In the previous post I commented on Sean Carroll, astro-physicist and atheist soldier who wave the banner of scientism. He writes an article:"Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists" [1]Actually, he offers no data on the views of cosmologists. I offered reasons in the previous post as to why I think the title here is hyperballe. Good data shows that the majority of scientists believe in God [2] While it may not be true of cosmologists I have no reason to believe it is not. But this is not the real issue. he real issue is that Carroll's arguments are merely ideological/ all he's doing is imposing a naturalistic ideology upon epistemology and then insisting that he has the mystique of science to back it up. In other word it's just propaganda.
Let's start with his conclusion:
The question we have addressed is, ”Thinking as good scientists and observing the world in which we live, is it more reasonable to conclude that a materialist or theist picture is most likely to ultimately provide a comprehensive description of the universe?” Although I don’t imagine I have changed many people’s minds, I do hope that my reasoning has been clear. We are looking for a complete, coherent, and simple understanding of reality.That seems ok so far but here's where he wants to wind up:
Given what we know about the universe, there seems to be no reason to invoke God as part of this description. In the various ways in which God might have been judged to be a helpful hypothesis — such as explaining the initial conditions for the universe, or the particular set of fields and couplings discovered by particle physics — there are alternative explanations which do not require anything outside a completely formal, materialist description. I am therefore led to conclude that adding God would just make things more complicated, and this hypothesis should be rejected by scientific standards. It’s a venerable conclusion, brought up to date by modern cosmology; but the dialogue between people who feel differently will undoubtedly last a good while longer.
The problem is "what we know" means what we know by the methods that I choose, those methods are chosen because they yield the results I want; other forms of knowledge I do not have to regard. He argues for a self contained paradigm and true to Thomas Kun's theory he absorbs anomalies into the paradigm so as not to admit that they are contradictions and he defends the paradigm like a political regime. My overall argument is that his rejection of theism is ideological not scientific.
In his abstract to the article he makes his purpose clear, that purpose I to rule out belief in God by moving it of the map as an issue. The way to do that is to assert science's role as the only form of knowlege:
AbstractWhy would we be led to be led to a meticulously materialist view just because we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental views? It sounds like he is saying that science can determine the truth between differing views. He actually says ifwe believe that it can He's aware that it can't. He knows all he's really doing is just advocating an ideological view point that blinds itself to other possibilities.
Science and religion both make claims about the fundamental workings of the universe. Although these claims are not a priori incompatible (we could imagine being brought to religious belief through scientific investigation), I will argue that in practice they diverge. If we believe that the methods of science can be used to discriminate between fundamental pictures of reality,we are led to a strictly materialist conception of the universe. While the details of modern cosmology are not a necessary part of this argument, they provide interesting clues as to how an ultimate picture may be constructed. [emphasis mine] [3]
As further evidence of his commitment as a solider of atheism he opposes any sort of peaceful coexistence between science and religion:
One increasingly hears rumors of a reconciliation between science and religion. In major news magazines as well as at academic conferences, the claim is made that that belief in the success of science in describing the workings of the world is no longer thought to be in conflict with faith in God. I would like to argue against this trend, in favor of a more old-fashioned point of view that is still more characteristic of most scientists, who tend to disbelieve in any religious component to the workings of the universe.[4]
He disavows any claim to statistical accuracy in the title saying, "The title ''Why cosmologists are atheists'' was chosen ...simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning." [5] That's a new one, I can make false claims about support because I don't mean them and somehow the fact that I'm advocating traditional views guarantees it's veracity. Talk about propaganda! This "common and venerable view" is outmoded and has been left behind by many in scientific circles. Stpehen J, Guild with his non overlapping magisteria found peace with religion by recognizing that religion and science have different purposes.[6] The National Science Teachers Association echos the same concept that science and religion cover differing domains of knowledge. “Explanations involving non-naturalistic or supernatural events, whether or not explicit reference is made to a supernatural being, are outside the realm of science and not part of a valid scientific curriculum.” [7]
"Essentially I will be defending a position that has come down to us from the Enlightenment, and which has been sharpened along the way by various advances in scientific understanding. In particular, " No scientific understanding has ruled out God. He's appealing to tradition and the emotional investment he's made in enlightenment thinking. "Since very early on, religion has provided a certain way of making sense of the world -- a reason why things are the way they are." I suspect that what he means by that is that religion offered an explanation of the workings of the physical world, such as the river floods because God is mad at us. I have a hard time thinking that Carroll really has a conception of what religion is about. part of what I base that upon is the the things he thinks beat it out:
In modern times, scientific explorations have provided their own pictures of how the world works, ones which rarely confirm the pre-existing religious pictures. Roughly speaking, science has worked to apparently undermine religious belief by calling into question the crucial explanatory aspects of that belief; it follows that other aspects (moral, spiritual, cultural) lose the warrants for their validity. I will argue that this disagreement is not a priori necessary, but nevertheless does arise as a consequence of the scientific method,
Of course before one can say "X has overcome Y" she/he must know what Y is about. Since science doesn't talk about existential or phenomenological matters one cam only conclude that he must think religion is about explaining where the sun came from and why it rains. This especially so since view he is juxtaposing is cosmology. So he must think that understanding the nature of reality is jus a matter of understanding the cosmic layout, planets and stars.
The essence of materialism is to model the world as a formal system, which is both unambiguous and complete as a description of reality. A materialist model may be said to consist of four elements. First, we model the world as some formal (mathematical) structure. (General relativity describes the world as a curved manifold with a Lorentzian metric, while quantum mechanics describes the world as a state in some Hilbert space.Complete as a description of reality? That assumes of course that your methods are up to the task of probing all of reality. He speaks of a complete description and yet look at all that he leaves out/, First I refer the reader to my recent essay "can science prove the basis of modern physics?" [8] How can he claim a complete description when it can't tell us what the basic building blocks are made out of? Materialism has to rule out miracles. It will rule them out as a matter of course. That is an ideological imperative. Then in a move of pure circular reasoning it will appeal to it's own authority in declaring miracles to be scientifically disproved. All that really means is that they conflict with the ideological scheme of things. Miracles are a part of my reality. They are paert of other people's observations and have been documented scientifically.[9] [10]Any description of the universe that rules them out without genuinely disproving them is incomplete. Then of course there are issues of phenomenological and existential import.
sources
[1] Sean M. Carroll, "Why (Almost All) Cosmologists are Atheists;" On line resource, Prepared for God and Physical Cosmology: Russian-Anglo American Conference on Cosmology and Theology, Notre Dame, January/February 2003. Published in Faith and Philosophy 22, 622 (2005). See also the pdf version. URL:http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/ accessed Feb 12, 2016.
Carroll is at the California Institute of Technology.
[2] Neil Gross and Solon Simmons, “How Religious Are America's College and University Professors.” SSRC, (published feb. 2007), PDF URL, accessed 9/4/15 The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of thehttp://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Gross_Simmons.pdf Association for the Sociology of Religion.
They present a bar graph that show about 35% professor's ar elite research universities believe in God with no doubt. About 27% believe but sometimes have doubts. About 38% are atheists. That actually means that 60% are not atheists. True that's not cosmologists but there is good reason to think the majority of cosmologists are not atheists. The most atheistic groups in the study were psychologists (61%), biologists (about 61%), and mechanical engineers (50%), not physicists (among whose ranks cosmologists number). “Contrary to popular Opinion, atheists and agnostics do not comprise a majority of professors..."
[3] Carroll, op. cit.
[4] Ibid. "Introduction."
[5] Ibid. all further quotes by Carroll are from this article.
[6] Stephen Jay Gould. Rocks of Ages: Science and Religion in the Fullness of Life. New York: Ballantine Books. ,2002,
[7] Statement on Teaching Evolution, National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT). Adopted by the NABT Board of Directors on March 15, 1995. no page given, in Three Statememts in Support of Teaching Evolution From Science and Science Education Organizations, A National Science Teachers Association Position Statement (see fn 4) online URL http://www.nap.edu/read/5787/chapter/11#127 (accesed 1/26/2016)
[8] Joe Hinman, Can Science prove the basis of modern Physics?" Metacrock's blog,Feb. 1, 2016, URL:http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2016/02/can-science-really-prove-basis-of.html accessed 2/14/16.
[9] Bernard Francis et al, “The Lourdes Medical Cures Re-visited,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Oxford: Oxford University Press. (10.1093/jhmas/jrs041) 2012 pdf downloaded SMU page 1-28 all the page numbers given are from pdf
Bernard Francis is former professor Emeritus of medicine, Unversite Claude Bernard Lyon. Elisabeth Sternberg taught at National Institute of Mental Health and The National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland. Elisabeth Fee was at National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
[10] Jacalyn Duffin, Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing: Medical Miracles in the Modern World. Oxford University Press; 1 edition (November 21, 2008
from Bio on Amazon.com
Jacalyn Duffin, M.D. (Toronto 1974), FRCP(C) (1979), Ph.D. (Sorbonne 1985), is Professor in the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen's University in Kingston where she has taught in medicine, philosophy, history, and law for more than twenty years. A practicing hematologist, a historian, a mother and grandmother, she has served as President of both the American Association for the History of Medicine and the Canadian Society for the History of Medicine. She holds a number of awards and honours for research, writing, service, and teaching. She is the author of five books, editor of two anthologies, and has published many research articles. Her most recent book is an analysis of the medical aspects of canonization, Medical Miracles; Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World, Oxford University Press, 2009. It was awarded the Hannah Medal of the Royal Society of Canada...
See also Doxa. miracles pages
13 comments:
Joe: The problem is "what we know" means what we know by the methods that I choose, those methods are chosen because they yield the results I want; other forms of knowledge I do not have to regard.
No, it means the methods that actually give us reliable answers.
Religion does not do that. Philosophy does not do that. Neither give us any reason to be confident they are true. This is why so many people - including the experts in the field - have such different opinions.
Joe: He argues for a self contained paradigm and true to Thomas Kun's theory he absorbs anomalies into the paradigm so as not to admit that they are contradictions and he defends the paradigm like a political regime. My overall argument is that his rejection of theism is ideological not scientific.
Then you need to address the arguments in the paper. Asserting his view is political or ideological is not going to cut it. Even if they are political and ideological they can also be right and fully supported by science. We know climate change is political and ideological, but it is also right and fully supported by science.
Joe: In his abstract to the article he makes his purpose clear, that purpose I to rule out belief in God by moving it of the map as an issue. The way to do that is to assert science's role as the only form of knowlege
Right. He thinks religin is wrong, and concludes we should abandon it. Moaning about it does help you at all. You need to show that he is wrong.
Show that religion gives us information that we can be confident is true.
Joe: He disavows any claim to statistical accuracy in the title saying, "The title ''Why cosmologists are atheists'' was chosen ...simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning." [5] That's a new one, I can make false claims about support because I don't mean them and somehow the fact that I'm advocating traditional views guarantees it's veracity.
Your last post was "The Rejection of Christianity and Low Self Esteem" and was based on one study with a very low population, ignoring studies with much larger populations. Claiming "That's a new one" rings a little hollow when it is pretty much what you do yourself.
Joe: I suspect that what he means by that is that religion offered an explanation of the workings of the physical world, such as the river floods because God is mad at us. I have a hard time thinking that Carroll really has a conception of what religion is about.
Not what religion is about, but why it developed originally. Read the first few chapters of Genesis; it explains why there are rainbows, why snakes have no legs, why childbirth is painful and more besides. And it is wrong on every count.
That is not what religion is about, but that is not what concerns Carroll. It is discussing how religion explains the world.
Joe: Of course before one can say "X has overcome Y" she/he must know what Y is about. Since science doesn't talk about existential or phenomenological matters one cam only conclude that he must think religion is about explaining where the sun came from and why it rains.
Right. Religion has got it wrong about all the stuff we can actually test, so is forced to be about existential or phenomenological matters instead.
And then, all it has is a thousand differing opinions, and everyone certain his pet theory is rigght, and no way to determine between them.
Joe: Materialism has to rule out miracles. It will rule them out as a matter of course. That is an ideological imperative.
Carroll's point is that that works fine - we do not need miracles to make sense of it all. Rainbows happen because of the way light is refracted through drops of water; no miracle required.
Pix
Hey PX!
Anonymous said...
Joe: The problem is "what we know" means what we know by the methods that I choose, those methods are chosen because they yield the results I want; other forms of knowledge I do not have to regard.
No, it means the methods that actually give us reliable answers.
Religion does not do that. Philosophy does not do that. Neither give us any reason to be confident they are true. This is why so many people - including the experts in the field - have such different opinions.
Yes they do, Knowledge is cumulative we can't make sharp distinctions. Philosphy and theology make use of other disciplines too. But those headings Organize knowledge along certain lines we have reason to feel confident,
Joe: He argues for a self contained paradigm and true to Thomas Kun's theory he absorbs anomalies into the paradigm so as not to admit that they are contradictions and he defends the paradigm like a political regime. My overall argument is that his rejection of theism is ideological not scientific.
PX: Then you need to address the arguments in the paper. Asserting his view is political or ideological is not going to cut it. Even if they are political and ideological they can also be right and fully supported by science. We know climate change is political and ideological, but it is also right and fully supported by science.
good point. The problem is the ignores the same issues when theology is point and he only asserts logic and reason when it supports his anti religious view.
Joe: In his abstract to the article he makes his purpose clear, that purpose Is to rule out belief in God by moving it of the map as an issue. The way to do that is to assert science's role as the only form of knowlege
PX: Right. He thinks religin is wrong, and concludes we should abandon it. Moaning about it does help you at all. You need to show that he is wrong.
It's not as simple as just saying I think religion is wrong. He's crowding out liberal arts, philosophy, logic, reason, history and so on because he reduces al knowledge to science.
PX: Show that religion gives us information that we can be confident is true.
Jesus loves me this I known. for the bible tells me so...
Joe: He disavows any claim to statistical accuracy in the title saying, "The title ''Why cosmologists are atheists'' was chosen ...simply to bring attention to the fact that I am presenting a common and venerable point of view, not advancing a new and insightful line of reasoning." [5] That's a new one, I can make false claims about support because I don't mean them and somehow the fact that I'm advocating traditional views guarantees it's veracity.
Your last post was "The Rejection of Christianity and Low Self Esteem" and was based on one study with a very low population, ignoring studies with much larger populations. Claiming "That's a new one" rings a little hollow when it is pretty much what you do yourself.
Nope, it was based upon one article that used many studies
Joe: I suspect that what he means by that is that religion offered an explanation of the workings of the physical world, such as the river floods because God is mad at us. I have a hard time thinking that Carroll really has a conception of what religion is about.
Not what religion is about, but why it developed originally. Read the first few chapters of Genesis; it explains why there are rainbows, why snakes have no legs, why childbirth is painful and more besides. And it is wrong on every count.
Yes in the ancient world people used science to explain things, does that mean that's its ever use for? that des not follow. Does that mean that is religion's only function? that does not follow. That's one thing among many for which it was used.
That is not what religion is about, but that is not what concerns Carroll. It is discussing how religion explains the world.
Joe: Of course before one can say "X has overcome Y" she/he must know what Y is about. Since science doesn't talk about existential or phenomenological matters one cam only conclude that he must think religion is about explaining where the sun came from and why it rains.
I think it also follow that he has a shallow understanding of matters such as epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
Right. Religion has got it wrong about all the stuff we can actually test, so is forced to be about existential or phenomenological matters instead.
So you asserting that the only matters that make a difference are things we can quantify, That means you have understanding of epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
PX And then, all it has is a thousand differing opinions, and everyone certain his pet theory is rigght, and no way to determine between them.
So you are afraid to think on such matters because you fear making a mistake? I would not have thought that of you
Joe: Materialism has to rule out miracles. It will rule them out as a matter of course. That is an ideological imperative.
Carroll's point is that that works fine - we do not need miracles to make sense of it all. Rainbows happen because of the way light is refracted through drops of water; no miracle required.
why do you think I cunt regular naturalistic phenomena as miracles? I am not saying one must believe in miracles but to rule them out so programatically is to close one's mind to ways of thinking that are not blessed by the stamp of ideological approval.
I think it also follow that he has a shallow understanding of matters such as epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
- Um, excuse me, but Sean Carroll is widely regarded by the philosophical community and many religionists as being a scientist who has a background in philosophy and is well versed in religious arguments. These are the same people who decry Richard Dawkins for his weak philosophical background. I dare say that Carroll's philosophical understanding far exceeds yours.
when is he going to start using it?
one source I googaled said: "As a natural philosopher, Carroll is pushing against the borders between the sciences and the humanities and applying techniques from each domain of knowledge to the other.Oct 28, 2022"
Natural philosophy is an antiquated term taht just means scientist. That doesn't mean he knows philosphy.
These are the same people who decry Richard Dawkins for his weak philosophical background. I dare say that Carroll's philosophical understanding far exceeds yours.
Dawkins is weak in philosophy, He's the one who says philosophy is dead. you have no idea what my back ground is.
Joe: Yes they do, Knowledge is cumulative we can't make sharp distinctions. Philosphy and theology make use of other disciplines too. But those headings Organize knowledge along certain lines we have reason to feel confident,
How can you be certain Jesus rose from the dead? The only evidence you have comes from the Bible, a text written by mostly unknown authors decades after the event. It is a fact that most theists reject the resurrection (Hindus, Muslims, etc.). You may feel confident, you may have reason to feel confident, but that confidence is not justified.
Certainly not in the way confidence in relativity is justified.
Joe: It's not as simple as just saying I think religion is wrong. He's crowding out liberal arts, philosophy, logic, reason, history and so on because he reduces al knowledge to science.
I very much doubt Carroll wants to reject logic and reasoning; this is just hypobole.
There is no reason history cannot be approaches like science. You build a hypothesis, draw predictions, then go do the research to test them. I do not know if it is done like that, and ultimtely we cannot be certain of history from long ago.
Can you tell me a hypothesis in philophy that we can be confident is true? My feeling is that by its nature it focuses on questions where that is not the case, but I could be wrong.
Joe: Yes in the ancient world people used science to explain things, does that mean that's its ever use for? that des not follow. Does that mean that is religion's only function? that does not follow. That's one thing among many for which it was used.
In the ancient world people used religion to explain things - I guess that is what you meant?
You ask "does that mean that's its ever use for?", but my claim was "Not what religion is about, but why it developed originally", so what is your point? Of course it had other uses. Priests used it to make a living. Rulers used it to control the population. But these came later.
Joe: I think it also follow that he has a shallow understanding of matters such as epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
So show how he is wrong. If his understanding is shallow, but right, that would trump you, if yours is deep, but wrong.
Joe: So you asserting that the only matters that make a difference are things we can quantify, That means you have understanding of epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
You missed the point.
What I am saying is that religion has a bad track record with those things we can test, so why would anyone think it is any more accurate with the things we cannot? Suppose a kid is sitting ten exams; he is ill for one, and cannot attend, but does abysmally for the other nine. Should we assume he would have passed the one he missed with flying colours? I think not.
Joe: So you are afraid to think on such matters because you fear making a mistake? I would not have thought that of you
I have no idea where you get that from. Clearly I am discussing these matters right now!
Joe: why do you think I cunt regular naturalistic phenomena as miracles?
Because it is all you have.
Joe: I am not saying one must believe in miracles but to rule them out so programatically is to close one's mind to ways of thinking that are not blessed by the stamp of ideological approval.
So show the miracles.
Oh, right, you count naturalistic phenomena as miracles. A tacit admission that real miracles do not happen.
Pix
How can you be certain Jesus rose from the dead? The only evidence you have comes from the Bible, a text written by mostly unknown authors decades after the event. It is a fact that most theists reject the resurrection (Hindus, Muslims, etc.). You may feel confident, you may have reason to feel confident, but that confidence is not justified.
First I don't know that Muslims reject the res since the accept Jesus as a prophet. Paul is also evidence for the res. He knew eye witnesses to the event. New Testament apocrypha supports it. It's not part of the tradition of Hindus so I would not expect them to.
Certainly not in the way confidence in relativity is justified.
Joe: It's not as simple as just saying I think religion is wrong. He's crowding out liberal arts, philosophy, logic, reason, history and so on because he reduces al knowledge to science.
I very much doubt Carroll wants to reject logic and reasoning; this is just hypobole.
He wants to take it over. Only he has the true understanding of those things because science is the valid kind of knowledge.
There is no reason history cannot be approaches like science. You build a hypothesis, draw predictions, then go do the research to test them. I do not know if it is done like that, and ultimtely we cannot be certain of history from long ago.
It's an article of faith. On Christianity we are asked to place faith in God not to accept facts that prove the case.
Can you tell me a hypothesis in philophy that we can be confident is true? My feeling is that by its nature it focuses on questions where that is not the case, but I could be wrong.
A is not non A same place/time.
Joe: Yes in the ancient world people used science to explain things, does that mean that's its ever use for? that des not follow. Does that mean that is religion's only function? that does not follow. That's one thing among many for which it was used.
In the ancient world people used religion to explain things - I guess that is what you meant?
Yes, I goofed
You ask "does that mean that's its ever use for?", but my claim was "Not what religion is about, but why it developed originally", so what is your point? Of course it had other uses. Priests used it to make a living. Rulers used it to control the population. But these came later.
Of course you see all t's uses as negative. It's usec to explain and to bolster security, and to phoment enlightenment,
Joe: I think it also follow that he has a shallow understanding of matters such as epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
So show how he is wrong. If his understanding is shallow, but right, that would trump you, if yours is deep, but wrong.
He thinks god can be treated like a biological organism. see my critique of Dawkins in God, Science, and ideology.
Joe: So you asserting that the only matters that make a difference are things we can quantify, That means you have understanding of epistemology, ethics, and existential matters.
You missed the point.
What I am saying is that religion has a bad track record with those things we can test, so why would anyone think it is any more accurate with the things we cannot?
You base that on a very selective list of things that can be tested. You are also doing reductionism to reduce knoweldge to just taht which can be tested.
Suppose a kid is sitting ten exams; he is ill for one, and cannot attend, but does abysmally for the other nine. Should we assume he would have passed the one he missed with flying colours? I think not.
That's all contrived to reduce religion to just which you can test by your own methods. How avout it's track record for ethics and history? Your missed test analogy assumes the only matters worth believing are quantifiable. the evidence for the refraction we can't test it with your level of scientific certainty but we know it's true by logic and reason,
Joe: why do you think I count regular naturalistic phenomena as miracles?
Because it is all you have.
No I have actual miracles. also God's presence.
Joe: I am not saying one must believe in miracles but to rule them out so programatically is to close one's mind to ways of thinking that are not blessed by the stamp of ideological approval.
So show the miracles.
Oh, right, you count naturalistic phenomena as miracles. A tacit admission that real miracles do not happen.
I don't know where you get that. I count feeling God's presence as a miracle it can't be measured or proven, Healing of disease I've seen several miracle's one documented by the EMS crew.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to gain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty or safety” ~ Benjamin Franklin
Freedom is always bound up with responsibility. Freedom is limited naturally by the laws of physics, orality, and Logic. It is not limited by Christian belief except in so far as orality limits us from doing evil.
I then close with entire chapters on why Paul’s references to “Brothers of the Lord” are too vague to establish the historicity of Jesus and why Paul’s references to Jesus’ incarnation are even more so. The only Brothers of the Lord Paul clearly describes in his letters are baptized Christians—cultic, not biological brothers. I show in JFOS how every typical pushback against this realization fails on facts or logic—mere rationalizations for denying the obvious, not sound reasons to maintain Paul “must” have meant Jesus’ actual kin (a concept found nowhere in the letters of Paul). Likewise, in his actual Greek, Paul does not clearly say Jesus was descended from David in any terrestrial sense or that he had a biological mother. Again, to aver these things requires ignoring the actual language and context of the pertinent verses and replacing straightforward evidence with a whole slate of ad hoc presumptions entirely recruited from the very Christian faith tradition that tried to erase these facts to begin with. And if you don’t believe me, you really need to read these chapters before you can claim to be so sure. I suspect you won’t have heard many of the facts in them. They change everything
Post a Comment