Bill Gnade and the Origins of Existence
In a discussion that started here, Bill Gnade has asked some very good questions which bear repeating and answering...
Bill said…If we are here by pure chance, then we are not here as a result of some Monte Carlo game. For a Monte Carlo game is a system that is itself neither random nor is it created ex nihilo; any Monte Carlo game is the result of a creating intelligence. There is nothing ultimately random either about the existence of the game or the results of the game as played. Your analogy assumes intelligence, even intelligent design. Moreover, you intend to use this analogy rationally; you don't intend to use it irrationally. Hence, you do believe that there are rational metaphysics, namely yours. You DO explain existence: we are a number that came up in a drawing, and this is a "brute fact" that prevents us from explaining existence.
Agreed. All analogies break down somewhere, and I was using words to describe something that probably cannot be described, only that we just don’t know how we got here. When it comes to why anything exists, all we have are brute facts, and I find that extremely interesting and maddening at the same time. The brute fact that will be more reasonable to accept will depend upon the one that has the fewest ad hoc hypotheses, agreed?
We either start with an unexplainable “quantum wave fluctuation” or we start (from the Christian perspective) with a triune God, even though the no sense of the trinity can be made that is both orthodox and reasonable; who as a spiritual being created matter, even though no known point of contact between spirit and matter can be articulated; who never began to exist, even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end to it; who never learned any new truths and cannot think, since thinking demands weighing temporal alternatives; is everywhere, yet could not know what time it is since time is a function of placement and acceleration in the universe; and if timeless this God cannot act in time.
Plus, depending upon what you believe in the Bible this God commanded genocide, witch, honor, heretic killings, and demanded a perfect moral life when such a life is not possible given that we are fleshly creatures with an “epistemic distance” from knowing God’s true love and power; became incarnate in Jesus, even though no reasonable sense can be made of a being who is both 100% God and 100% man; found it necessary to die on the cross for our sins, even though no sense can be made of so-called atonement; will return to earth where every eye will see him, which assumes an ancient pre-scientific cosmology; and will judge humanity by rewarding the “saints” in heaven by taking away their free will to do wrong, and punishing sincere doubters to hell with their free will intact so they can continue to rebel.
I prefer the simplest brute fact, period.
Bill again...Moreover, since you call this existence "absurd," I am led to believe that you don't believe your own assertion, for to know what is absurd one must first know what makes sense; and since what makes sense is the rational, you must stand in the rational, or else you could not discern the absurd from what is not. Hence, you have not really shown what is your ultimate view of reality, couched as it must be in sensibility and reason (and even sanity); you have not shown us how you KNOW this existence is absurd.
What I believe, after moving off of the default position, which is agnosticism, is based upon a measure of faith.
Bill said…Somehow, for some reason, I have not given in to my ultimate doubts.
I make no predictions about this, nor do I personally care if you do. All I’m saying is that I did, and I have offered reasons for why I did.
Bill said…You are probably right about the Ontological Argument, though I hope you recognize that the argument is at least logically valid.
Yes it is. But what do you do when two valid arguments lead to mutually contradictory conclusions? John Hick used the same formulation of the Ontological Argument that Plantinga uses, except that he concludes that an evil Supreme Being exists.
Bill said…But Will Hawthorne's question opens up a very important idea, namely, that the existence of the universe is not "known;" hence, at best, our acceptance of the universe as known is based on faith (forgive me Mr. Hawthorne if I've said too much). And if faith is the first principle of knowledge, then I believe any argument against Christianity as "faith" is silly.
Agreed. Reason can lead us to the default position, but reason cannot move us off it. It’s faith that moves us off of it. So the only question is which movement off of the default position entails the least amount of faith, and the least amount of ad hoc hypotheses? I think I know.
Cheers.
36 comments:
Dear John,
I am on the edges of insanity and fever, so forgive me if I fail to make sense. Of course, I realize that the joke might be that my feverish insanity has nothing to do at all with being sick.
I am honored to be a part of your website as you have presented me here. Thank you for your hospitality; thank you for not building a straw man out of the few words I have posted. You are a good man. Thank you.
It is sad that we have to communicate via this medium, for I should think that if we could meet face to face (all of us), we would find that we are mostly among friends. A good draught of beer with one's interlocutors would go a long way to securing world peace; it might even lead to that most blessed sacrament -- a second round of beers.
Forgive me if I do not share your disjunctive; I do not think the starting point for Christians is a triune God. Granted, you might be saying that it is a starting point strictly on a whim or because your polemic requires it for the moment, but I believe the Christian starting point is definitely not the Trinity. (I might also beg to squabble over your belief that the Trinity is inherently irrational, at least in orthodox terms, but I am not yet up to begging.)
When you say --
[God] who as a spiritual being created matter, even though no known point of contact between spirit and matter can be articulated; who never began to exist, even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end to it
-- I find myself wondering if this is at all true. Your statement makes me think of ideas and thoughts and concepts; it makes me think of solipsism and how it is that thoughts produce actions; how ideas that are seemingly immaterial create material things like the Great Pyramid or "The Taming of the Shrew." Something feels analogically compelling in the idea that immaterial ideas produce material forms, sort of like how God, or Logos, can indeed speak the world into existence without actually touching that world. Surely I know (and here's the solipsism part) that I can imagine certain fantastic realities without touching them, without providing a schematic of a material interface between my intent to design and the design itself. A Purple-Polka Dot Elephant does exist in Gnade-Land, but I cannot explain how. So, perhaps existence is merely God's imagination; being God, what is His thought is to us material and substantive. But I nearly herniate myself here, both from the heavy lifting of this analogy and from laughing at how silly it all must sound.
Yes, you are right: how can God think since thinking itself is a process that takes time -- X precedes Y, and Z follows from P. It is a stumper. But I think we are in danger of totally anthropomorphizing what God's thought structures must be like. But -- this means nothing, really, since we can't help but speak about God in anthropomorphic terms. I'd hate to accept that God's intellect is paradoxically dynamic; just like I hate to admit that light behaves like a wave and particle. An interesting book that I've only begun to read, The Quantum Brain, suggests that the human brain perhaps behaves according to quantum physical structures, and not in anything like a linear fashion. If this is remotely the case, then perhaps God's "brain" is kind of like a star on LSD and steroids (that would not be Barry Bonds on acid, by the way).
There is so much to say about all of this that I don't know where to start. I might respond to your suggestion that Christ's atonement is senseless by pointing you to my series here (I promise, it is different). I might also note that Christ's return is not at all, as you say, cosmologically out-dated; there are all sorts of ways that His return could occur so that every eye "sees," especially if He returns from the inside of every eye. After all, if the God of creation is capable of being fully present in that creation, then He hasn't, in a sense, ever left. He's already here. Of course, I grant that the Christian image of Christ's return is not overtly informed by concepts of Christ's omnipresence, but a case could be made that it very much is so informed.
But what I want most to say here is how grateful I am to you for including me in your discussions. Thomas, the doubting disciple, was indeed a doubting disciple; he was an empiricist (assuming, of course, that the gospel is at all reliable in its reportage). I count myself a kindred spirit of St. Thomas, for I am given to much doubt and skepticism. One thing I can say about my doubts is that I am grateful for them. For when I climb a ledge it is my doubts that make the climb an adventure; when I arc down a ski trail or zip down a roller coaster, it is my doubt that all will be fine that gives me the thrill I need. "Christianity on the edge" might seem flat and dull to some, but to me, it is a thrilling tautology. In comparison, certainty in life seems almost deadening to my soul, and yet, paradoxically, certainty is the very thing I seek. You seem to have something I don't -- you seem happily certain -- and I envy that.
I appreciate, too, that you are a disciple of Occam and his very shrewd -- and adventurous -- razor.
Peace and mirth,
Bill Gnade
Bill, for you to say I didn’t build a straw man argument against you is one of the highest compliments. Thanks for not doing likewise. And a discussion over a few beers would be a great idea!
Apparently there is a lot I don’t know about what you specifically believe. The problem, unfortunately, is that I cannot take the necessary time to do so. I hope you understand. This is, after all, not a discussion over a few beers. If what I write doesn’t deal with what you specifically believe then I apologize. Christians believe all sorts of different things, as you know.
Bill said…I do not think the starting point for Christians is a triune God.
Then you believe in Nicene Subordination? I was talking about the being you believe has always existed. Who might that be, if it isn’t a Triune God?
[God] who as a spiritual being created matter, even though no known point of contact between spirit and matter can be articulated; who never began to exist, even though everything we experience has a beginning and an end to it
Bill said…I find myself wondering if this is at all true. So, perhaps existence is merely God's imagination; being God, what is His thought is to us material and substantive. But I nearly herniate myself here, both from the heavy lifting of this analogy and from laughing at how silly it all must sound.
This sounds like George Berkeley’s Idealism. Are you saying, not that this is possible, since many things are possible, but that this is probable? If there is a point of contact between spirit and matter, then what is it? If God is spirit (whatever that is) then unless matter shares some characteristics of spirit (and vice versa), there can be no way God can create matter or interact with it. But if it is something that is neither spirit OR matter, then God is not strictly a spirit.
Bill said…Yes, you are right: how can God think since thinking itself is a process that takes time -- X precedes Y, and Z follows from P. It is a stumper. But I think we are in danger of totally anthropomorphizing what God's thought structures must be like. But -- this means nothing, really, since we can't help but speak about God in anthropomorphic terms.
But if God’s thinking and communication do not approximate ours, then God cannot reveal himself to us in ways we can understand. If you admit this, then the ONLY thing you could say propositionally about the God you believe in, is that he (she or it) exists. My claim is that a distant God is no different than none at all.
Bill said…An interesting book that I've only begun to read, The Quantum Brain, suggests that the human brain perhaps behaves according to quantum physical structures, and not in anything like a linear fashion. If this is remotely the case, then perhaps God's "brain" is kind of like a star on LSD and steroids (that would not be Barry Bonds on acid, by the way).
If God operates by the rules of nature, even if we cannot understand these rules, then how is he different than nature, or better yet, how is nature truly nature?
Bill said…There is so much to say about all of this that I don't know where to start. I might respond to your suggestion that Christ's atonement is senseless by pointing you to my series here (I promise, it is different).
Promises…promises. ;-) Maybe I’ll look at this sometime, but I have read and understand all of the major historical views with no success of explaining the atonement.
Bill said…I might also note that Christ's return is not at all, as you say, cosmologically out-dated; there are all sorts of ways that His return could occur so that every eye "sees," especially if He returns from the inside of every eye.
And yet, that’s not the plain meaning of what the text said as understood by the initial hearers. You see, you have learned to re-interpret the text many times in light of the advance of scientific knowledge. But it means God let the people be deceived in how he communicated to them if what you say is true. For more on this see here.
Bill said…In comparison, certainty in life seems almost deadening to my soul, and yet, paradoxically, certainty is the very thing I seek. You seem to have something I don't -- you seem happily certain -- and I envy that.
The truth is that you are just as certain as I am about many religions you reject. That’s the easy part, and we all do it. You surely don’t wrestle with whether militant Islam is correct. You reject it. That was easy! The rejection of other religious and metaphysical viewpoints is the easy part. But as I said when this discussion started, when it comes time to affirm something, that’s the hard part. The whole reason I’ve moved off the default position to atheism is because there is no explanation for our existence, except the explanation that this existence is a brute fact (how’s that for re-wording what I meant?).
Hey! I've been a big fan of you guys for a while. I've been meaning to pick up the book that one DC's blog authors had written. You should check me out sometime, I debunk Answers in Genesis.
http://aigbusted.blogspot.com
Sincerely,
Ryan
Dear John,
I have no idea where you live, but I am sure I can get there from here. You mention Grand Rapids in a separate post; I have family in GR. Perhaps you live near enough that we can shake hands someday when I am out that way, and then we can wrap our hands around a few good pints of brew. But I am only guessing.
No, I do accept that the Christian God is a triunity. What I am saying is that Christianity's starting point is not the Trinity: the first Christians did not run around Jerusalem proclaiming the good news that God was three-in-one. The starting point of Christianity is the resurrection.
But I split hairs.
You need not ever write about what I believe, specifically or otherwise. I don't need you to be some living proof text for my ideas; I am very glad that we are different.
I don't see how God being immaterial necessitates that He can't create matter. Of course, we do find that Jesus is material; we find that St. Paul claims the "fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ bodily." Is the pre-existent Christ corporeal (or is He even pre-existent)? Oiks! There's a lifetime of discussion in that question! But I don't know if His corporeal existence means anything here; it could mean that He is indeed the connection, or the intersection, between matter and spirit. The New Testament does refer to Him as being the maker of all things; He is the Word made flesh. So, at the very least, Christianity has given an answer to your question: Jesus is the paradoxical middle, that which is matter and that which is not; the finite and the infinite, the eternal and the temporal. None of this makes much sense, of course, but it is still, at least to me, lovely.
I have suggested that our brains are unbelievably mysterious, complex and powerful. Pre-cognitive processes are fascinating; there is far more going on inside our heads that is not linguistic than we realize. The autonomic functions themselves are mind-boggling, and we don't fully understand all of them or how they function. But this living machine inside my head is not really all that mechanical in the traditional sense; it is not really that much like a computer. It is more like a genie in a bottle, a quantum sort of genie. I write this comment now using all sorts of skills, all the while that I am in pain; my mind further regulates all kinds of things going on in my body, like some sort of fascinating systems monitor that is itself the very thing monitored; it is keeping me balanced in my seat, all the while reminding me of countless obligations, or appointments, or images and memories. I can think of this comment while thinking of you reading it and my wife reading her novel upstairs. I am hearing and touching and tasting and seeing and smelling everything around me right now, and yet I edit those things out with nary a thought. In short, I am a miracle sitting here; you are a miracle sitting there (well, maybe you are standing, which is a miracle, too). And I think that our brains can indeed be bridges between spirit and matter; I believe that we could encounter the divine, especially if the divine did indeed design us.
But you can reject all of this as so much hokum, and you have my blessing to do so. I have said elsewhere that we can't even explain ourselves to ourselves; that this might suggest a kind of nihilism does not frighten me, as I agree with the idea: we can't know why or how or even that we exist merely on our own. Left to ourselves, nihilism is the only option. For us to have any confidence in our knowledge or self-identity, we have to be told we exist by that Being Who stands in the only position that can give that lends itself to real certainty.
As for God's "thought" process, I do not know if I agree with your conviction that He cannot communicate with us if His mind does not approximate ours. Part of me wonders why you should say this, really, since I did not say that His mind did not approximate ours. I merely issued a casual warning about anthropomorphism, and then admitted that we can't avoid being anthropomorphic. Christianity (and Judaism), of course, declares that we are created in God's likeness. But maybe that is not enough for you; I dare say it is hardly enough for me. But I do see that some (other) animals and humans at least appear to have some capacity for meaningful communication, and this capacity exists even though I should think the minds of said animals and humans are quite different from each other. But I completely disagree with your point that a distant God is no different than no God at all, for there is one crucial difference, and it is a moral one: a distant God is unforgivable! (I know you probably agree with this, at least theoretically.)
I wish I could answer your question about God operating by the rules of nature, but I can't. I can't answer anything. I can only say that if a man can operate according to the rules of the computer program he creates, then perhaps God can also follow the rules He creates: the man is not the rules, nor are the rules the man, but both can exist independent of each other, and yet the rules of the computer are subject to the man. Moreover, I can follow the rules of chess without being a chess piece. Perhaps God can play this game of life without having to be confined to its game board.
But I speak like a fool. I can't believe what I am saying.
Take a chance with my "atonement" article(s), which is really not at all about atonement. I think there will be some fresh pickings for you; God knows I do not want to bore you.
Re: The Second Coming. I appreciate your interest in adhering strictly to plain exegesis, but the fact is that the early Christians did not understand everything straightway. There are things I am still understanding about lessons taught to me thirty-five years ago; some of the things I thought I had right I have recently discovered I had quite wrong. My point is that the Church, from day one, began to adapt to truths as those truths were apprehended. So whatever was said at the Ascension does not automatically mean that the disciples could not have understood that message differently 100 days later. Or even 100 years later. People are quite elastic; and while Christ's words might have stayed exactly the same, intact, the way those words were understood can (and did) change. Of course, I do not mean that understanding and interpretation are open-ended, with no legitimate resolution.
But I should add that I have not inserted my "scientific" worldview to what the disciples might have heard; I argued from ideas regarding omnipresence: I argued that if God is indeed omnipresent, His return is not a return in the traditional sense. Surely the disciples could have grasped this, especially since -- if true -- they witnessed Christ turn several obvious things upside down.
Re: The many religions I reject. I know this to be a recurring theme at "Debunking Christianity," namely, that there are many differing religions the truth of which most Christians have neither investigated nor disproved. But you say too much about me here. I have said nothing about other religions; I have not held court here on what I know or what I don't know about them. And I have surely not treated the theology of militant Islam in any way that can be construed as casual; I may reject it, but not without facing it squarely.
You are indeed entirely right that our existence seems a brute fact. For me, though, that is not the only fact. We differ here, but what I think is amazing is that it does not matter to me. I like that you have treated me fairly; I pray I can show you the same sort of courtesy.
In the end, I just hope there is an after-life, not so much that one of us can be proven right and the other wrong; but that we might enjoy together the Big Surprise, and then laugh at how silly we all were for separating ourselves according to how we understand mystery.
Peace to you, always,
Bill Gnade
Im Himmel gibt’s kein Bier,
Drum trinken wir es hier.
Denn sind wir nicht mehr hier,
Dann trinken die andern unser Bier.
In heaven there is no beer
That's why we drink it here
'Cause when we're no longer here
The others will drink up all our beer.
Bill, John, and whoever else is reading this blog: if you're ever in Vienna, the beer's on me.
I live in Northeastern Indiana. Email me if and when you get near me. In February I'll be speaking in Madison, Wisconsin.
Bill…The starting point of Christianity is the resurrection.
That’s an epistemological starting point. I was referring to the ontological starting point. Before anything else existed, what existed? A triune God?
Bill…I don't see how God being immaterial necessitates that He can't create matter. Jesus is the paradoxical middle, that which is matter and that which is not; the finite and the infinite, the eternal and the temporal. None of this makes much sense, of course, but it is still, at least to me, lovely.
You are answering one of the difficulties I presented by analogously referring to a different one. No sense can be made of Jesus being 100% God and 100% man either.
Bill…In short, I am a miracle sitting here; you are a miracle sitting there (well, maybe you are standing, which is a miracle, too). And I think that our brains can indeed be bridges between spirit and matter; I believe that we could encounter the divine, especially if the divine did indeed design us.
This is mere assertion; you know that, don’t you? I don’t believe we have souls or spirits, so to refer to them without explaining exactly how they relate is called begging the question. Just try to explain this, okay?
Bill…For us to have any confidence in our knowledge or self-identity, we have to be told we exist by that Being Who stands in the only position that can give that lends itself to real certainty.
But there is little or no evidence that such a Being ever spoke to us even if he does exist. You’ll disagree, but that’s what I think. And I defend what I think here every week. Still, I know I am a human being, and I know how to live and breathe and interact with others everyday. What more do I need to live my life?
Bill…As for God's "thought" process, I do not know if I agree with your conviction that He cannot communicate with us if His mind does not approximate ours.
This is the problem of divine simplicity and you had referred to it without naming it.
Bill…I can only say that if a man can operate according to the rules of the computer program he creates, then perhaps God can also follow the rules He creates: the man is not the rules, nor are the rules the man, but both can exist independent of each other, and yet the rules of the computer are subject to the man.
Again, this begs the question (sorry). How can God, a spirit, interact with matter?
Bill…Re: The Second Coming. I appreciate your interest in adhering strictly to plain exegesis, but the fact is that the early Christians did not understand everything straightway.
There is good evidence they thought the universe looked like this.
Bill…In the end, I just hope there is an after-life, not so much that one of us can be proven right and the other wrong; but that we might enjoy together the Big Surprise, and then laugh at how silly we all were for separating ourselves according to how we understand mystery.
That is a hope I do not need, nor share. With the brain/mind problem there is evidence that all we have are brains, and if this is the case we do not have souls which live on when our brain matter dies. Just like our favorite pets, when we die, we die. The surprise you hope for will never happen. You will never wake up when you die, and as such you will never realize your hope was ill-founded. None of us will ever know we were wrong, and if there is no afterlife, as I argue, then I will never know I was right.
Cheers.
John, It is really a matter of a patient dialogue. You cannot really close the case against theistic thinking(or supreme being thinking) that has possibilities beyond your functioning recuctionism. Now, scientific thinking demands the occam's razor of reductionism, so I'm not completely opposed to it. It really helps me deconstruct bible misconceptions, so I'm thankful for a rightful application for a reductionism in a certain sense.
However, it seems irrational to me, as a Liberal, that you can come to closure on the case that God exists or not without exhausting all of the human possibilities for seeking and knowing divine or sacred reality (being outside of humanself).
It is fair, in other words, for you to say that there are reasons why you reject everyting you have seen so far that has been offered to you as an explanation of divine or sacred reality (i.e. the supernatural "something" outside of myself that has the attribute of being supreme and of being).
It is quite another for you to say that you have a justifiable case that your declarations that "there is no God" is scientifically or epistemically convincing.
At best, you have a probablistic assertion and a pretty good one, I must admit. Probablistic assertions do not constitute scientific conclusion -- they are merely well-informed hypotheses.
So, if your rules on the origins of existence are based on nothing better than a "probable" proposition, then you haven't offered anything very compelling for a possibility-minded liberal who believes that ways of knowing pnumatalogical reality have not been fully investigated yet, for affirm or debunking.
In summary, your functional reductionism (complete with your reasons for it) has nothing more than probablistic justificational import, and hints of a narrow scop -- much like the closed-circle set mindednes of a systematic fundamentalist.
So, John, if I were to write a book on the new atheists, I would include a chapter on the fundamentalist atheist, and you would be a irenic (non hostile) evangalical variety, with decidedly limited philosophical engagement.
Noone John argues that Christian theism is 100% understandable. The trinity, Jesus being both man and God etc are compex issues. However, its not as though you just figured this out. People have been writing about the meaning of these things for a very long time indeed and to discount the entire religion because of them is more then alittle harsh. I myself ultimately believe that if we just had the beginning of the universe aa an argument for/against the existence of God then wed really just have to shrug. However, of course, Christians dont argue that is our only purely naturalistic reason to believe God existed. Ultimately I suppose for myself my faith is built on a cumulative set of inductions and, for me to a lesser extent, experiences.
as a child my dad was a preacher, and i was raised in the church, hoever later i began to critically look at the bible and i found out how many parts are inconsitent with morrality, i found violence, torture, sexism, slavery, infantcide, and i began to struggled with the bible, and with my view of the biblical God, and Jesus Christ... then i even looked to the origin of christianity and i found how the religion was the result of countless authors, mythology, roman popes, ect... each with there own agenda of mind control of the masses, and what emerged was a higher conciousness of the cause and power behind religeon.... Christianity is powerful not becaus of the false symbols and characters of "the 66cannonized old books" it contains fragments from a much older system of wisdom based on lost knowlege of power of the higher realities of the spirit world..... (this is why you feel blessed after reading a passage of the bible, its why some cry at church and have genuine religious experiences, its what causes miracles) now heres where the deception comes in, we attach the manefestation of this power to the barbaric symbols and characters, and we have a deadly volitile mixture of ancient higher truth and dark vicious lies.... we need to separate the real genuine truths of higher realities, and remove them from the barbaric mythologies of religions... then all of us can be at rest....
What higher truthes am i refering to; in ancient times, and ages and ages ago, harmony existed on all levels in creation and in the heavenlies, souls would incarnate to our world from above to live and learn about love and return to the heavenlies, and the knowledge of the great creative spirit (who is neither male or female yet who has the loving nurturing nature of a mother) and the knowledge of the one highest universal law of life an love eminated from the innermost part of all things, and all life was at rest and peace with itself as this universal law of nurture and life eminated in all forms and all direction in all, to all from all, from one to one and one to many, it was perfect, even in these ancient times, the image of that spirit of all life was reveared within woman, and woman were honered and given first in ancient societies, woman ruled ancient civilizations as the early image of that great creative and nurturing spirit of all life, then evil energies that have rebelled against the creative spirit arrived in our solar system in our distant past and foamed the breath of hostility and selfishness within the hearts of man, the peaceful civilizations ruled by woman began to get conuqed by darkhearted men who rebelled against the creative spirit and began to wage war, this is the root of all hatred and sexism for woman in acient and recent times, woman were denied there hearitage as devine and representatives of the great spirit, and the image of god was changed from a devine nuturing spirit to a fleshly barbaric waring man, for the next 4,000 years man waged war on this planet, and in these 4,000 years man created and reinvented male-centered religions to mask the truth, during this time every evil imagined was sanctified and written in the holy books, thus when voloent blood thirsty men lusted for gold, and girls in the middle east, they were blessed by a pope to begin the conquest of middle east in the 12th century killing looting, robbing and raping in the name of god, even the myths of moses (who never actually existed) isreal is said to have killed, raped, enslaved, robbed, in the name and at the direction of this made up god, notice noone ever herd gods voice, just a man speaking claiming that a god told him to tell people what to do.
Now we come to today, we still have a legacy of false religions, and the echo of racism, sexism, slavery, rape, murder and war, still ring loud throughout the world….. we need to totally devorce religion from the truth and take only the truth of that first law of nurture and love and live in peace with each other and respect everyone’s unique spirituality, and charity towards one another
Ah the existance problem, who created us, where did we come from, are we the only life in the universe, what is matter ect....
Well let me give you science first e=mc2, since early this century it has been know that ALL mass or "matter" anything material, both organic matter like our bodies or inorganic like rocks and glass or metals is infact just energy, the atomic bomb is solid realworld proof of this concept.... there is no such thing as matter, only the illusion of matter... all mass is in fact "energy" and all energy is composed from a greater living energy that permiates all in all, researchers searching quantum physics call this living obervable energy "God" or "Aether". So heres the question, where did we come from, where did the universe come from, were did animals come from... my question to you is stop asking that question first and ask this question first; What is a man, what am I, and I a living soul with an internal immortal concious, who lives in a body on earth, am i truly separate from the universe, or am i apart of it, did i orriginate from this living aether, did my will in a preexisting form have a part i creating this world, did my soul fall with other souls in the spirit world from acient times past, do i have more than 1 life or will i be born again and again until my soul learns to conquer earth and be promoted to higher forms of existance...when you answer these questions, you will also answer your first question about creation, for creation and its causes are many, and its life forms are innumerable
Karl Betts said...However, it seems irrational to me, as a Liberal, that you can come to closure on the case that God exists or not without exhausting all of the human possibilities for seeking and knowing divine or sacred reality (being outside of humanself).
What do you think I haven't investigated in my quest? Granted, nothing as exhaustive as Christianity in most all of its forms, but which direction would you point me that you think I haven't studied? I was a liberal Christian, as I told you, a follower of John Hick's writings.
Karl...At best, you have a probablistic assertion and a pretty good one, I must admit.
Great! Then we agree I have a probable answer. What more can someone ask for?
Karl......then you haven't offered anything very compelling for a possibility-minded liberal who believes that ways of knowing pnumatalogical reality have not been fully investigated yet, for affirm or debunking.
I cannot speak for you. I do not claim to. I speak for myself. And even you said my conclusion is probable. Again, what more can I say? What better conclusion can I come to than a probable one in the sea of religious driftwood?
Are you confusing the fact that I think atheism is the case with a different claim that I am certain atheism is the case? I never asserted such an absurd proposition. I only asserted a probable one.
As far as your book goes, I don't have a clue what you mean, especially since I shouldn't even be in a book titled New Atheist, unless you dispute the criteria for what one is.
Cheers.
Dear Friend and Fellow Fighter, John,
I wish I had a reason to go to Indiana today! I would like to meet you and shake your hand. To hell with the beers; I would simply like to hear your voice and laughter.
ON THE STARTING POINT
Yes, you are right (in part) that the Trinity is the ontological starting point of all things (in Christian theology, at least, though I admit this with qualifications); but I don't think we can make such distinctions here too quickly. For we know that Christianity is nothing if the Resurrection did not occur. If it did occur, then the Trinity and the Resurrection are seemingly identical: the Resurrection proves not only that Jesus is God, it proves that God is triune (I would say bi-une but, since Jesus is God and He described God as both Father and Holy Spirit, well, then we must submit to that fact -- but only if it's true that Jesus is God as "proved" by His rising from the dead). The integrity of the Godhead, and its relation to the Resurrection itself, cannot be easily sundered. Of course, if the Resurrection did not occur, then the ONLY thing you need to do to debunk Christianity is to report that the Resurrection did not, in fact, occur. The Resurrection is the lynch pin to all things Christian; even St. Paul admitted this. So knowing that you know this, as you must, I am prodded to ask why you devote any time to all this other stuff, e.g., the veracity of Scripture, Christian epistemological claims, the proliferation of other religious truths, etc. Why bother? Debunking Christianity is all about the tomb, about the stone that did or did not roll away. And since I am asserting that the most vulnerable spot in Christianity is that tomb, then I am confident that the starting point for Christianity is indeed the Resurrection, ontologically and epistemologically.
ON THE UNION OF SPIRIT AND MATTER
You have quoted me in your latest comment, but you should have included some ellipses. I will not quibble, but I think you cloud my meaning a bit by not noting that you made an omission. With that said, I can't describe the mechanics of the union of spirit and matter because I do not know them. I have attempted to suggest that if Christ is indeed God, then the interface is not only possible, it is actual. The question of course then moves to whether Christ is indeed God, and this -- of course -- leads to the alleged authenticity of the Resurrection.
I am not sure whether your unsubstantiated claim in your last comment to me, namely, that the idea Christ is fully man and fully God is non-sensical, is true. My statement may indeed beg the question, but let me make the statement anyway: If Jesus is God in the flesh, then there is no real problem. It may be difficult or even impossible for me to understand how He can be both God and Man; but my failure to understand something speaks only to my limitations. But I think there is something of an a priori rejection about what you are saying: you have already rejected Christ, so His composition is irrelevant. You do not reject Him because His composition is mysterious; you reject Him because you believe there is no mystery at all. To you, Christ is not God, so it does not matter whether there can ever be a sensible Christian description of the union of spirit and matter.
ON MORE OF THE SAME: THE CORPOREALITY OF SPIRIT
I am glad that you do not believe we have spirits; I only wish you had told me this at first. For you know that I was not the first to use the word 'spirit' in this discussion (I believe, in fact, that this is the first time I've typed it). You introduced it, and I thought you were interested in my thoughts about the matter. But you aren't really (or so it appears) interested in my thoughts, because you've rejected the premise off-hand; an interested interlocutor would not do that. Oddly, you do not consider what my position is; I agree we do not have spirits independent of our brains. But that does not mean, does it, that our brains do not manufacture some component of ourselves that is indeed immaterial, i.e., spirit? Are you intimating that the "I" which comprises my consciousness cannot be an immaterial "form" which a carbon-based brain generates? I struggled in my earlier suggestions to you that the brain is a real dynamo; it is more like a nuclear reactor than a sort of switchboard; and yet even that description falls short. The interface between my body and my own self -- my own will -- is a mystery to me, and I believe it suggests the sort of mystery you may be trying to apprehend. If you could explain how I -- the "I" that I can't even justify to myself -- can nonetheless access the "real" world, then I would love to hear it. If you can answer the epistemological riddle that I have posted in "A Letter to Christopher Hitchens," then I will defer to your ability to explain your own existence -- and your own relations to the material world -- to the rest of us. But if you cannot explain the problem as posed to Mr. Hitchens, then it is unfair of you -- and you have every right to be unfair in a free world -- to expect others to explain what they have declared a paradoxical mystery when you apparently cannot justify that which you claim is not a mystery. For surely you think you've explained something about the Self, consciousness, and the brain in the link you posted above; I say you did nothing in that essay but string together a whole lot of faith-based propositions. Undoubtedly, I may be wrong. But I think you are indeed very confident in your views of consciousness. I am merely stating that the brain creates an immaterial self, i.e., a spirit; when the brain is injured or modified, its capacity to create this "self" is distorted and corrupted.
This idea, at least to me, is thoroughly Christian. Christian conversion, after all, is largely about changing certain thought-patterns in the brain that result in a change of "spirit." Change a man's thought from "there is no God" to "there is a God Who, in fact, really loves me," and you will see a change in that brain's "persona," "self," "spirit," or "heart." Christian discipleship, in fact, is all about "rewiring" the brain to give birth to a new "spirit." Truths "change" people, a fact on which this whole website is premised. Just plain learning, theistic or otherwise, reflects this well-known fact: the more a child learns the larger and more powerful his (or her) spirit becomes. The almost symbiotic dynamism that follows learning is amazing, as the "spirit" grows in intensity, begging for more. Christianity accepts this and more; Christianity suggests that certain "spirits" even contract and wither or even turn obese if they feed on "self" or some other deprivations. Feed any ordinary brain junk food, and we all agree that the "spirit" manufactured by that harmful diet cannot be anything but unhealthy.
All of this, I believe, answers your question in your essay, "The Soul -- A Rational Belief?" Any injured brain like the many you cite in that essay does result in an injured "spirit," though not always. Your mistake is to assume in that essay that Christians are something like a bunch of neo-Platonists, that they think there is an indivisible, pre-existent bubble of spirit trapped in flesh. Christianity, however, has always emphasized the corporeality of the human spirit; the BODILY Resurrection of Jesus proves this, as does the Faith's constant appeals to tactile manifestations of "invisible" realities, e.g., the sacraments.
So, I believe that the brain and spirit are inseparable, that the brain is a "spirit" generator; I believe most Catholics, at the very least, believe this, too. That there are problems with this vis-á-vis Jesus descending into hell, or purgatory, or saints in heaven is well-known and to be expected; that there are ways of answering those problems is also true. But I think the central problem is that you've accepted a bogus idea about what the Church teaches regarding the psycho-somatic union.
Of course, I am probably wrong about all of this.
ON CHRONOLOGICAL SNOBBERY
Forgive me for asserting that you have committed the fallacy of chronological snobbery. Let me try to explain myself.
Let me for the sake of argument posit that the universe as understood by Christ's disciples as He ascended into heaven looked like a giant question mark. In other words, it looked like this: ?.
Now, if I say that the Church would later understand Jesus' words about His Return (or the words of the angels nearby as Christ ascended) in a different way; if I were to note that the Church's theology and cosmology would change together and that the Church would no longer see reality as a question mark but as an exclamation point - "!," you suggest I shouldn't do that, that I must instead see things the way the disciples understood things in "their simplest forms" according to a "plain reading of the text." You assert (or at least I "feel" you do), that I must stay with the "?".
OK, granted. I have indeed committed what could be described as the Chronological Fallacy: I have assumed that a later perspective or understanding is superior to an earlier one; and I read that perspective back into the original context.
The only problem with this is that it only tells half the story; the other half is that you are doing the same thing. I note that you are NOT contradicting Jesus' words about His Return based on assumptions common to a first-century cosmology. You are merely projecting back from a privileged perspective on that which you deign under-privileged. I wonder why this is acceptable for you and yet not for me. I don't see you shredding either Jesus' words or His disciples' understanding of His plain meaning according to first-century standards and premises. I don't see you ripping the "?" on its own terms from within that "?". Why don't you do that? You argue from your "!" or even your "@" without compunction; and yet you fault the Church (or me) for suggesting that certain truths in Christ's teachings only made sense later, as the disciples' and the Church's understanding evolved, matured and developed.
That Christian theological and intellectual history has proven not to be static is to some a sign of its health; others consider it a sign that Christianity is a fabrication. But folks in the latter camp assume that the Faith was posited and understood in a moment; the assumption is faulty. One can think of countless analogies; Darwin would probably not recognize his own theory should he today read the most current papers on the matter. Of course, it does not follow that Darwin would not applaud today's newest ideas; there is nothing in Darwin's own writings that would lead us to conclude that he believed he had said all there is on the matter and that "revelation" was closed in 1859.
If the Church is a dynamic living thing, led by a dynamic, living and resurrected God, then the disciples grow: I am a disciple, I grow, and I am, in a sense, the Church. To suggest that I must only interpret things according to a first century cosmology is unfair and fallacious. Moreover, it is in a sense egotistical and arrogant (I don't mean you, I mean the position), for it forgets that we are primitives too, stuck in a mere 21st-century mindset, limited by our small cosmologies. T.S. Kuhn and others like him come to mind; they remind us that we cannot boast about our sophistication. For today's sophisticate is tomorrow's dolt; and tomorrow's genius might look a lot like a first-century Hebrew staring skyward.
REGARDING AN AFTERLIFE
Of course, I admit nearly all that you say about the afterlife, except I must make one point: I want there to be an afterlife. Don't you? You are absolutely right when you say that (if there is no after-life) we will not know if we are right or wrong; I have explored this point many times (even in an argument why the death penalty fails to bring justice). We won't know that we were ever alive as surely as we won't know we are dead. We won't learn in the grave who killed JFK or whether Jesus' body was stolen; the victims in the planes on 9/11 or the man in the bathroom stall on the 105th floor of the North Tower will never know what happened on that fateful day, that the world did not end; we won't know if the Big Bang is true or if the eternal recurrence is false; murder victims will never know who killed them or why, nor will Holocaust victims gain clarity; raped women will never understand their sorrows, or have those sorrows wiped away; abducted children abused and buried alive will gain no insight, and their desperate parents will never get a glimpse of what really happened; that man in the gutter who has not been loved by any person in the world for even one second will never know love in an afterlife. I grant all this, and even more. My only argument with the universe is how it can be so cruel; how could it create life and yet reject it so casually? How could it give us hope only to dash it? How could it raise us up and tell us a story, and yet not present us with the denouement to our own tales? How does a need for purpose evolve from purposeless; how do questioning beings come from an answerless miasma where the stench of death prevails?
But what befuddles me most is that there are people HAPPY with this sort of universe; that they are content being disciples of final meaninglessness, joylessness and absurdity. People rejoice that there are no answers, and that there are even no questions. They are content to believe that mothers who have lost children to psychopathic monsters do not have a cosmic right to answers; do not have any hope of having any relief. Such disciples of a cosmic emptiness startle me; I cannot believe that they would even choose this as an acceptable worldview. I do not see how they don't rise up in protest at such a universe; that in spite of the universe's callous silence and indifference to human and even all organic life, they do not scream out that they DO believe in God, that they will not compliment the universe with any sort of acceptance of its futility, its FINAL NOTHING, its blind injustice. Their cry that there must be a God is too good for the universe that offers none.
Not that you are the sort of person who loves a godless universe. But I am amazed to have atheists tell me that their atheism "sets them free" -- that they can finally live fully, embracing life with all its wonders and "beauties" and joys. One former-Christian-turned-atheist friend of mine tells me that he now lives with "alacrity," not knowing that his joy makes me weep. I do not know how one can find joy, or even the promise or hope of it, in a universe that cannot give joy -- ever -- or even answers, to ALL who have lived and will live.
In the end, I am amazed at how many atheists reject God because He is uncaused; that, for them, an uncaused thing makes no sense; and yet they immediately accept an uncaused universe, and a cold and violent one at that. Somehow they live comfortably pursuing whatever it is they pursue, freed of any concern that for countless agonizing souls who desperately seek understanding, no understanding will be given.
That I hope there is an afterlife proves that I give the middle finger to a godless universe, even if there is, in fact no god. I want to continue this conversation with you, forever. I want to know, I want answers. I want to breathe and dance and find justice without end. This may make me a wishful soul; this may end in futility. But I believe that Christianity, even if it is a lie, is more glorious and more beautiful than any truth a dead-end universe can offer. My faith is an act of defiance, an act of rebellion.
Not that any of this really matters here, for, as you so eloquently stated:
"The surprise [of an afterlife] you hope for will never happen. You will never wake up when you die, and as such you will never realize your hope was ill-founded. None of us will ever know we were wrong, and if there is no afterlife, as I argue, then I will never know I was right."
Peace to you, dear soul. Thanks for the honor of this exchange. You are too generous.
Bliss,
Bill Gnade
Bill, you write and think very well! Kudos to you for that. You can see me and hear my voice here.
You'll have to pardon me for not responding to you in detail since Thanksgiving is tomorrow, and I'm involved in several disussions on the web and personal email, but I have read several books and written several things that help answer you.
As to the resurrection see the following books: 1 and 2 and 3 and 4.
As to Jesus being God incarnate, see here.
As to chronological snobbery read this. We cannot avoid being chronological snobs.
Thanks for the polite and challenging discussion!
OK, now I'm up to date. I've finished Bill's latest lengthy cry of YES to a God-given universe. What to say after that? I've been struggling all my life to find reasons not to be an atheist. Maybe you've given me some, Bill. But I'm nowhere near being a Christian. Still, I think of the times I've said YES when the trumpets hit their highest notes in the Tuba mirum part of Verdi's Requiem. Ah, but this is merely brain chemistry. The same effect could be produced without the music by injecting the right chemicals into the brain at the right time. It's just an orgasm I was having and proves nothing. All is, after all, meaningless. We are just machines, albeit quite complex ones.
Bill, I'll second John's compliment: you write very well. Moreover, you sound like a nice guy, the kind of Christian the world is a better place for having. But my cold atheist logic forces me to differ with you. You say:
My only argument with the universe is how it can be so cruel; how could it create life and yet reject it so casually? How could it give us hope only to dash it? How could it raise us up and tell us a story, and yet not present us with the denouement to our own tales?
How could the universe do all these nasty things to us? This is how: the universe does not have human happiness on its agenda. Indeed, it has no agenda, and just because there are things we can imagine that are greatly to be desired, does not mean that the universe will oblige and provide them. I for one would ask: how can people be so stupid as to destroy the Earth that is our Mother? But we're doing it: believers and unbelievers alike.
How does a need for purpose evolve from purposeless; how do questioning beings come from an answerless miasma where the stench of death prevails?
How? It evolves. Before there was life, there was no meaning, no purpose. Now there is, because meaning and purpose grant fitness. And because meaning and purpose are integral to life, they are real; or at least as real as any concepts can be.
I do not know how one can find joy, or even the promise or hope of it, in a universe that cannot give joy -- ever -- or even answers, to ALL who have lived and will live.
Oh, but the universe is full of joy, and full of answers: you need merely look into the sky, or listen to Bach, or spring into the sea, to find joy. And answers are there for those who ask questions. I don't understand why our life here is not enough and more than enough for believers, many of whom insist that it's all meaningless and joyless and cold if we don't get to have it forever, and if our truths and feelings aren't given the imprimatur from some big guy in the sky.
I love life all the more, knowing that it's short. Many believers, it seems to me, aren't in love with life, because it's not the "real thing"- all they want is to pass the exam and get their ticket to heaven. This of course is a good way for a belief system to get energy and even sacrifice of life from its recruits, but it seems a sorry, secondhand way of living to me.
Just my humble opinion, of course. Beer and conversation are still on by me here in Vienna, or in SF this summer. Cheers.
I echo the praises of this discussion -- and if any of youse guys pass through Brooklyn, I'll gladly pay for the beer as well as my own rye -- I've never been much of a beer guy. (Maybe that's why I can be 'unbeerable' at times -- sorry about that)
Before I get involved with the comments, though, I have to question John's 'either-or' comment in the original post. Those are not the only options -- even though I agree with you that the second one is the correct one. There have been hundreds of other ideas used as the basis of religious thought, some of which are still around, of course.
Maybe more to my point, I have been reading science fiction for 50 years now. (The emphasis is merely because dramatized 'sci-fi' is to written science fiction what Chef Boy-Ar-Dee is to the totality of Italian cuisine.)
Any number of writers have used SF for religious speculation and have come up with ideas that are different from either of your options. (A very partial list: Theodore Sturgeon, James Blish, Eric Frank Russell, Frank Herbert, Philip K. Dick, Lester delRey, Ray Bradbury, and I could add hundreds more names.)
The differences, of course, is that these writers never pretended they were doing more than speculating, playing 'what if' games, and never presented their ideas in any way as 'true.' And they were aware of the extent of the Universe and the discoveries of modern physics, unlike the geocentric primitives who wrote the Bible, the Avesta, the Qur'an and the Book of Mormon. (The others had an excuse, but Joe Smith could have known better.)
This is, in fact, why one argument for Christianity has never impressed me, even when I was a Christian, the argument that it was so complex and beautiful it couldn't be a 'mere invention.' I'd seen many more ideas, equally complex, produced that their authors made plain were 'mere invention.'
(I'm going to be throwing out challenges to all sides here. Hopefully some of them will be relevant, the rest will be -- as my comments frequently are -- ignored.)
Bill, you mention the problem with God thinking. To me, there is a greater problem with the idea of God choosing. (A minor example of this is the idea of a God who 'answers prayers.')
If God is both omniscient -- including a knowledge of the results of his/her/its own actions -- and has a 'plan' for the Universe, how can he ever make a choice? At any 'decision point' isn't he compelled to make the choice that most advances his Plan -- even if the difference is only 'in the twentieth decimal place'?
As I said when i brought this up, I do not have a problem with a conflict between God's supposed omniscience and man's free will, since they are different 'frames of reference. But I do not see how this postulated God can, himself, have 'free will.'
(The only attempt I've seen to answer this, the 'nunc praesens' the idea that God is 'outside of time' and experiences all things at once, still strikes me as making him inherently immobile and unable to act in time.
Bill: I am reading your series -- and it is less new to me than it will be to many of the others here, because I started from Roman Catholicism. I will have comments on much of it -- I'm sorry there are so many successive posts from me, maybe the impending necessity of Thanksgiving preparation will give you all a break from too much successive "Prupism" -- but I have to make a comment about the Holocaust and Nazism.
I agree that Nazism was the ultimate in human evil, and not 'just' because of the Holocaust. Other genocides have happened, and almost any army at war 'dehumanizes' its opponents. But only Nazism taught its followers not just that its (supposed) enemy the Jews were inhuman, but that because they were unhuman the followers were free from all moral inhibition in what they chose to do to them. The actions of Mengele, the stories of viewers at the camps masturbating as they watched what occurred, the actions of the guards all are examples of this. Only Nazism deliberately unleashed the dark sadism of the followers in this way.
Furthermore, only Nazism overtly condemned reason and stated that 'will' was more important than 'mind.' Only fascism in general -- you find it in Romanian and Finnish fascism as surely as in German -- overtly embodied the authentically 'mystical' idea of the leader as the 'embodiement of the will of the nation.' Marxism (and Christianity) at least pretend to reason, and in many ways they are at least logical -- the problem is that they don't bridge the gap between logic and reason by checking their arguments and conclusions against facts. Only Nazism and other fascisms embodied this sort of mystical orientation exclusively.
However -- and you touch on this -- it is also true that our perspective is limited, and that, even now, my lifetime's distance from the Holocaust, it is possible to argue that there are positive consequences from it. (I am not arguing, as you suggested, that the benefits might outweigh the costs. I cannot imagine a set of scales that could determine this, or claim a 'moral compass' exact enough to even consider this.)
You suggest that, had Hitler not suicided, he could have used Nuremberg to spread his ideas. I have an equally disturbing thought. Imagine that Hitler had died during the beer Hall Putsch, or had been overthrown because of his march into the Ruhr -- the 'Shirer hypothesis.' Germany would still have been militaristic, revanchist, militarily strong, and anti-Semitic. Much of the opposition to Germany's actions in the 30s (i.e., from Churchill) came because of Hitler's insane extremism. Had a less obvious madman been in charge, either a non-Nazi or a Nazi successor to Hitler who appeared 'saner,' might not the Chamberlain position, or American isolationism triumphed -- as they nearly did -- and could we not have a Germanic-dominated, anti-Semitic Europe even today.
But there were other 'benefits' from the Holocaust. Certainly nothing gave more original impetus to the attack on racism and the civil rights movement in America than did the fight against Hitler. ("How could we fight racism in Germany and not fight it at home' as well as the simple fact that whites who had never interacted with blacks before did so in the barracks and on the battle fields.) And it was the civil rights movement that provided the impetus for the fights against sexism and homophobia.
Before the war, many people were arguing that democracy had run its course and proven it was too weak to survive, and that the only choice was between Nazism and Communism. After WWII it became as impossible to 'argue for' (as opposed to 'accept') dictatorship as it was to argue for 'divine right monarchy' (or effective monarchy at all) after WWI. Almost all countries at least pay lip service to Constitutional Democracy as a preferred form of government today, even if they practice what they preach so imperfectly.
And even though science had begun making its greatest strides before the turn of the century, it had not entered people's consciousness. People could still make the jokes '..and nobody understands Ein' or assume that science -- as contrasted to invention and innovation -- didn't affect the lives of ordinary people. WWII spurred science on, true, but it also made people far more science-conscious, and there is a vast difference between developments like the automobile and airplane ('inventions') and things like television, satellites, nuclear medicine, evolutionary biology and computers which are direct 'scientific developments.'
So if there is any argument 'God backers' can make against the 'argument from evil' it is that we are arguing from too narrow a perspective, that we are dealing with thousands or millions of years and not a few decades. Convincing? Not to me. But at least a possible argument.
More later, but later might not be before Friday.
John Said . . .
Are you confusing the fact that I think atheism is the case with a different claim that I am certain atheism is the case? I never asserted such an absurd proposition. I only asserted a probable one.
I have already stated that you have a probablistic case and even affirm your reasons for the case you make.
Howver, your assertions come across as factual and certain.
However, you recognize the limits of certitude -- so I can't label you a fundamentalist atheist any longer.
However, just as someone here called me a kind of "agnostic" becaue of my admission that there are limits to certitude, I can now rightfully declare that if I were to write a book on the growig subject of "new atheism" I'd now label you a "neo-atheist" with the distinction that you entertain a certain level of agnosticism, since your certianty is limited.
Don't get me wrong -- that's honest and much better than the classical atheist position that states, without reservation or qualification, that God does not exist.
I guess since there is no burden of proof on any position of atheism, I can respect the difference between "strong" atheism (or what I call classical atheism) and "weak" atheism (or what I call "neo"-atheism), I can better understand why probablistic argumentation is appealing to you.
In philosophy, a probablistic argument carries some justification value, but not considered to be compelling, by any means.
However, since weak atheism, ipso facto, entails an element of agnosticism, I must respect your integrity on the scope and limits of your brand of atheism.
Frankly, if I were to become an atheist, I suppose I'd find your type more rational than the strong atheism.
But, alas, that is merely a statement of preference as well as an insight that I've learned something from your position.
Best Regards
--Karl
Opps I forgot to give you the link to the definition of "weak" vs. "strong" atheism:
http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm
Karl, since we are "kindred spirits" after all, separated by little, let me tell you that I see the differences between strong and weak atheism differently. [If you read down to the last comment there is a link to a further discussion].
I think Austin Cline is not clear about the differences between them. See what you think.
The best way to describe how strong of an atheist I am, is to say I'm about 90% sure there is no god at all, but that percentage is rising slowly every year. According to what you'll read in the links provided, that makes me a strong atheist.
Cheers!
Dear Zilch,
I love your screen name! And I love your blog; you say so much for someone who has nothing/nada/zilch to say! Thanks for your humor.
I doubt that there is a single thing cold about you, even your "atheist logic." Forgive my agnosticism here; I surely should take you at your word, but I just don't believe that you take your logic with ice.
Yes, you're absolutely right: If there is no God, the universe needs not explain itself. The universe can simply BE; it can do whatever it wants, though I know it wants nothing, since it cannot actually want.
You wrote quite brilliantly that --
"...the universe does not have human happiness on its agenda. Indeed, it has no agenda ..."
-- and I cannot help but shout, Amen! For you are right; if the universe is merely here by chance, I expect too much of it if I expect it to give me answers, at least ultimate answers, to the eternal injustices we see all around us.
But I want to note -- and I pray you will indulge me here -- how much you sound like some of my Christian peers. For when a doubter avers in the presence of some Christians that evil, or injustice, or some paradox confirms his or her doubts; when a doubter concludes that God can't be much of a god if evil persists or paradoxes prevail, some of my Christian peers say something like this:
"...God does not have human happiness on His agenda. Indeed, He has no agenda that makes sense to mortals, especially sinful mortals who resist His ways. God's ways are not our ways; He can do whatever He wants. Who are you to question Him?"
I hope I have not offended you. But surely you see and hear how much that sort of argument sounds like what you've said here; surely you can tell that such an argument is very dissatisfying. But the reality is your argument is structurally identical to that presented by many Christians. You even (sort of) suggest that I need to "just accept" and perhaps even "obey" the facts: The ways of the Universe are not our ways. Get over it.
When I ask how we've evolved -- and that is what I am asking, because we must have evolved if we were not created -- to expect purpose and meaning from a meaningless universe, it does not help for you to say this:
How? It evolves. Before there was life, there was no meaning, no purpose. Now there is, because meaning and purpose grant fitness. And because meaning and purpose are integral to life, they are real; or at least as real as any concepts can be.
Why does this not help me? Well, first it is redundant: I've already accepted evolution as a fact. So to tell me that the answer to evolution is evolution is not leading me anywhere I have not taken myself. I am asking "Why did we evolve this way?" The second part of your comment does speak to my question, but again it does not really help. It is fine to say that "meaning and purpose" make us fit; but it is clear that Christian theists are surviving just fine -- by the billions -- and that their theism appears to make them not only quite fit, it seems that the very nature of life on this planet helps such theists evolve; they've been "selected" quite well. What do atheists say about a cosmos that seems to support theistic life with such abandon?
But I still want to know how purpose evolves from purposelessness. As you know, we can't get more energy out of a thing than that thing possesses; we can't net 10 calories from 1. So how is it that a meaningless, purposeless, contingent and myopic universe can produce beings that need more than the universe even possesses, namely, purpose? How did the empty universe create such beings that look for absolutes and look for such things in order to survive and excel -- where purpose makes humans fit and trim? To say that "it just does" is not only disappointing and glib, it again reminds me of Christian arguments: God just does what He does and is Who He is "just because." But I am stumped by the fact that humans are so much better than the universe, for humans care.
But I am not saying that your explanation does not work for you. I am sure it does. It simply does not work for me. I need more than this sort of tautological reasoning.
You claim that the universe is full of joy, and I can't even remotely begin to understand what you mean. A meaningless universe that does not have human happiness as its agenda cannot then be full of joy. You might IMPOSE and CREATE joy in your experience, but you do not find it. Besides, even if you find joy, the universe has no power to promise joy to others, nor can it grant it and distribute it to all. God can at least make such promises; the God-idea at least gives people hope that joy MAY come. But an empty and meaningless universe cannot make any such offer. People who are unloved throughout their lives will never know love in this universe; in the Christian universe such people can know love -- a love so loving they can even reject it.
(Please note that I am not denying that you experience joy, I am merely wondering from whence such joy comes. I believe that there are really only two possible answers -- you manufacture it, or it comes from God as a gift to all, including atheists. Since you say there is joy, I am compelled to think that you do not believe you manufacture it, so I find myself leaning toward the conclusion that when you are experiencing joy, you are experiencing some divine gift.)
I am so glad to hear that you find beauty in the music of Bach (dubbed the "Fifth Evangelist"), for his music surely echoes the glorious beauty of that which He adored -- Christ Risen. Even Nietzsche had kind words to say of J.S. Bach's music: "One who has completely forgotten Christianity truly hears it here as gospel." Amazing stuff indeed.
But I am befuddled by the claim that you think there are answers. What answers are there in an answer-less universe? What answer does the cosmos have to offer the mother whose son is buried in the woods behind her house, and she does not know it? What answer do you have to give to the man whose dying children are born with tumors on their brains; what answer do you have for the husbands who lost wives in Hitler's gas chambers, and what do you say to the wives themselves? If injustices of these kind cannot be answered, how do you find the universe such a joyful place? If the grieving cannot be comforted, then how is this place fraught with joy?
People often talk of beauty: they look across a great plain or valley from one peak to the next and exclaim, "Ahh! Such beauty!" Others look at a sunset over a calm sea and write poems about peace. But there is no beauty just sitting out there with a sign on it saying, "This is beautiful." And surely there is hardly any real beauty where there is no real peace. Where is peace? Find it for me, show it to me. Science has proven that the earth is not one whit peaceful; nature is "red in tooth and claw" from mite to mountain in a war of competition, mutation, evolution. There is not one level of biological existence that is at rest, that is not in a brutal struggle. That calm sea that seems so peaceful is a veneer over countless horrors of fin and fang; that glorious valley in the Austrian Alps exists as a scar pressed into the earth's glacier-ravaged skin; and every tree and every animal in every direction one looks is dying, with their very feet and roots reaching into the topsoil of the dead. Where's the beauty and the joy of which you speak in this miasma that reeks of death?
I love life, just like you, because it's short. But I love it enough to hope that it will someday be long -- eternally long, despite all the sorrows I now see. Nietzsche, my favorite atheist (perhaps), abhorred the idea of an afterlife; and yet he loved life so much he posited an eternal recurrence, where we get to do this over and over again. Not even Nietzsche could forsake his love of life. He had to keep coming back ad infinitum, no matter how routine it all was, because the eternal routine was better than the grave.
My faith has the same result as yours: I love life, too. But it adds another dimension yours cannot. It adds hope. And hope is is beauty's sibling, or it may even be beauty's mid-wife.
This is meant in no wise to convince you, nor am I chiding you for thinking differently. We are merely different: you see joy where I see terror; you see meaning where I see nothing. All I am really doing is sounding off against a cosmos that we are too good for if, indeed, there is no God. My faith in Christ is a protest, that's all. I want to give people hope, even if it is a false one. The truth of a godless cosmos is shameful and embarrassing to me, for its hands look full but can only be empty. Christ at least gives believers something to look forward to in death -- even if what they hope for is earthbound and this-worldly. That is better than the alternative.
Lastly, I hold on to the hope that even if there is no God, this universe did produce us once; perhaps it will produce us once again, though differently. Perhaps it will reproduce those who love life so much -- despite life's many sorrows -- that they want to see it last and last and last, and the cosmos will grant them their wish; and perhaps those who did not care to see life beyond 80 or so First Snows, or 80 or so Christmases and Easters and Thanksgivings, will be given exactly what they want: nothing. In other words, perhaps the universe gives us what our hearts desire.
Thanks for the very engaging comment. I bid you peace, always.
Bill Gnade
Bravo Bill!
Dear Bill,
First of all, thanks for your thoughtful, thoroughgoing, and even poetic comment. I'm afraid my reply will not be as long (or poetic) as you deserve, for time presses, but I will try to respond to your main points. As far as coldness goes: I too seek warmth, but when the ice cubes of logic melt, then your elixir is likely to put you to sleep. And your dreams, no matter how pleasant and inspiring, are likely to paint a picture of the world that has more to do with your hopes and fears than with the real, living and dying, awesome and terrible, Universe we are lucky enough to live in. So while I too dream, when I'm trying to see how things are, I take my logic from and on the rocks.
Yes, my blog is rather a joke, isn't it? As John Cage said, "I have nothing to say, and I am saying it". I do hope to get around to posting there someday. I find that my discussions here and elsewhere often end up covering the same ground, and it would be useful to have parts of my worldview worked out in more detail, that I could point people to (if anyone were interested).
The present discussion is a case in point. In my previous comment I stated my beliefs about the evolution of meaning and purpose (I could also have included other evolved entities, such as good and bad, beauty, fear, joy- the whole panoply of feeling) quite sketchily, with no supporting evidence, and you were justified in querying But I still want to know how purpose evolves from purposelessness.
My answer: I don't know exactly, but it seems to me logical that purpose must have evolved. Purpose (and a sense of beauty, and all those other nice things) is only ever seen in living things. I might have a purpose in mind for a rock, but the rock has no purpose without a being to have a purpose for it. Likewise for the whole Universe: while the Universe is full of purposes (and beauty, etc.) held by untold numbers of beings, there's no reason to believe that there is any overarching Purpose for the Universe as a whole.
And the reason purpose evolved is fairly obvious: it's why robins get up early to catch the worm, and why we get out of bed and go to work. Otherwise, we'd just sit around until we died. Animals that have purposes in their minds reproduce more successfully than those who just sit around waiting to be fed. Of course, there's a lot more to it that this, especially in humans, where cultural evolution has developed whole new kinds of purposes. But I don't see any grounds for believing in the existence of purpose ab initio.
Bill, you ask:
What do atheists say about a cosmos that seems to support theistic life with such abandon?
This atheist says two things: one, many religions are attractive because we humans know we will die, and "the long habit of living indisposeth us to dying", as Hazlitt has it. And many religions also promise justice for those wronged, and joy for those deprived of joy. Who would not want these things? But that doesn't mean that they exist.
The other reason for the success of religion is the stipulation of laws that must be followed, if one is to get this justice and joy. If we want culture, we must have laws to balance the desires of individuals with the prerequisites of societies. And one tried-and-true method of enforcing laws is the divine carrots and sticks of religion. So my answer would be: religion flourishes because it works (more or less) to build societies. The question now of course is, can societies flourish in the absence of religion? I'm not as sanguine about an unqualified "yes" as many atheists are.
I see the essence of our disagreement in your statement: My faith in Christ is a protest, that's all. I want to give people hope, even if it is a false one.
My question: is a false hope better than the truth, no matter how uncomfortable? Not for me. And as I said, just because meaning and joy are evolved entities, and not given to us from on high, doesn't mean they are not real to me. I too would like for everyone to have justice, joy, peace, and answers. Not everyone does. But for me, that is rather a call to worldly action, to do what little I can, than an incentive to imagine a God who fixes all these wrongs.
Best wishes from Vienna, zilch
Dear Seev,
I missed your comment. Forgive me! I did not mean to ignore you. I mean, I never usually miss any Danish, and my waistline proves it.
My only reaction to what you've posted is that you seem a wonderful man. Very few people would admit what you admitted here; and though I am glad that you may be a tiny bit more theistic in your worldview -- only a smidgeon, if that! -- I pray I've not caused you to think less of Christianity.
This ALL may just be brain chemistry, dear Seev; everything may be some play between sweet narcotic and harmful poison. Viva Verdi! may inspire you; his fine notes may tickle your brain the way fine opiates or wine set the brain toward giddiness, while the tones of The Who might seize your brain like heavy doses of meth and Drano and cocaine combined. But then we are left with this sober thought, namely, that everything, including atheism, is mere brain chemistry. Which chemical reaction is best, or is this the question of a fool?
How do we discern that theism, for instance, is mere brain chemistry? How could we tell it is a mere mind trick if everything is reduced to sundry neuro-chemicals? Curiously, we must note that all of this analysis implies that some state of the brain is presumed NOT to be a chemically-induced state, namely, that state which declares what states are "mere chemistry" (didn't C. S. Lewis write a book of that title, or was that Timothy Leary?) and which ones are not. There is a presumption of transcendence here; there is this unjustified claim that one can transcend brain chemistry and conclude which Weltenschaaung, or worldview, is true, justified, and not tainted by chemistry.
Thus, an atheist's convictions may be as chemically-induced -- or even more so -- than a theist's. But I think -- personally -- that such stuff leads to absurdities and is therefore ultimately unhelpful.
But just because the same effect (your elation as the trumpets sound) can be reproduced synthetically, it does not mean that the original is itself artificial. A prosthesis may surely help an amputee with his gait, but it sure is not the same thing as having a leg. Putting probes on my brain and stimulating it with electricity is all very interesting; my electrified proclamation that I am Jesus Christ might be a great curiosity, but who here walks around with electrodes in their heads? A brain tumor may give me sudden visions of glory; but the man without the tumor also has such visions. Do we conclude that the tumor-less man is somehow ill?
Not that any of this proves a thing or is at all helpful. I swear I amaze myself at how easily I come with what must seem like so much rubbish to so many readers here. But it is all the sort of stuff I believe. I mean, at the very least, it is the sort of stuff that gives me a delicious buzz.
Peace to you this day, and all days to come,
Bill Gnade
Dear Zilch,
I should admit to you one thing straight away. The only reason I am disagreeing with you is because I am jealous of where you are living. You have the distinct advantage here; if you were to just suddenly post "I am living in Vienna! I am living in Vienna!" well, I would be vaporized. As it is, I am already melting from having just typed these words.
I am glad that you are called to worldly action. Christ calls me to the same sort of action. Love is quick to seek redress; love is quick to want to give comfort -- and answers.
But we have already agreed to a few things here, have we not? We have agreed that there are no answers. Or so I thought we have so agreed. John Loftus has admitted that no one can be ultimately right or wrong; the grave gives us nothing and the problems of epistemology on this side of the grave leave out the possibility of certainty (unless one wants to argue that we are certain, at least, of our uncertainty).
You are blessed, or so I believe, because you want to bring justice to an unjust world. I just want to know why you care. Because your cares aid evolution? Aid it toward what? Why should we aid evolution? Why do we care about "survival" or "culture" or our neighbor? Are these not also mere subjective hopes and dreams and wants; surely we cannot point to some thing -- like the laws of religion or culture as you stipulate -- that tell us we "must" (your word) do something, even anything. Why must we do anything? And how do we know we must; how do we know we aren't doing the right thing; and how do we know that we should care that we aren't?
You used twice in your last paragraph -- "for me." And I have no problem with that. But "for me" works for me as well. I just want to point out that we are both saying that our beliefs are personal, that they are our own subjective beliefs about the world. As such, we probably then agree that there is no "objective" meaning, no over-arching rightness about all of this. Hence, I must point out that if all things of this sort are indeed subjective, then Christianity is one of these subjective things. If we then accept that all meaning is subjective and Christianity is one of those subjective meanings, then why would anyone devote any time to debunking that which we've already said is equally subjective to any thing else propped up as meaningful? If atheism is a subjective belief -- its meta-meaning being that there is no absolute meaning or being -- then how is it any atheist would want to debunk some other meta-meaning that is not by definition absolute?
No doubt one could reply that some atheists find meaning in berating other folks' subjectivism. That's fine with me. But I think this all devolves into a form of polite chaos.
But all this disagreement, as I said, bespeaks just one thing: You are there and I am here.
Your advantage, my friend.
Peace and mirth!
Bill Gnade
Okay, Bill, I'll say it: I am living in Vienna! And it would be a lovely city, but it's full of Viennese... Anyway, you're welcome to visit. Just drop me a line.
You ask me, why do I care? Again, I would have to say I don't know exactly. But I believe it has to do with my nature as a social animal, plus my upbringing in a culture where caring is valued, and with my perception of the difference caring makes in the world. What it comes down to, is that I would rather live in a world where people care for one another, because my social animal nature and its encultured and reasoned augmentations get their jollies out of it. It seems to me, too, that many if not most people feel pretty much the same way. That is one reason people work together to build culture: to extend the blessings of caring as far as possible. Of course, there are other benefits to culture, too: Bach, and the Who, and even John Denver.
You ask (well, you asked seev, but I'll field it if I may):
But then we are left with this sober thought, namely, that everything, including atheism, is mere brain chemistry. Which chemical reaction is best, or is this the question of a fool?
It seems to me that saying "mere" brain chemistry is a tad dismissive. You might as well say that to ask which you prefer, the Saint Matthew Passion or the Loony Tunes jingle, for instance, is also the question of a fool. After all, both consist of "mere" notes. But in both cases, brain chemistry and Bach, it's the pattern that makes the music. And while the patterns of the Saint Matthew Passion are just comprehensible to a human being, the patterns of our brain chemistry, no matter how humble they are in detail, are probably beyond all human understanding. So while it's a sobering thought that all of our thoughts and passions can theoretically be reduced to chemistry (and chemistry to physics), that doesn't make them one whit less wondrous.
One last thing, and then to bed. You ask:
If atheism is a subjective belief -- its meta-meaning being that there is no absolute meaning or being -- then how is it any atheist would want to debunk some other meta-meaning that is not by definition absolute?
Well, all debunkers have their own preferred targets, and their own reasons, for debunking. My targets are those parts of religious thought that I disagree with, that impinge upon the real world: either because they contradict science (like Creationism) or because they interfere with what I consider to be civil rights: to be homosexual, for instance, or to be not decorating the landscape in little bits. As far as debunking reasonable Christians goes, I don't really have a dog in that fight. My best friend here in Vienna is a devout Catholic, and we joke about religion, but we don't argue about it. I'm more concerned with the kind of Christians one meets in the comments at the AFA, who suggest that book and film The Golden Compass be banned, or burned, and wonder that God hasn't killed those responsible. I can live with good Christians.
cheers and happy thanksgiving, zilch
Thank you, Bill, for your detailed response to my reductionist views of my peak experiences. I agree that it is a bit absurd for me to think I can step outside my brain and view it merely a set of complex chemical reactions. It is that of course but, as you say, it’s also the thing that decides that using that very chemistry. (Better lives through chemistry!) This then makes me ask where is that “I”, that very consciousness that decides? And this brings to mind the “explanatory gap”, the hard problem of consciousness that David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, and others talk about. But I digress! What I’m really trying to get at here is the feeling, the awareness, the understanding I get at the peak experience. It’s an enormous YES to the universe, in the same sense I think that you have been describing. Here’s the thing: even in my ordinary state, even now, I can be overwhelmed by the thought, Why! Why is there anything here at all? It’s almost laughably absurd. It’s an uncanny feeling, hard to describe, and can be a feeling of awe. Isn’t it a miracle that we’re here? That I’m alive, that you’re alive? I find myself at times giving thanks for this, thanks for this mystery.
Is this more BS? Well yes, sometimes I think it is, but at other times not. I often like to conjure up that first sentence of that Vedic Song of Creation: There was not then what is, nor what is not, and I try to put my mind around that! Not easy.
Dear Zilch,
I wince from the pain! Austria! How lovely!
You have written a great and thoughtful response to what I posted; I have little to say in reply (at least at this time).
I remembered yesterday that I had forgotten to reply to something you said in your second comment here. You wrote:
"Oh, but the universe is full of joy, and full of answers: you need merely look into the sky, or listen to Bach, or spring into the sea, to find joy. And answers are there for those who ask questions. I don't understand why our life here is not enough and more than enough for believers, many of whom insist that it's all meaningless and joyless and cold if we don't get to have it forever, and if our truths and feelings aren't given the imprimatur from some big guy in the sky. [emphasis mine]
I would first say that I don't know many Christians who say that this is all utterly devoid of joy if it does not last forever. But if they did say it, I would think they are speaking more truly to a sentiment than are you. One need only look at how children respond to the end of the day at the carnival or amusement park: they complain that it is over! Many of us who enjoy roller-coasters wish they were not so brief and the waiting-lines not so long. There is something disappointing about the end of a great party; how many times guests "wish it would never end!"
What you have suggested here is almost, and I emphasize almost, nonsense. Why? Well, you've suggested that life is wonderful because it is short. But surely you see the problem, no? Because if life or the amusement park is wonderful because each of these is terminal -- and short-lived -- then surely it follows that these things are more wonderful if they were even shorter-lived? Imagine telling your party host: "This is the best party ever, though I wish it had not been four hours long, but one." Imagine telling your lover: "You know, loving you is so very special, but it would be more special if I could just love you for a few minutes instead of a lifetime." Should a lover say such things to his beloved, I think his next statement might really have something to do with brevity -- "I wish you had not struck me about the face so many times."
Nearly every man I know loves sex; I sat with an elderly man at a restaurant recently who clearly still had eyes out for the younger women; do you think he's "grateful" to the universe that his sex life is short, terminal and over? Come. The thing is preposterous.
Hardly a thing is more glorious to love, or to one's beloved, than to say "I wish to love you forever, always, without end." Sex itself -- at least the kind where reproduction is theoretically possible -- declares this to one's lover: "I love you so much I wish there was MORE of you; you are worthy to be expanded upon the earth." (And I also think that procreative sex declares this, that sex -- and life and love -- are all so good, true lovers want other humans [their children] to share these delights; lovers want love and eros and life to increase, declaring in each embrace, "We shall not hoard these joys to ourselves: we believe in a love and sexuality so good, we want others to know such joys, too.")
So your comment that the beauty of life is somehow amplified by termination and brevity -- by death -- is at best extremely problematic and unsatisfactory. My intent throughout this discussion here, in part, is to say that Christians pay the universe -- and God, if there is one -- the highest compliment of all: We want it all to last forever! If there is no God, the universe receives a compliment it probably cannot make good on, nor is it a compliment it deserves. But I should think that those Christians -- and all others similarly hopeful -- who compliment such a universe deserve the highest and noblest praise, for they manifest something greater than the universe itself possesses, namely, true love.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Dear bill- all I can say, along with Emily Dickinson, is this:
That it will never come again
Is what makes life so sweet.
cheers from Vienna, zilch
My dear Zilch,
I bid you well!
Thanks for the Dickinson verse. I love it. But don't you think her words would be even more lovely if they were fewer?
If eighty springs are sweet, then surely twenty must be sweeter.
Peace to you,
Bill Gnade
Hey Zilch! That's a great couple lines from Emily Dickinson. Captures what I often think too.
And yet I see your point, Bill. I'm almost at eighty springs, another year fourteen months to go, and I would hate to have had just twenty!
In fact, I don't like it AT ALL that I'll be lucky to have twenty more springs!
bill, seev: when Michael Shermer is asked what he thinks about an afterlife, he says "I'm all for it". But he doesn't believe in one.
I too am glad that I've had more than twenty springs- and best wishes to your eighty springs and more, seev! I suppose one can see it either way, when considering how short life is: either despairing, because more would be so much nicer; or grateful, because we have any life at all.
Here's another favorite poem. Anyone recognize it?
Only in silence, the word
Only in darkness, the light
Only in dying, life
Bright the hawk's flight
On the empty sky.
Yes, zilch, I'd be all for an afterlife if there was one. Yes, I think a lot that keeps me going as I approach 80 springs (in 14 months)is the fact that I feel more and more how precious each day is. Sounds like a cliche, but nevertheless I feel it -- I think.
I don't recognize that poem, but it's a good one. Says that because of death we embrace life?
Looks like this thread has been swamped out by a bunch of other posts. Good thing I kept the link to it. Perhaps it's just you and I here, zilch, assuming you're still here.
I'm still here but not for long. :-)
seev- the poem is by Ursula LeGuin, from the Earthsea trilogy.
Threads do tend to have a limited lifespan, just like people do. If you're still checking this: best wishes to you, and here's to a peaceful and happy world!
cheers from rainy Vienna, zilch
Post a Comment