*DISCLAIMER: Not a fluid thought at all. Sorry. I started with the question of are humans animals and ended up arguing a proof of God. What is wrong with me lol. Anyways, read away!
At first glance you might think, of course humans are animals, we have the science to prove evolution, etc. But this is not exactly the question that I am raising. The question rather that I am raising is the question of: are humans equal to animals?
But, but, but, I love steak…
If you’re a vegan, it’s a no brainer. Humans are animals, therefore animals are equal to humans. But for the every day meat eating human, this is not such an easy concept to understand.
Now you might have noticed, I didn’t throw vegetarians into the mix, but that’s for good reason. I am at a crossroads at how I should view a vegetarian. Just like a vegan, they do not eat the flesh of other animals. However, they do eat and use the by-products of animals. For example, a vegetarian may eat eggs with their salad. Which makes so sense to me, because that’s like eating a preformed chicken or chicken in pre-fetus form (I don’t know what it’s called) on top of your veggies, but hey, I’m not here to judge. Well, yes, I am, but nonchalantly.
Awww, but it’s so cute…
But finally for meat eaters (like myself) this question can quickly turn into a deeper understanding of anthropology and biological anatomy. Which I think is really important when understanding this subject. I would hate for someone to be able to make laws and create policies without understanding anthropology or biological anatomy first. So before you start burning people at the stake for eating meat, take a step back, and try to formalize an argument besides, “It’s common sense, duh”.
I think that in regards to this issue, it would be helpful to look at the biological structure of human kind. As humans, we have to eat. Okay, for all you crazy scientist, we don’t have to eat, but we have to take in energy, which the most common way is eating (so shut up!). But this act of eating needs to be understood more than just taking in energy.
Oh boy! Here I go taking in energy again!
The act of eating is by definition violent. You might think, “Woah, that’s a pretty harsh word, for something we all do” but it’s true! The act of eating or consuming is violent in regards to it eliminating another biological life form. And if we think of it in this very scientific way, we can see the testament to where the idea of vegetarianism and veganism arise from.
But oppositely, comes the notion that plants being biological life forms as well, deserve the same rights as animals. Interestingly enough, this is a subject that has been in the air since the 70’s and is still going on today. The subject of “Plant Rights” is becoming ever more popular as nature conservationist and the like are becoming more public with their views and thoughts.
Dream on tiny grass, dream on…
I won’t get into plant rights as much in this post, but the sentiment is there. If eating is violent and we don’t want to do violence, how can we ever eat? It seems the answer to this question might lie in the technology being created ever so thoroughly in the modern age.
But let me go back to the original question at hand: Are humans equal to animals? Personally, I believe that all things in nature are equal in regards to being. The reason for this conclusion is because I view everything as a biological structure which can be broken or fixed according to its environment. By broken and fixed I do not mean in the traditional sense of having a broken car and then fixing it up, but rather like a self repair or self destruction. This could also be seen as evolution, but that may be too broad.
You might ask however, “How can you see inanimate objects as being alive”?! Simple. God.
If you’re an atheist, I’m sure that your heart skipped a beat. But don’t be alarmed. I use the term God because it’s the most well-known term for this kind of thing. We simply do not have another word for “God”. Scientists who refute religion would call this term the “Brain”, but the brain can be mistaken as we’ve seen many times in history. As elaborated in my first post I emphasize the unification of theology and science in the same way that the medieval thinker John Scotus once did.
Oh thank God, for a second, I thought you believed in God.
So through my Godly brain (that sounds so condescending) I view things as their organic compounds, which allows me to equate them as the same as me, because I am simply an organic compound as well. However what differentiates me from a stone, is our abilities or attributes, not our form. So if everything in this world has the same form, as in the rock and me are the same in structure, why is it that I can control the rock, but the rock can’t control me?
If we understand that the rock is equal in being, we can also take that the influence on each other is also equal. So if our influence on each other is equal, then in fact it is not the human that controls the stone, neither the stone that controls the human, but a harmonious interaction of equal beings. For example, if I were set back in time as the first human being coming across the first stone, how would this look in my interpretation?
Ex. I am the first human being coming across the first stone. I see the stone lying on the ground. I look at the stone, I poke at it, it does not move. So I decide to hold it and pick it up. It feels solid, a little heavy, but obtainable. It seems as though I could make use of this object. So I decide to bash my friend on his head to take his wife.
While this being somewhat of a bad example, let me break it down. Here we have two subjects (because I think rocks are alive…Just kidding, come on), but we have two subjects in regards that one subject is an object (damn you lingual technicalities!). When I come across the stone, the stone itself present itself to me in all of its stone-like glory. While myself on the other hand present myself in a really really really shy way, like, I am scared of this stone, for no reason at all. But I conduct trials and errors to see what this object is. Now comes the part where I stop blabbering and just get to the point: if the stone had been heavy, spikey, scorching hot, etc. I would have either: A) Died from the resulting injury or B) Leave it alone and never touch it again. Resulting in the stone controlling my behavior.
So you see that through a harmonious interaction, do objects seem to become in “our control”. We are under the illusion that the things we manipulate as humans are in fact helpless and need our guidance. And this trickles into our brains as hierarchy.
Wait…If we are all the same…Whose in charge?
Because we think in such a linear way, as in evolution as having a start and perpetual end, we still are under the illusion that we are after the elements, plants, and animals in regards to evolution. When in fact that is not the case. We are only advanced insofar as we as humans evolve. Everything around us in nature and on this earth has evolved exactly and accordingly to how it should be. This is why theologians saw, and see today, the absolute beauty in the creations of God. But like I said before, do not mistake my God for the Judeo-Christian God. My God is the God that gives structure to the world. God is what keeps things going even though things seem like they are in complete chaos. This is not the Judeo-Christian God or any other religion’s God for that matter. My God, is the God that has left me with the puzzle of life and through this puzzle I can get closer to God, which is absolute knowledge and truth.
With an establishment of God in regards to this way, it is very easy to put your faith in God, because simply enough, you are putting your faith in modern science. God and Science are synonymous. As Albert Einstein once famously said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”. Science that has no direction is meaningless, and religion that does not follow science is not perpetuating truth and knowledge, which is the whole point of theology: make sense of the world through God.
Now a lot of you are probably thinking, “Okay, this is exactly what I thought too! But just didn’t know how to put it!” and there is good reason for this. Throughout antiquity religions have become corrupt and unfortunately these corrupt religious governments, give religion a bad rep. They mix religion and government which in my honest opinion are two completely different realities. On one side you have non-societal conforming truths while on the other hand you have a society-driven construct in which manages itself. And unfortunately these two concepts mixed and created what we know as the Crusades and ISIS.
“For the Crusade!” (Don’t play Hearthstone or don’t get the joke? Click here!)
So these corrupt governments, who unintendedly gave religion a bad rep, decided that anyone who speaks out against religion or their God (which was keeping people pretty damn docile, talk about the domestication of man) would be sentenced to death. This can be seen in the Arabic Muslim world as well as the European Judeo-Christian world. And quite frankly, this is the saddest part about history, the realization of how corruption can ultimately lead to “truths”. But that is our job as readers and analyzers of history. To understand their point of view and perspectives and to give them justification, even if we think those justifications are wrong in our standards today.
Ahhh okay, this is a representational government example, not a hierarchy of being example!
What should have happened was that science (known as religion at the time, this is getting confusing), should have extracted itself out of government, but because science is so convincing, the government used it as a tool to further enforce their rule. If science (religion) were to have extracted itself out of government and politics, what would have happened was that the governments being overturned would be overturned because of their governance, not because of their affiliation with a particular religion. Which we have seen in the past as the justification for war. In doing so, religion could have continued to find truths in arithmetic, logic, social studies, etc. All of which benefit the government and politics as a whole!
But it is when people use things as merely tools and not things that have their own nature, do things become embedded in a hierarchical perspective. And that is where we are today in society, is a society hurting from the stupid actions of a few bad people. If it helps at all, try to isolate theology and the rest of the world. Now imagine that a couple theologians, in the name of God, killed a bunch of people. What are we supposed to think as teeter-tottering believers? That all theologians are like that! So it must be religion that is bad! I mean, we use this rhetoric when we speak about Black Lives Matter and the KKK being affiliated with Christianity. So it only seems fit, that we can apply it transitively to secular and religious views.
Yeah…Okay…Maybe not the best example…Moving on!
However, now comes the really screwed up bit, the bit that makes you want to kick religion to the curb. And the this is probably the bit, or reason, why people hate religion so much today. Remember how earlier I said that a couple few theologians ruined it for the rest of the lot? Well, people agreed with them…for like hundreds of years. The general public, who keep in mind, were being suppressed and taken advantage of through sheer power of ideology and placebo effects, believed them. So they understood religion and theology in terms of these few theologians examples and actions.
One such example, as Neil deGrasse Tyson points out in this presentation, is Imam Hamid Al-Ghazali, who was probably the most successful Muslim theologian at the time. Al-Ghazali exclaims, if you watch the video, that mathematics or arithmetic was the work of the devil. And I mean, come on. But it gets much worse, the general public believed him because the government accepted his teachings as well. Through government support (*cough*Capitalism*cough*), this confused (that’s me putting it nicely) theologian preached a doctrine, in which we know today is simply not true.
Bless up Neil, yu dah bess!
So I can really see why people hate religion so much, especially scientists and mathematicians and the like. As well as I see the correlation to how theology transitioned into science due to a change in authoritarian government structures into more democratic government structures. As more and more people were not being killed for literally just saying, “But I don’t think God…” more and more people started to band together and speak out. Thus, the great divide in Theology and Science occurs in modern day thinking.
Sadly, government and politics being concepts of social structures, pressures people to conform, but this is not always a bad thing…Chime in Rene Descartes and Leibniz and all the other mathematicians who believed in God. These guys, these guys are my heroes. They did something so ingenious that it really still boggles my mind as I’m writing about it.
It’s that slight smug smile that just screams, “Gotti! Ah-ha!”
During Rene Descartes lifetime he saw the condemnation of a fellow scholar, Galileo Galilei, which rendered Galilei helplessly confined to his home under house arrest to slowly die for his sins against God. The Catholic Church in order to maintain power and governance was cutting any scientific or mathematics revolutions at the knees.
Descartes being a mathematical genius and avid anthropologist, saw that in order to live (because some of the things he was saying was pretty damn iffy) he had to come out publicly with a ontological argument of God. However, because he was so damn smart and the leaders of the Catholic Church were not of the same degree, but got there by sheer power of force and coercion. Descartes realized he could prove his mathematical God, and the Catholic Church would believe it as the same as their God. In economics we call this concept: maximizing potential profit. And in order to maximize your profit, you have to be smart, and by God, was Descartes smart. (Note, I’m not advocating this economic practice, simply that you need to be smart to see it, it’s bad, don’t do it, it’s taking advantage of others intellect, bad Descartes! But good job Descartes. No cares for the tears of the Ancient Catholic Church, no cares.)
This is a painting of Descartes as he was living a gangster and death-free life.
Descartes essentially killed 2 birds with 1 stone. He not only got to keep on writing all his crazy meditations by the fireplace where he got to play with wax and poke at his head, but he escaped the clutches of the Catholic Church, the strongest and most powerful governing force at the time. What an achievement! Therefore, Rene Descartes in my books, goes down as one of the greatest thinkers to live.
But the only reason why this was possible, was because the Catholic Church did not know the truth. Because they did not possess the intellect to understand the same way, in which today seems like common sense, they could not see that it was not the same God. The God in which the Catholic Church promoted, was the God in the Bible, Paul’s God. So if we see religion in this way, we can finally see the economic and corrupt path in which it has been so devastatingly mutilated.
The true God, according to Descartes, is the most perfect and ideal God. But if we simply switch the variables out, like the mathematical genius he was, we get: The true Truth is the most perfect and ideal Truth. And that is what the goal of science is today: To uncover the truest of all truths.
All of that inside our brain makes God.
So you see that my God and the other religion’s Gods are not the same. Other religions rely on written manuscripts and accounts of other people. But my God, is inside every single one of us. Because truth lies within our minds, we are the only ones who can uncover this truth. God has only laid out a puzzle in which we have to find our way through to reach him. This puzzle is nature and our guide is science, but ultimately our goal is truth, God.
Through science and logic we can arrive at God. But I fully realize that to atheists, this really sounds like a cult. So in order to combat that, because we know this as a linguistic error of conformity and not of the concept itself, as Descartes fully realized, I want every single atheist to replace the word God with Truth (with a capital because it is a noun). If you do that you get sentences like: “Through science and logic we can arrive at Truth”, “But my Truth, is inside every single one of us”, “So you see that my Truth and the other religion’s Truths are not the same”. And this can go on and on and on until finally you realize what Descartes and I think Pascal realized: God is just another term for the entirety of absolute immutable truths in logic and arithmetic.
But what Pascal had troubles with, was the whole dying part. In modern science we know that there is no life after death, and to some mathematical geniuses such as Epicurus and the like, all believed the same thing. For them, there was no life after death, so we should live life to the fullest. And in this regards I would say the same thing. Because there is no life after death, we should live our lives to the fullest degree we can. But that would mean mass anarchy because everyone can live to the fullest, right? Wrong, because this is where sociology, politics and government come in.
I mean, it doesn’t start as “We the people” for no reason…
So what religion does is it gives meaning to death. It provides a teleology (goal or motivation) to life. And in the case of Truth, it is to become closer to Truth. But because we are social animals (Thanks God) we are forced into a “State of Nature” as Thomas Hobbes would say and this is where politics and government is needed, not religion. Through intellectual communication, not divine mandate (aka: bullshit), we socialize and figure out what is best for us.
But really quick, I don’t want people to get into their heads that I am some prophet trying to spread my religion. In fact because of conformity, as John Scotus points out, I am forced to talk about it like this so people can understand what I am saying. Because, I’d love to explain it like sgjkdfhgdfjkghdfkgsdjkf mdfsg f, fgh sdfh,, sdf gsdfg. But I’m afraid that, that sentence, even though it makes sense to me, doesn’t make sense to you. So by default, I’m required to talk about it as if it’s a crazy new religion that you can just hop on board. But it’s not. Let me be clear. It is not.
Put it this way: If life is about finding God, but God gives life to us as a maze. I am simply at the same point in the maze of life that all my predecessors before me arrived at. However, the circumstances are different for them, as they are for me. In that regards, it is plain as day to see why we have such an affinity for predestination. Because if life is simply a maze and we have just yet to get to a certain point in that maze, then it must be certain that events in which occur, happen only because they happen at that point in the maze.
Oh hey look, Descartes, Pascal, Leibniz, and even Russel is here!
For example, I all the sudden have the urge to go to the bathroom, as I am on the way to the bathroom I realize that there is a funky smell coming from the bathroom. Thinking nothing of it, because its a bathroom, I continue to do my business. As I finish, I flush the toilet. All of the sudden, the toilet explodes and a piece of porcelain hits me in the head rendering me unconscious for the rest of my life.
These kind of horror stories actually happen. I think there is a show called “1000 Ways To Die” or something like that, which is basically along the same lines. Anyways, if we are to analyze all the the steps that lead up to that point, we could be here for a long time. However, we can analyze it up to a point where we can leave it to the laws of science (hydrology and pressure) as well as the laws of logic (induction) to come to a conclusion. Basically, I pooped too much and it got clogged and ended up blowing up the toilet.
So thanks God, er, thanks predestinational events of logical and scientific facts.
Haha! They are oh so clever with the titles!
These events while seemingly random also can be seen as predetermined if you view them through the lens of logic and physics, so science. But sometimes events occur differently and some changes happen, so that’s why we are not quite there at the complete Truth, simply we are getting closer each and every day. For example, because of astronomy and physics, we can predict the movements of planets. If that is not predestination (literally, like you predict the destination, what?), then I don’t know what is.
So death can be seen as not finishing the race, not quite getting to Truth, but this is a very pessimistic view. Even though by this logic, death ultimately means we failed to come to the Truth on our own terms, we still return to the Truth after we die. In this sense you could see heaven as other living things. This could be why in many Eastern Philosophies, reincarnation is such a popular belief. Because under this logic, we simply return to Truth, which is within the minds of all living things.
If we get killed early in our life, we simply go back to Truth. If we die of old age, we go back to Truth. If we commit suicide, we go back to truth. But some might argue that suicide is on our own terms, so we go back to truth on our own. That’s not Truth though, because we have to be living in order to know Truth. Just as how the stone cannot arrive at Truth, just as how a stone cannot die, thus a stone is a part of Truth, and because all things are parts of truth, everything in this world is equal in being. (In regards to this logic! I know it’s quite a broad statement.)
World peace is not that bad of idea guys…
So let me get back to how government and politics plays a role in life after religion. So because we know that there is no life after death, we simply become one with everything else. (I guess you could go organic and explain how organically we become part of nature, etc.) We now have to understand what the hell we are going to do while we are alive. And to do this, we need sociology, government, and politics.
We need sociology because we need to determine who is right in their mind and who is not. For example, Pope Urban the II commanded that crusaders travel to the Holy Land to liberate it from the Muslims. In today’s standards, if the Pope commanded that, he would be taken down from his position immediately. This is all thanks to the workings and educators of the science of Sociology. So thank you sociologists (and psychologists), okay damn it, thank you all scientists! Because without you, crazy people would still be running the cou…oh…Why, America?!?! Why?!?
Thanks scientists, for doing nothing about politics and government. Oh wait…Not your job!
Scientists belong in environments much like Theologians. But really I don’t want to differentiate the two terms anymore. Science and Religion to me are really synonymous in this regard. But continuing on with this analogy, scientists crave a particular work space where they will not be bothered by the general public, but are available to them, however if need be, they can always close it off to the general public.
In this regards, scientists are usually introverts that like to work in influential environments to their field, such as a lab or I guess if you’re a geologist, a rock formation? They excel in minimal societal environments, but still require societal needs. So we can often see scientists huddled together in their labs working away. Only when food beckons, do the beasts linger from the cave. Unless they order pizza, like all the cool labs do…
This is a picture of a lab from NASA who are inventing space pizza. Space. Pizza.
So then after we understand sociology, we can then move on to government and politics. Which as the crux of it, should be run by politically persuasive people who have a panel of lead scientists advising them on certain things. Because someone who is always in the public realm, will never have time to dabble in science. This must be done by the scientists and the like. That being said, that doesn’t mean it should be someone stupid. It should be someone who has a scientific mind, but realizes the responsibility of maintaining social order, thus sacrificing their endeavor towards Truth for the prosperity of human kind.
This person then, being advised by a panel of leading scientists, would advise his or her country in such a way that fits with the pursuit of Truth. But this teleology, doesn’t tell us really how we should act towards one another, it simply states that things are true or not. So that is where Politics comes into play. So the government is the structure in which politics is made, but politics is where we develop our “lived reality”.
So things like morals, ethics, and laws are all developed in due part to politics. As the prominent German thinker Immanuel Kant understood, a constitution ( Judicial Law) reflects the moral constitution (Ethics), which directly reflects in the people it commands, and therefore reflects the moral actions of the people. Constitution works in a reciprocal manner, in the sense that if it is written in law, it is written in our minds.
But sadly, this is our politics today…
So in order to live comfortably, which is the job of the government, the government has to know what their people living in their state like and dislike. This can only happen if you have a representational government. Once they realize what their people like and dislike, then they can start to pass laws on certain things and situations that make up general society today.
For example, owning property, this was a big one during the first creation of nations. The government had to ensure the ability of their citizens to own property. But as we have seen through history, this has been a struggle as to who can own property and so forth. And that was all defeated through politics and reform.
The same goes for drinking and prohibition. During the prohibition era, people were so disgruntled from not being able to drink, they opened up speakeasies which sold illegal liquor to any potential customer. This lead to the rise of gangs and cartels in major US cities all across the nation. If we view this in the lens of science, we see the cause and the effect. So in this regards the panel of scientists could examine this situation and advise the leader in how he should proceed with the law.
I want beer now.
And this is actually done to a certain extent, a lot of politicians use scientific research to back their agendas. However, the scientific research does not always match the want of the people. For example smoking cigarettes. In most countries smoking is allowed by law, but is scientifically proven to be detrimental to your health.
Even though scientists would advise against it, it seems to have a degree of pleasure that not even law can stop. And if science is Truth, then smoking should be not allowed cause then you’d die! But that is also not the case, because as I said before, there is no life after death. Our goal in life is to get to Truth, but it’s okay if we don’t because we simply are not alive anymore.
But if it’s okay to be slowly killing ourselves, why do I even want to get closer to Truth, you know what, screw Truth, I’m just going to live my life how I want to. Yes! By all means, you do what you want to, as long as it is legal to do so! Does that make sense? See how this argument can go around in a circle? Science and Logic will still be there long after the last human dies. Because Truth is in every living thing. As long as something is alive, there will be Truth to be discovered.
But coming back to the topic of suicide, in a sense I could see smoking as prolonged suicide as an argument. However, as I said earlier, suicide means that you give up your pursuit of truth and decide to just go back to Truth. I am not advocating suicide, but I am also not talking down upon it. It simply is a choice, just as the same as the John Scotus argument on conformity makes you simply choose. Smoking cigarettes, even though it might kill you (key word: might), it does not kill you right away. So by law, it is allowed, much like how a lot of things that might kill you are allowed.
That’s plain lying! But it’s toasted…
So then what could be understood from things that might kill you but are still allowed? Under what grounds then? For myself, it seems like all the things that are legal but can kill you lead to comfort. And as the role of the government is to ensure the safety and comfort of its citizens, it seems that we have come to an agreement with Truth itself.
If Truth gives us the ability to find it. And we have things that gives us pleasure and comfort, the Truth must have put it there to make our journey a pleasurable one. But being humans we can make mistakes. If we overindulge in something, we can ultimately lose our lives. So a balance has to be understood when it comes to these types of pleasures, or we very well could end our chances at seeking Truth. So I guess all of this allows you to live your life the most comfortably while pursuing the Truth. And that is the goal of society in my opinion: is to perpetuate truth and to live comfortably doing it.
Wow. I really need a cigarette now. I don’t even know what to call this blog because I digressed like 50 times.