Health Care reform and our Inner Ape

I think the health care reform issue is a classic example of an idea by Frans de Waal in his book Our Inner Ape: A Leading Primatologist Explains Why We Are Who We Are. The idea, in Chapter 2 entitled Power, is a coalition theory called "strength is weakness". In "strength is weakness" the most powerful player is often the least attractive ally. Joining them adds little to their strength which in turns results in fewer benefits. However, if a coalition is formed by throwing weight behind a weaker player it gives one far more leverage and also translates into more prestige and benefits. Using the Paradoxical idea of weakness is strength; minor players can position themselves at an intersection that offers great advantage. Dr de Waals use the example of three chimps, Yereon, Nikki, and Luit in the Arnhem Zoo in Holland to illustrate his point. He tells the story of Luit who was the alpha male and how he was killed. Yereon, who was the alpha, was dethroned by Luit and after Yereon got over his loss, he skillfully aligned himself with Nikki because aligning himself with Luit had little or no benefits because Luit did not need his support. Luit eventually was double-teamed by Nikki (who became the new alpha male) and Yereon when they are all caged together one evening.
I see this "weakness is strength" coalition theory in the so-called "Gang of Six" a group of Centrist Senators. They are calling the shots on health care reform because of the division in Congress (i.e. the conservative Republicans versus progressive Democrats). The democrats who have a majority is in a weaker position than these six Senators because they need them to pass this health care reform, as a result, this small coalition are creating our health care reform.
This also show evolutionary theory is such a powerful explanatory tool, we need to get the chip off our shoulder and wake up to the fact that we are Hairless Apes or Primates (i.e. we are not the central purpose of universe). We evolved in communal societies like other primates, this is why we seek out coalitions and why we are gregarious. We diverged from a common ancestor with our Chimpanzee and Bonobos cousins six million years ago. We are not the only intelligent social primates on this planet as so eloquently illustrated by Frans de Waal in Our Inner Ape. Think about it...

The Word of God?

I often hear people say the Bible is god’s word but I have never read this directly, the closest I have read is that all scripture is given by inspiration or god-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16), or gods words are pure (Proverbs 30:5.6), neither statement defines what they mean by inspiration or god's word. When these authors wrote this they were not thinking what they were writing was scripture, they may have been talking about the Torah or the Law (Psalm 19:8). They may not even have been talking about the Hebrew bible because it had not been canonized or decided on when these statements were written. I listened to a podcast by the Non-Prophets recently and they said something I had not thought about before. What is the difference between me saying that god is speaking to me through a box and someone saying that god speak to them through a Bible, Koran, and the Vedas or any so-called sacred text, the only difference people would think I was insane or delusional, while the other is seen as not insane or delusional.. What is the difference? What is the difference if I say god speaks to me from one book over another? Let say I said god spoke to me when I read the American Heritage Dictionary another said god speaks to them when they read the Bible, both of them contain words. What is the difference? Well most believers would say I believe that the bible or gods word is alive, well if something is alive it eats, reproduces, converts energy to one form to another, and so forth, I don’t know if trees or plants breathe but alive is synonymous with to breathe. It is alive because it is you who makes it alive, if the reader did not read it, then it would be another book collecting dust on the shelf. Another thing I am aware of is when a believer states his or her faith, they are acting as the judge and the advocate, when they say the bible is the infallible word of god, if you ask what do you mean by the word of god, and if you follow up with how do you know this is true? Could they give you an answer without circular reasoning? Think about it...

Anselm Argument vs Jehovah or Yahweh

I am quoting this from an article by Roy Jackson on the website www.philosophernet.com.
"Anselm's Argument

`And so, O Lord, since thou givest understanding to faith, give me to understand - as far as thou knowest it to be good for me - that thou dost exist, as we believe, and that thou art what we believe thee to be. Now we believe that thou are a being than which none greater can be conceived.'
(From Proslogion, Chapter 2)

The important part of this quote is what Anselm meant by "that thou are a being than which none greater can be conceived". Two key words here need to be clearly defined. First of all, what did he mean by `conceived' (some translations use the word `thought')? Judging from the Proslogion, the primary meaning of this word is synonymous with that which is logically possible. However, the problem here is that it certainly seems possible to conceive of God's non-existence. As we will examine later, however, the conception of the non-existence of God is, in fact, logically impossible!

The second key word is what he meant by `greater'. Although Anselm himself does not define what he meant by this, it seems apparent that he is not merely limiting himself to `goodness', but is using it in the more all-encompassing manner that suggests God's omnipotence; i.e. powerful, able, and so on. It is obvious that he did not mean the greatest being that you or I can possibly think of, or conceive, simply because we are limited in our conceptions. What Anselm meant was the greatest being that it is logically possible for any conceiver to conceive of. The very fact that Anselm meditates upon the property of God as being `the greatest being' means that God must be greater than the human conception of `greatness'."
I thought about Anselm statement and Roy Jackson's interpretation of it, he must have been meditating or describing some other god other than Yahweh or Jehovah, I can conceive of a being greater than the god of the bible: therefore, can one say that the god of the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is not god? The reason I ask this rhetorical question, is I can conceive of a god greater than the one described in the Torah, the Christian bible, and the Koran. Therefore the god of these religions do not fit this definition of Anselm's god. Lets look at some characteristics of the Jehovah or Yahweh. Yahweh or Jehovah according to what believers calls his word, he is jealous, unmerciful, not omniscient, not omnipresent, and not omnipotent. Whenever you see the word "the Lord" it means Yahweh or Jehovah or Adonai (which the Jews used as a substitute for Yahweh or Jehovah, because they thought Jehovah/Yahweh was too sacred to be written so they use Adonai when writing) For example, according to Exodus 20:1-5 "1 And God spoke all these words: 2 "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 3 "You shall have no other gods before me. 4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God.." He is not merciful according to Jeremiah 13:14 "And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them." He is not omniscient according to Genesis 3:8 "And Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God, among the trees of the garden" and he is not omnipresent according to Genesis 18:20 "And the Lord said, because of the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it which is come unto me, and if not, I will know". Finally,Jehovah/Yahweh is not omnipotent according to Judges 1:19 "And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron". Therefore, the god of the bible is not a god in which none greater can be conceived, think about it...
Black Socrates

Heaven must be boring

"Heaven must be really boring, if you think about it logically, all the angels must be snoring, who could stand perfection for eternity...not me... Heaven Must Be Boring by George Hrab.
According to Mark 12:18-25 18 "Then the Sadducees, who say there is no resurrection, came to him with a question. 19 "Teacher," they said, "Moses wrote for us that if a man's brother dies and leaves a wife but no children, the man must marry the widow and have children for his brother. 20 Now there were seven brothers. The first one married and died without leaving any children. 21 The second one married the widow, but he also died, leaving no child. It was the same with the third. 22 In fact, none of the seven left any children. Last of all, the woman died too. 23 At the resurrection whose wife will she be, since the seven were married to her?" 24 Jesus replied, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God? 25 When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." (This woman must have been like Blanche Taylor Moore a convicted serial killer who is on death row in North Carolina she was convicted of killing five men, this woman out lived seven husband, I would not want to eat her cooking.)
If we are going to be like the angels, which the passage does not clarify what angels are like, other than they cannot marry. However, can they have sex? If the sons of God in Genesis 6 are the same as angels it does seem they would be capable of having sex, because one can infer if they can impregnate the daughters of men. According to Baker's Evangelical Dictionary Angels "The Apocrypha In the late postexilic period angelology became a prominent feature of Jewish religion. The angel Michael was deemed to be Judaism's patron, and the apocryphal writings named three other archangels as leaders of the angelic hierarchy. Chief of these was Raphael, who was supposed to present the prayers of pious Jews to God ( 1 Tobit 2:15). Uriel explained to Enoch many of his visions (1 Enoch 21:5-10; 27:2-4), interpreted Ezra's vision of the celestial Jerusalem (2 Esdras 10:28-57), and explained the fate of the fallen angels who supposedly married human women (1 Enoch 19:1-9; cf. Gen 6:2). Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, and Uriel (1 Enoch 40:3, 6) reported to God about the depraved state of humanity, and received appropriate instructions. According to contemporary thought, Gabriel sat on God's left, while Michael sat on the right side (2 Enoch 24:1). The primary concern of these two angels, however, was supposedly with missions on earth and affairs in heaven, respectively. In rabbinic Judaism they assumed a character which, while sometimes dramatic, had no factual basis in divine revelation" This is why Jude 6 and 2 Peter 2:4 say angels were held in dungeons in hell because they married human women. However, Jesus who is supposedly god incarnated says that angels are incapable of marriage or sexual intercourse. So what are humans going to do for eternity? If you read revelations you are going to be professional ass kissers for at least a thousand years, then another war, and finally you get to live in Jerusalem forever (wow, can you feel my sarcasm?). It is interesting after everything goes down it seems like for all your suffering you get to live a city, where you cannot have sex, and where you are a robot, so much for freewill...Think about it.

History

What is history moving us towards or what is the meaning of history? My question implies that there is a point that history is moving towards something significant that is a point, a reason, a purpose, or an end to the story. I was recently watching Countdown to Armageddon on the History Channel International as I watched it, the thought came to me the idea of the end of the world is this innate desire for this life to point toward something that is an end to a story. However, maybe that’s what the bible is a story with an ending that has nothing to do with reality. If I wrote a book and some events in real life happens that was written in the book, this does not make my book a book of prophecy, it was a book written to entertain, to tell a story, I feel the bible is the same, it is a collection of books that some people have mistaken for reality. In Christianity the point is to either be in heaven with Jesus or to return to a new Earth with Jesus. There is suppose to be a new Heaven as well; where God, his angels, and those who were righteous but not a part of the body of Christ will live. From my understanding the bride of Christ who is the Church of God will be the ones who will rule with Christ on Earth. My question is; then what or what is the point of that? Is nothing else going to happen? We want an end, but an end means a stop in evolution or change, no more development. When a book end there may be a sequence but eventually the story should end. Analogy would be Harry Potter will grow up and the story will get stale, in other words, there are only so many plots you can write before you have to come up with something new. J. K. Rowling must feel like she is stuck writing Harry Potter books. If she writes something other than Harry Potter whatever she writes will be compared to Harry Potter, sometimes success is not what it seems. Back to my point, the problem of accepting a story or a series of stories as a point of our existence is that there is nothing that you can do to convince a believer that another story is possible or in other words, religious believers accept that their myths are reality when it is not, it's just a story people used to explain the unknown, nothing more. Therefore, does history have an end? I hope not, this means we no longer exist. Furthermore, with our species still evolving and changing who knows where we will go, in other words, an open-ended history, our potential is unlimited and thus history is not a story it is reality and it can be whatever we want it to be. Think about it...

Fallacy of Judeo-Christianity Freewill

I am thinking about freewill. I have been listening again to an audio book by Dr. Bart D. Ehrman a professor who teaches at UNC-Chapel Hill, he has written several books about the New Testament, but he wrote a book called God’s Problem: How the bible fails to answer our most important question Why we suffer. He wrote something I never considered before, and it was about freewill. Often theist use the argument that we suffer because we have freewill. He mentioned that this argument fails because if heaven exist, and if a being have freewill in heaven, there exist a place where a person can have freewill and there is no suffering. I thought about this deeper, for example, if Satan rebelled against God and took a third of heaven with him (see Revelations 12:6-9), then he and the angels he convinced to join him, had freewill, if not then they could not have rebelled. Furthermore, when mankind supposedly ate the forbidden fruit, The Lord God said, “Mankind has become like one of us, knowing good and evil, we must remove him from the garden, less he should eat from the tree of life, and live forever" (see Genesis 3:22), therefore the Lord God must have knowledge of suffering and yet the Lord God lives in a realm where suffering does not exist i.e. heaven, and if the Lord God could create a place where suffering does not exist and where beings exist with freewill, then he could have created us with freewill without suffering and therefore the whole garden incident was totally unnecessary. On a philosophical idea of freewill, does it exist or are things causally determined or is it both? I am a soft-determinist, I think our nature (environment) and nurture (social training) seems to be causal but our behavior or how we react is up to us. If we are not free to a certain degree then how do we learn new reactions or learn something new? Think about it...

Assumptions

On the way to work this morning I had a thought on some assumptions that are essential for Christianity's existence. I would call these assumptions the pillars of the faith. According to The Oxford Pocket Dictionary and Thesaurus American Edition (The World's Most Trusted Dictionaries) (a statement I am somewhat skeptical, on whose authority is this statement based on)., back to my definition; assumption is a noun, which is defined as 1. Assuming 2. Accepting without proof 3. Arrogance and 4. Reception of the virgin Mary bodily into heaven. I am using the second definition of accepting without proof. Christianity accept without proof 1. There is an afterlife, I don't mean our matter-energy will be absorbed back into the ecosystem, but there will be a life after this one that is similar to this one but in a different realm or invisible to our senses. The second assumption that Jesus of Nazareth, which Christianity believes is the promised Messiah or Christ, physically rose from his death and afterward broke the laws of physics and ascended up to heaven to the right hand of the father. ( According to Luke 24:51 ironically this is the only gospel that makes this claim, since Mark 16:9-20 was not in the oldest reliable manuscripts, therefore we can disregard Mark similar claim). This leads to the assumption that heaven exist, which has conveniently turned into a realm invisible to our senses, but not according to the bible it was a place where Stephen saw Jesus (See Acts 7:55) and where the people of Babel could build a tower to in Genesis 11. The assumption was it's a place were people could see or reach if not why would Yahweh come down and confuse the languages or Stephen, who was still alive although being stoned could have not seen it. The biggest assumption which I think is the foundation of Christianity's existence and therefore upholds it is; there is a god who is involved in human activities and is personally involved in human affairs. Yet there is no physical evidence at least today of a god like Yahweh, the God of the old testament, Yahweh did miracles, he stopped time, parted seas, fed and clothe the people of Israel and so forth, yet this don't happen today where everyone could see instantly on worldwide news. Is there a god who is actively involved in human affairs. Think about this, as I typed and edit this blog which took me about 45 minutes and in this time 781 children have died from starvation and hunger related diseases, (approximately 1,042 children die every hour) because on average 25,000 children die every day from hunger and hunger related diseases (see globalissues.org). This is neither including the 2700 who died from Malaria today (see http:/.cdc.gov/malaria/facts.htm) nor the 100's of people who died from typhoons and mud slides. As a result, if god is actively involved in our lives, I think maybe we would be better off if perhaps he wasn't involved. Therefore, these are assumptions in which there is no evidence today or reasonable evidence that these things are true. ... think about it....