baby; but rather the effect of the sum total of "hereditary sin", taught through the story of the sin of Adam and Eve (Genesis Chapter 2-3). The Augustinian doctrine of original sin teaches that every individual is born into a broken world where sin is already active; that they are inevitably influenced personally by the actions of others and the consequences of choices made by others. The Augustinian effectively believes that human nature - and hence every individual person - is flawed. Therefore, according to this doctrine, Original Sin is perpetually transmitted to human beings by Adam and Eve.
What is the Atonement? The atonement is a doctrine found within both Christianity and Judaism. It describes how sin can be forgiven by God. In Judaism, Atonement is said to be the process of forgiving or pardoning a transgression. This was originally accomplished through rituals performed by a High Priest on the holiest day of the Jewish year called Yom Kippur (Day of Atonement). Since the fall of the second temple, the idea of a mediator is no longer accepted as necessary for atonement in Judaism, to atone for sin all one need to do is simply repent. Also the atonement was for actual sins, the breaking of the Mosaic Law, and not for an original sin. In Christian theology, the atonement refers to the forgiving or pardoning of sin through the crucifixion of Jesus Christ, which made possible reconciliation between God and creation thus the Christian doctrine of atonement is more properly understood to be reconciliation. Which essentially mean we were enemies of God through the original sin of Adam and through Jesus Christ giving of himself as a sacrifice for Adam's sin we now have a restored friendship with God in (see 1 Corinthians 11:2-10; 15:22, Matthew 26:28).
Is Original Sin perpetual? I don't think it is. First, according to Judaism, which is Christianity's predecessor, there is no scriptural proof of a Jewish doctrine of original sin. In fact, in Genesis 4:6,7 (NIV) in the story of Cain and Abel, Then the Lord said to Cain, "Why are you angry? Why is your face downcast? If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it.This implies that Cain(the first born after the fall) was not born sinful but allowed sin to overtake him and thus the Original Sin Doctrine has no merit. Also, the Torah(The first five books of the Holy Bible and Hebrew Bible), a person sin will not exceed the 3 or 4 generation (Exodus 34:7 ) even though this text contradicts Deuteronomy 24:16 . Moreover, the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel18:20 which states that every man shall be responsible for his own sin and not the sins of his ancestors. Lets say I take the conservative stance and go with Exodus 34:7 that a person ancestry sin's pass on to the next generation, if Adam and Eve sinned then mankind punishment for Adam and Eve's sin of disobedience should not have exceed their great-great-grand children. If the sin did not exceed Adam/Eve great-great-grandkids i.e. the fourth generation, then the idea of a savoir-god atoning for original sin is unnecessary.
Secondly, I think that the theory of evolution does the most damage to the original sin, according to evolution mankind and other species slowly changed from lower life forms over millions of years, and according to geologist the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Evolution is a scientific fact the theory or best explanation is what Charles Darwin called Natural Selection. The reason we have evolved with the great Apes (chimps, orangutans, gorillas, etc.) from a common ancestor is found in genetics, human and other primates have a vitamin C deficiency, if we did not evolve from a common ancestor then other primates would not have this deficiency.
In conclusion, the idea of Original Sin is a myth or way people try to explain why people behave improperly to themselves and to others. The original sin idea creates a problem which has a ready made solution (the atonement through Jesus Christ). The reason we behave improperly is because we are mammals, because we have an ego, which is a conceived idea about ourselves, we have this notion that we are different from other species. Judaism, Christianity’s predecessor, doesn’t support the idea of original sin and because we have evolved over millions of years. We must concede there was no fall of man in a garden of delight, i.e. , and therefore the idea of a dying savior is not necessary. This is why creationist sees evolution as the greatest threat, but this is another blog.
Monday, September 29, 2008
From Son of a Preacher man to Freethinker
How did I get to my views? I grew-up in a Pentecostal holiness church, my father (deceased) and mother were ministers (my mother still is). As most religious ideology begins, mine begin as a child. I attended church every Sunday, Wednesday, and whenever there was a revival or other function going on in the denomination I was in church. I accepted the bible as the "word of God", inerrant, infallible and literally true. I accepted the story of Adam and Eve, the fall of man, the flood and everything from Genesis to Revelation as absolute truth. I grew up with the idea of the imminent return of Jesus and so I felt there was no reason to plan for the future or be concern with educational goals, marriage, or planning for adulthood.
My transition started about 12 years ago. I was faithfully paying my tithes but was falling behind in my bills and so I ask the question, why does an invisible deity need 10% of my income? For those of you who don't know what tithes are it the belief that 10% of your income belongs to God, it was establish by the priest (Levites) in old testament times as their inheritance when the 12 tribes of Israel divide the conquered land of the Canaanites, the Levites did not get an inheritance of the land therefore the 11 other tribes were require to give them 10% of whatever their land produced(see Deuteronomy 26:12-15). This simple question started me on my metamorphosis from a bible carrying, speaking in tongues believer to a freethinker. With this question on my mind one day I was searching the internet and I came across an essay by Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason and this was the first time I saw someone critical of the bible and especially Christianity. I had read the bible through and through and I never thought about the atrocities that Jehovah, Moses, Abraham, David, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Sampson and others did in the Old Testament. I accepted it as the will of God. Then I thought about the Original Sin story of Adam and Eve and how ridiculous it appeared, that all of humanity was doom because two people were deceived by a talking snake.
Therefore if the doctrine of original sin is foolish so is the idea of atonement. Why do I feel the original sin and atonement is illogical? If I commit a crime, I don't expect my kids or grand kids to do my time of incarceration or to die in my place if the death sentence is required. I don't take the bible literally anymore it is just a compiled book with ancient Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, and other near east mythologies. I do not consider myself an atheist nor am I theist, I am just a skeptical freethinker. If I am an atheist it would be in the sense that I don't see any evidence for a personal god or deity, but if there is an ultimate cause that is impersonal then this seems to be at the present something that is unknowable, how would I know if this isn't either a super-alien or a supernatural god, I don't know neither the hypothesis to test this nor even the question to ask to get to a hypothesis.
I would say as Socrates, I know that I don't know and this made him the wisest of men. My present belief can be summed up by Dr. W.E.B Du Bois reply to a priest: In 1948, a priest wrote to Dr. Du Bois asking him whether or not he believed in God. Dr. Du Bois replied: "Answering your letter of October 3, may I say: If by `a believer 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 not in my personal experience. If on the other hand you mean by 'God' a vague Force which, in some incomprehensible [sic] 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.
My transition started about 12 years ago. I was faithfully paying my tithes but was falling behind in my bills and so I ask the question, why does an invisible deity need 10% of my income? For those of you who don't know what tithes are it the belief that 10% of your income belongs to God, it was establish by the priest (Levites) in old testament times as their inheritance when the 12 tribes of Israel divide the conquered land of the Canaanites, the Levites did not get an inheritance of the land therefore the 11 other tribes were require to give them 10% of whatever their land produced(see Deuteronomy 26:12-15). This simple question started me on my metamorphosis from a bible carrying, speaking in tongues believer to a freethinker. With this question on my mind one day I was searching the internet and I came across an essay by Thomas Paine called the Age of Reason and this was the first time I saw someone critical of the bible and especially Christianity. I had read the bible through and through and I never thought about the atrocities that Jehovah, Moses, Abraham, David, Joshua, Elijah, Elisha, Sampson and others did in the Old Testament. I accepted it as the will of God. Then I thought about the Original Sin story of Adam and Eve and how ridiculous it appeared, that all of humanity was doom because two people were deceived by a talking snake.
Therefore if the doctrine of original sin is foolish so is the idea of atonement. Why do I feel the original sin and atonement is illogical? If I commit a crime, I don't expect my kids or grand kids to do my time of incarceration or to die in my place if the death sentence is required. I don't take the bible literally anymore it is just a compiled book with ancient Hebrews, Egyptians, Babylonians, and other near east mythologies. I do not consider myself an atheist nor am I theist, I am just a skeptical freethinker. If I am an atheist it would be in the sense that I don't see any evidence for a personal god or deity, but if there is an ultimate cause that is impersonal then this seems to be at the present something that is unknowable, how would I know if this isn't either a super-alien or a supernatural god, I don't know neither the hypothesis to test this nor even the question to ask to get to a hypothesis.
I would say as Socrates, I know that I don't know and this made him the wisest of men. My present belief can be summed up by Dr. W.E.B Du Bois reply to a priest: In 1948, a priest wrote to Dr. Du Bois asking him whether or not he believed in God. Dr. Du Bois replied: "Answering your letter of October 3, may I say: If by `a believer 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 not in my personal experience. If on the other hand you mean by 'God' a vague Force which, in some incomprehensible [sic] 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.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Review of Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why
I have just finished reading Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, by Bart D. Ehrman, PhD. It is 218 pages long and has an introduction, seven chapters, and a conclusion. Dr. Ehrman describes how he became a Christian as a teenager and how he went to Moody Bible Institute, the Wheaton College, and finally to Princeton. These universities are all Christian-founded universities. Chapter 1 discusses how Christianity was a literary religion (written not oral) like its ancestor Judaism even though the majority of its believers could not read or write (only 5 to 10 percent of 1 century people could read or write). Chapter 2. The Copyist of the Early Christian Writings: the claim by Dr. Ehrman in chapter two is that the oldest and existing manuscripts we have today are copies of a copies, which are copies of copies that were changed accidentally and sometimes intentionally in 1st and 2nd century during the time when there weren't any professional scribes, and it is difficult to know what the original author actually stated, and some scholars have concluded that we never know, however Dr. Ehrman feels we may not know in an absolute sense but we can have a reasonable idea of what is original by studying the words, styles of writing to figure out reasonably what text were additions examples are John 7:52-8:11 and Mark 16:9-16 are examples of known additions, the words used and the writing style give clues to these being additions. Some additions were used by Heretics and Orthodoxy to influence the message toward doctrines each were trying to push. Dr. Ehrman is an expert textual critic in New Testament. Textual criticism is a branch of literary criticism that is concern with the identification of and removal of transcriptional errors in the text of manuscripts. (Wikipedia.) Info backing the claim is John and Marks additions. We need to remember also that the first copyist (1st through the 4th century C.E.) were not professional scribes but amateurs who were wealthy Christian leaders or literate slaves who worked for wealthy Christians so it is probable that errors were made when copying the original authors. Chapter 3. Text of the New Testament: Rome, Palestine, and Alexandria (center of the early Christian movement) each had different documents that did not influence each other. Most scholars believe the Alexandrian manuscripts, Alexandria was a major intellectual center in the ancient world, were more of a reliable source and was more scrupulous, in other words a very pure form of early Christian writings was preserved decade after decade. Professional scribes did not exist until near the beginning of the fourth century, because Emperor Constantine was converted to Christianityin 312 C.E. . In 331 C.E. Constantine commissioned 50 copies of the Bible by Eusebius to be produced for major cities were he was having churches built. Where did the professional scribes (including Eusebius) get the texts they were going to copy (this was before the printing press)? They got them from the earliest amateurs copies, full of copyist errors. There were different regions where the copies were created Greek=Eastern, Latin=Western, Coptic=Egypt, and Syriac= Syria, each copy used local languages. Pope Damasus commissioned Jerome to produce an "official" Latin translation, called the Vulgate (Common). This lead to twice as many Latin manuscripts/text than Greek text also called Byzantine Text. The printing press revolutionized creating copies of text, the 1st book printed on the printing press was the Latin Vulgate Bible, it took six years. Erasmus produced the 1st printed (1516) text of the Greek manuscript, which was rifted with errors, this happen 1400 years after the originals. King James is based on Erasmus error ridden Greek Text, not the oldest and best manuscripts, for example in 1John 5:7-8, what is called the Johannine Comma, was not in the oldest and best Greek Manuscripts. The Textus Receptus or T. R. , a term used by textual critics to refer to that form of Greek text that is based on not, the oldest and best manuscripts, but on the form of text originally published by Erasmus, including the King James version who used this T. R. in its editions. Textual Criticism did not occur seriously until 1707, it was an edition of the Greek New Testament by John Mill, a fellow of Queens College, Oxford, were he found 30,000 variations or differences between the manuscripts he was using, and this was not exhaustive, but it opened the door to dispute what had been complacently accepted until that point, today there are more variations or differences in the know manuscripts than there are words in the New Testatment. His Greek New Testament alarmed Protestants that the Catholics would say that this is proof that Christians cannot be saved by faith alone (a key argument of Protestantism) but by Church Authority (a key argument of Catholicism) because these variations you need Apostolic authority to gain salvation. This book say something that is true( and I really never thought about it until he brought it out), that when we read something we automatically change it, so that we can understand what is being written in our own words, or in a way that includes our point of view (our past experiences, influences that affect our thoughts, etc.) He concluded that the bible is a human book written by humans and not inspired by God. As he concluded “For the only reason ( I came to think) for God to inspire the Bible would be so that his people would have his actual words; but if he really wanted people to have his actual words, surely he would have miraculously preserved those words, just as he had miraculously inspired them in the first place. Given the circumstance that he didn’t preserve the words; the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them." The writers of the gospels had different messages, and different ways that they saw Jesus. Luke, who borrowed from Mark, changed how he saw Jesus crucifixion, he could have copied marks description but he saw Jesus death differently from Mark. He also discusses textual criticism, its history, and the people who influenced textual criticism. As Ehrman brings out so to the scribes who was copying the copies of copies accidentally and intentionally made changes based on their interpretation of the situation. We also need to remember we did not have a printing press until the fifteen century, therefore for 1500 centuries it was copied by hand. People made errors in copying, also for the first three hundred centuries before the Roman Catholic Church became the state religion and had professional scribes, the original copies was copied by those who happened to literate enough to copy and they made errors in copying, so when you change the original you change the intent, and often times they were sloppy, lazy, inept and made mistakes. During the 1400 years scribes added, deleted, misspelled, and changed text to emphasize a point, to dispel a dispute internally and externally (Jews, Pagans, etc.) or role of women, etc. The scribes were human and so when they were reading a text would like any other human change the text so they could put it into words which made senses to them, just like when we read the text of something written, we read from our human needs, beliefs, worldview, opinions, love, longings, likes, dislikes and so forth, all these things influence our perception of what is in the text and so the text changes whether we want it to or not. However, the scribes went further than just merely reading it; they physically changed it and so changed the original meaning, because it was not copied word for word. Some words were misspelled, or changed accidentally or intentionally and so even if we read the bible is not the original and if we read the original we would still change it in our mind to “other words” or contexts in which we could understand it and so change the originally meaning. And as Dr. Ehrman concluded " the bible was written by humans trying to make sense of their own lives and situations." I would recommend this book to anyone who is sincere in seeking the truth of how the New Testament as we have it, is totally different from what was originally written. It is not the word of God, but simply words of Humans.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Journey of my ancestors
My journey to know about my ancestry began with the desire to research who my ancestor were, where they came from and how they contribute to me being me. Due to the history of the slave system of the United States of America and other European colonies, as well as the subsequent treatment of my Africans ancestors; their names, religions, histories, languages, and cultures were all but erased from their descendants memories. As a result, the enslaver who brought our ancestors here gave us names, their languages, their religions, and we created a new culture that is an amalgamation of the unknown cultures that our forbearers brought with them over the middle passage with new the identity the enslaver gave them. Thanks to science and technology, I had my Y-DNA tested by the Genographic Project, upgraded with Family Tree DNA. My Y-DNA test results identify me as a member of haplogroup E1b1a (E-M2 in shorthand). The genetic markers that define my ancestral history reach back roughly 70,000 years to the first common marker of all non-African men, M168, and follow my lineage to present day, ending with M2, the defining marker of haplogroup E1b1a. If I look at the genetics highlighting my ancestors' route in and out of Africa, I see that members of my haplogroup E1b1a carry the following Y-chromosome markers: Haplogroup CT or M168 >> Haplogroup DE or YAP +>> Haplogroup E or M96 >> Haplogroup E1 or P147 >> E1b or P177 >> Haplogroup E1b1 or P2 >> Haplogroup E1b1a or M2. I am descended from an ancient African lineage.
What I Know Now:
My paternal ancestry begin with an individual carrying the genetic marker M168 in my lineage who probably lived in northeast Africa in the region of the Rift Valley, perhaps in present-day Ethiopia, Kenya, or Tanzania, some 31,000 to 79,000 years ago. Scientists put the most likely date for when he lived at around 70,000 years ago. His descendants, which I am too, became the only lineage to survive outside of Africa, making him the common ancestor of every non-African man living today. But why would man have first ventured out of the familiar African hunting grounds and into unexplored lands? It is likely that a fluctuation in climate may have provided the impetus for my ancestors' exodus out of Africa. The African ice age was characterized by drought rather than by cold. It was around 50,000 years ago that the ice sheets of northern Europe began to melt, introducing a period of warmer temperatures and moister climate in Africa. Parts of the inhospitable Sahara briefly became habitable. As the drought-ridden desert changed to a savanna, the animals hunted by my ancestors expanded their range and began moving through the newly emerging green corridor of grasslands. My nomadic ancestors followed the good weather and the animals they hunted, although the exact route they followed remains to be determined. In addition to a favorable change in climate, around this same time there was a great leap forward in modern humans' intellectual capacity. Many scientists believe that the emergence of language gave us a huge advantage over other early human species. Improved tools and weapons, the ability to plan ahead and cooperate with one another, and an increased capacity to exploit resources in ways we hadn't been able to earlier, all allowed modern humans to rapidly migrate to new territories, exploit new resources, and replace other hominids. As time moves on he have descendants, one his descendants had another mutation. Sub-Saharan populations living today are characterized by one of three distinct Y-chromosome branches on the human tree.
My paternal lineage E1b1a falls under one of these ancient branches and is referred to by geneticists as YAP+ or Haplogroup DE.The individual carrying the YAP was born around northeast Africa and is the most common of the three ancient genetic branches found in sub-Saharan Africa. He had a mutational event known as an Alu insertion or YAP, which is a 300-nucleotide fragment of DNA which, on rare occasion, gets inserted into different parts of the human genome during cell replication. Living around 65,500 years ago, my distant ancestor, acquired this fragment on his Y-chromosome and passed it on to his descendants. Over time his lineage split into two distinct groups. One is found primarily in Africa and the Mediterranean, is defined by marker M96 and is called haplogroup E. The other group, haplogroup D is found in Asia and defined by the M174 mutation. Y-DNA haplogroup E would appear to have arisen in Northeast Africa based on the concentration and variety of E subclades in that area today. But the fact that Haplogroup E is closely linked with Haplogroup D, which is not found in Africa, leaves open the possibility that E first arose in the Near or Middle East and was subsequently carried into Africa by a back migration.E1b1 is by far the lineage of greatest geographical distribution. It has two important sub-lineages, E1b1a and E1b1b. My genetic lineage lies within the group that remained close to home, and was carried by men who likely played an integral role in recent cultural and migratory events within Africa.
Moving Out of Africa:
As explain above, my ancestor have descendants they move out of east Africa into “North Africa/Middle East/Near East” corridor possibly present day region from Egypt to possibly present day Iran/Iraq. As the population grows from the abundant food and livestock in the region, these resources become strained. Therefore some of Haplogroup DE (YAP+) descendants migrate to Far East Asia, while some remain close to Africa via the Middle East/Near East corridor, one such descendant had another mutation which created a new Haplogroup called E. This Branch of the tree and ancestral lineage was born around 52,500 years ago in northeast Africa and had a new mutation that gave rise to marker M96. The origins of M96 are unclear; hopefully as DNA research is refined and updated more light will be shed on his origins.
What is known is that there were two great waves of migration out of Africa. The first small groups of people left around 60,000 years ago and followed a coastal route that eventually reached Australia. The second exodus occurred beginning around 50,000 years ago, heading north. The bulk of these travelers were descendants of a man born with marker M89, a group we'll call the Middle Eastern Clan. Some 90 to 95 percent of all non-Africans today are descendants of the Middle Eastern Clan. I am descended from an ancient African lineage that chose to move north into North Africa and Middle/Near East regions. My kinsmen may have accompanied the Middle Eastern Clan as they followed the great herds of large mammals north through the grassy plains and savannas of the Sahara gateway. Alternatively, a group of my ancestors may have undertaken their own migration at a later date, following the same route previously traveled by the Middle Eastern Clan peoples.Nevertheless, beginning about 40,000 years ago, the climate shifted once again and became colder and more arid. Drought hit Africa and the grasslands reverted to desert; for the next 20,000 years, the Saharan Gateway was effectively closed. With the desert impassable, my ancestors had two options: remain in North Africa, or move on. Retreat back to the home continent was not an option. Like his father he too had descendants, some stayed in the North Africa/Middle East/Near East regions and others longed to return to home (Africa). Like his ancestors there was another mutation on my ancestors Y-DNA which gave rise to a new branch now called E1b1a with the defining mutation or marker called M2.
The Rise of E1b1a (E-M2):
The haplogroup E1b1a (E-M2) may have originated about 20,000 to 25,000 years ago in the pockets of habitable land along the Sahara/Sahel/Sudanese Belt
Sources:
Alonso S et al. (2005)."The place of the Basques in the European Y-chromosome diversity landscape." Eur J Hum Genet 13(12):1293-302.
Al-Zahery N et al. (2003)."Y-chromosome and mtDNA polymorphisms in
Arredi B et al. (2004)."A predominantly neolithic origin for Y-chromosomal DNA variation in
Balanovsky O et al. (2008)."Two sources of the Russian patrilineal heritage in their Eurasian context." Am J Hum Genet
Barac L et al. (2003)."Y chromosomal heritage of Croatian population and its island isolates." Eur J Hum Genet
Beleza S et al. (2005)."The genetic legacy of western Bantu migrations." Hum Genet 117(4):366-75.
Bereir RE et al. (2007)."Co-introgression of Y-chromosome haplogroups and the sickle cell gene across Africa's
Bosch E et al. (2001)."High-resolution analysis of human Y-chromosome variation shows a sharp discontinuity and limited gene flow between northwestern Africa and the
Bowden GR et al. (2007)."Excavating Past Population Structures by Surname-based Sampling: the Genetic Legacy of the Vikings in
Capelli C et al. (2006)."Population structure in the Mediterranean basin: a Y chromosome perspective." Ann Hum Genet 70(Pt 2):207-25.
Cinnioglu C et al. (2004)."Excavating Y-chromosome haplotype strata in
Coia V et al. (2004)."Binary and microsatellite polymorphisms of the Y-chromosome in the Mbenzele pygmies from the
Cruciani F et al. (2002)."A back migration from Asia to sub-Saharan
Firasat S et al. (2007)."Y-chromosomal evidence for a limited Greek contribution to the Pathan population of
Francalacci P et al. (2003)."Peopling of three Mediterranean islands (Corsica, Sardinia, and
Hurles ME et al. (2005)."The dual origin of the Malagasy in Island Southeast Asia and
Karafet TM et al. (2002)."High levels of Y-chromosome differentiation among native Siberian populations and the genetic signature of a boreal hunter-gatherer way of life." Hum Biol 74(6):761-89.
Kayser M et al. (2005)."Significant genetic differentiation between
Luis JR et al. (2004)."The
Marjanovic D et al. (2005)."The peopling of modern Bosnia-Herzegovina: Y-chromosome haplogroups in the three main ethnic groups." Ann Hum Genet 69(Pt 6):757-63.
Nasidze I et al. (2004)."Mitochondrial DNA and Y-chromosome variation in the caucasus." Ann Hum Genet 68(Pt 3):205-21.
Onofri V et al. (2007)."Y-chromosome genetic structure in sub-Apennine populations of
Pericic M et al. (2005)."High-resolution phylogenetic analysis of southeastern
Qamar R et al. (2002)."Y-chromosomal DNA variation in
Regueiro M et al. (2006)."
Rosa A et al. (2007)."Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of
Rosser ZH et al. (2000)."Y-chromosomal diversity in
Semino O et al. (2002)."Ethiopians and Khoisan share the deepest clades of the human Y-chromosome phylogeny." Am J Hum Genet 70(1):265-8.
Sengupta S et al. (2006)."Polarity and temporality of high-resolution y-chromosome distributions in
Shen P et al. (2004)."Reconstruction of patrilineages and matrilineages of Samaritans and other Israeli populations from Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA sequence variation." Hum Mutat 24(3):248-60.
Tambets K et al. (2004)."The western and eastern roots of the Saami--the story of genetic "outliers" told by mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomes." Am J Hum Genet 74(4):661-82.
Tishkoff SA et al. (2007)."History of click-speaking populations of
Wells RS et al. (2001)."The Eurasian heartland: a continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(18):10244-9.
Wood ET et al. (2005)."Contrasting patterns of Y chromosome and mtDNA variation in
Karafet ET et al. (2008)."New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree" Genome Research 13(7):867-76.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
