Many of us have heard robust, rational arguments making the case for God or ‘god’ or even ‘gods’, despite Copernicus, Darwin and the lot. Francis Collins’ The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for belief is on such example of a reasoned, and quite logical, defense of faith/religion that cautions us to not dismiss ‘belief’…The bottomline, for him, seems to be to make the project of modern science a bit more humble and recognize its limits, by ackowledging the existence and even desirability of faith.
When I come across ‘foo-foo’ faith, such as the one being propagated on many GodTube (www.godtube.com) clips (thanks to Newsweek for pointing out the sites listed here), I feel sorry for the likes of Dr. Collins and I recognize why people would stare should I read the Bible at Starbucks. One clip, ‘The Atheist’ uses a banana to demonstrate the ‘genius of God’: http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=c5280214e0486b273a5f&page=&viewtype=&category=
I’ll leave it to y’all to determine how to take this: literally, metaphorically, seriously or as a comedy…If Yahweh does exist, he’s either gone bananas or is quite the humorist/comedian…Perhaps, Chris Rock is god…
If GodTube weren’t enough of a nuisance, the country’s culture wars are pitting Wikipedia (and its liberal bias) against Conservapedia…What will this spell for professors grading papers that have cited the latter? More trouble, irritation and they’ll have an excuse to increase the ban on Wikipedia…How does quality compare on the two sites?
Let’s see the entries for Raphael on both sites: Conservapedia- http://www.conservapedia.com/Raphael - and Wikipedia – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raphael . While allowing for the relative recentness of Conservapedia, I’d say that in terms of Brandeis’ ‘marketplace of ideas’ logic, the better idea here – unquestionably wikipedia – should continue to prevail in terms of keeping overwhelming marketshare in its favor, if the market be allowed to operate freely…
Myspace’s challenge: famster (www.famster.com) ! Now Rupert Murdoch would say that ‘it ain’t gonna work mate’! Why? Sketchy business model. Most Americans, who tend to abuse online networking, are already sick of their families (at least those that do have families)…Otherwise why go online to get in touch with parents (unless you’re away; but how many teens are away?)? Ain’t home the place to hang out with family?
March 18, 2007 at 4:20 pm
While I have not read Francis Collins, I believe I am familiar with the bottomline of his argument that you reference above. This view was given a thumping in Richard Dawkins’ recent book, The God Delusion.
Dawkins describes the idea of NOMA, or Non-Overlapping MAgisteria. This represents the two recognized realms of science and religion. Many scientists will readily concede that their trade has nothing to do with religion, and they are often willing to say “As a scientist, I know nothing about matters of religion, so go ask a priest/rabbi/etc.” Thus, the realms of science and religion are held to be non-overlapping: The scientist stays out of religion, and the priest/rabbi/etc. stays out of science.
However, Dawkins points out that this neat division of labor hides a nasty flaw. It’s true that the scientist can’t tell us anything about matters of religion, but neither can the priest! After all, why should we believe that a priest would be any better at divining theological information than a gardener or gas station attendant.
Of course, priests have training that allows them to tell a consistent story, which gives them an edge on the gardener or gas man, but at the end of the day, nobody knows anything about stuff we can’t see.
March 18, 2007 at 5:33 pm
Maybe you are blind and cannot see. Although, I have never seen the face of God, I know He is there in my heart, in my soul and in most everything I do. I say most because I am not perfect. No matter what any one says, reads, prints, shouts, threatens, I will remain steadfast in my belief of God.
March 18, 2007 at 8:05 pm
Madmouser – What does it mean to “know” if you are not willing to doubt? In other words, what value does certainty have if it cannot be tested? Clearly, you count your unwavering faith as a virtue, but why is it worthy of respect?
March 18, 2007 at 11:57 pm
Benji- Reading the bible in Starbucks is a great idea! When I was travelling by bicycle once, I ran out of books and was forced to resort to reading the Gideon Bible in a diner. Its incredible the sort of strong stereotypes that doing so activated in people’s minds. Just on seeing me reading this book, people, regardless of what their own views were, pretty much universally had the same image of me in their head and started talking to me about all sorts of wierd things. If you are ever bored, reading the bible in public is a really interesting social experiment, almost as interesting as making a circle with your fingers and inserting a banana into it to prove the existence of god. Atheist’s nightmare? Buuuullshit, that banana just became the athiest’s best friend, though not in the same way, apparently, as it became the banana-inserting man’s. Furthermore, if anyone uses conservipedia as a source of endoxa, we may have to close down the dialectical archives.
Skeptical Mind- Freud explains the concept of undoubting knowledge of God in scientific terms with amazing grace while seperating it carefully from knowledge gained through revelation. In the face of the amount of knowledge around and the time it takes to read it all, you can probably just Google him in order to see clearly the bottom line of his argument.
On a side note: after some research into Madmouser’s blog, I have decided that I disagree with her vehemently on most subjects, however Madmouser, in my opinion, might be funnier than Al Franken and Minnesota might just be the Canadian version of Texas at that. Without a doubt, however, Gorrilla Guys are extremely funny.
I have social anxiety disorder and over the last few years it has gone from bad to unbearable. I have lost friends, fallen out of contact with family members and even resorted to going on disability last year as a result of this vicious sickness. I never leave the house and my days consist entirely of sleeping and watching television. This medical condition prevents countless thousands of people from living normal, productive lives. I hope you will publish my letter so that people can be educated as to the devastating effects of this horrible disorder.
Socially Starved in St. Paul
Dear Sicko,
We would love to help you but we have a medical condition which prevents us from engaging in conversation with folks such as yourself. It’s called anger.
0 Comments
March 22, 2007 at 4:47 am
I have read the views of Dr. Collins and Prof. Dawkins, and I must say that objectively I can’t say if indeed the latter provides an ‘intellectual’ thumping – polemical yes, analytically tractable, no – to the former. While I am no expert on biological matters, and readily profess my awareness of my ignorance (emulating Tequila Socrates’ more known namesake did), I will still maintain that – at bottom – Collins is trying to make the project of modern science more aware of its limits.
As far as scientists and priests are concerned, let’s not forget that many scientists have had training in religion. Mendel, the father of genetics, was a priest. We shouldn’t be dissing priests nor should we be vilifying atheists, I’d say…
You say ‘nobody knows anything about stuff we can’t see.’ I wonder how one sees that the earth revolves around the sun? Descartes in the quintessential statement of doubt wrote ‘i think therefore i am’ not ‘i see therefore i am’. I know you meant doubt has to be the basis of science (as you point out in the response to Madmouser); but just wanted to point out that when one claims the mantle of Hume, they’ve got to be more careful in word choice.
To madmouser, I don’t know what to say.
Now, Zax or Tequila Socrates – it’s getting a bit confusing mate – I did read Bible twice at Starbucks (that too on a liberal campus) and I agree with your bit on what sorta stereotypes it generates. It’s great as a sociological exercise; you should try carrying a copy of the Qur’an through an airport once. You’ll be surprised by the response.
March 22, 2007 at 10:11 pm
In defense of my previous comments, I would note that I completely agree that the project of modern science should be aware of its limits. I think Dawkins acknowledges this point to. But THAT is not a good reason to respect religious authorities!
Just because science has limits doesn’t mean religion has the answers to the remaining questions.
Granted, my word choice regarding “seeing” was very careless, and I’m embarrassed by it in retrospect, but I stand by the intended meaning.
March 27, 2007 at 5:29 am
FB- I have settled on a name now. Sorry for the confusion.
March 29, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I wonder — can you reverse Dawkins’ view? I was trained as a scientist, and far from wishing to keep science and faith separate, I recognize that they’re both a way to seek after Truth. @scepticalmind: I agree that priests can’t tell us anything special about religion, but another way to say that is, “Scientists can tell us just as much about religion as priests can… maybe more.” I have this sense that Dawkins imagines scientists as non-confrontationalists, scuffing their shoes against the sidewalk and mumbling, “Don’t mind me. I don’t want to get in the middle of this.” If someone believes that God created the world, then spending some time investigating that world, whether through engaging in prayer or running gel electrophoreses (is that the plural?), would seem like a promising use of one’s time.
March 29, 2007 at 10:02 pm
Lev – I’m tempted by your line of thought, but how can science deal with theological subject matter? Spirits, souls, heaven, hell, right, wrong, god… what can science say about these?
March 30, 2007 at 2:30 pm
Yeah, it does start to get tricky. Let me start by saying that I think all people have a right to investigate truth for themselves. We don’t need intermediaries to tell us what’s what. This is a day in which each one of us has the capacity, both spiritually and mentally, to perceive these things.
I guess for myself, I don’t believe in a locational heaven and hell, so I don’t worry about science explaining that one. For me, Hell is distance from Truth/God, and Heaven is drawing closer to Truth/God.
…
After sleeping on it, here’s where I’m at. I don’t think we can ever fully understand any of this — the material world, the nature of God… the infinite is too big to fully grasp. What we can do is constantly investigate and reevaluate our hypotheses. Science teaches us how to do that, and inasmuch as we put it into practice (and don’t lose the humility that Dr. Collins and frankbenji mention), then I think we’re engaged in a spiritual pursuit. So I’m saying that scientists can treat spiritual subjects in that investigating this world helps us build bridges to an Absolute Unity that can be hard to fully comprehend.
(I know that’s a little vague, and I’m trying not to dodge your question, skepticalmind. Getting scientists to do things like ‘prove the existence of the soul’ doesn’t sit well with me, so I was trying to find another way to come at the idea.)
NB: I don’t want to misrepresent myself, either. My belief teaches me that I have a responsibility to investigate reality, both material and spiritual. But I also believe that great religious Messengers have revealed spiritual laws about how the world works. The investigation of those laws is just as powerful a work as the investigation of gravity, the weak and the strong forces, or the network of gene-protein interactions in a laboratory setting. And at some level, they must stop being separate endeavors. That’s where I’m coming from.
March 30, 2007 at 10:16 pm
I’m quite committed to the life philosophy of “Question Everything,” so I really like the approach that you take here Lev. However, we are definitely coming from different places, since I am not rooted in any religious tradition. Therefore, what I keep wondering is where the spiritual pursuit you describe should be grounded. It makes sense to investigate spiritual laws if you already believe they have been revealed to us, but what about those of us who weren’t raised to have faith in such things?
I guess my point is that anyone can recognize the subject matter of science by looking around himself, but one must accept revelation “a priori” to recognize the validity of investigating spiritual laws. Doesn’t that ensure science and religion remain separate endeavors?
April 2, 2007 at 2:55 am
I think science and religion can both contribute to a single endeavor. Skeptical Mind and I have had a pretty extended debate about this that frustrated me for a while, but I think I have figured out where I was wrong in my thinking.
We had ended up examining the question of whether or not criteria of science and religion were of equal value in determining the truth value of a knowledge claim.
I claimed that they were of equavalent in many ways while Skeptical Mind disagreed.
After thinking about it, I realized that knowledge claims are a part of the scientific framework whereas religion aims at something different that is more metaphorical.
The difference between literary metaphor and religious duty is that in literature, the metaphor is in words whereas in religion, the duty is in action and is only given context by literary metaphor via the bible.
Science aims to answer questions about how things work and as such encompasses the idea of knowledge claims and extends our abilities to control that which is around us.
Religion aims to answer questions about what we should do with ourselves. For example, given we can’t control event, what should we do? Example of a religious line of thinking: Death happened, what the hell should we do now? = put in box, face head east, bury under ground, write epitaph) Or alternatively, given an event we can control, when doing one thing has one set of consequences and doing another thing as another set of consequences (can’t think of a simple example).
I would make the argument that science ultimately rests on religious values. For example, science indicates that carbon in the atmosphere leads to global warming which leads to hard times for others. Religious values state that we should take care of ourselves and our environment and our neighbors.
As such, we decide we should reduce carbon emissions.
Both science and religion encompass truth value, one in terms of custom, the other in terms of knowledge claims. Both also encounter resistance to change in light of experience. If a custom has unexpected consequences, it tends to be eventually changed through revelation. If a knowledge claim has inconsistencies, it tends to be eventually falsified through further research.
If a custom has influences far reaching enough then changing that custom creates schism. If a knowledge claim has influences far reaching enough then changing that knowledge claim creates crisis and scientific revolution ala Karl Popper.
In practice, science and religion are in a constant state of revalation/schism and of falsification/crisis and revolution, in orthodox theory, however, it is all far more rigid and less fluid. To my mind, scientific institutions and religious institutions, the protectors of orthodoxy, are both examples of political bodies whereas science and religion themselves are both aspects of this underdeveloped idea of Universal Culture that I have been promoting.
April 2, 2007 at 11:21 pm
I like some of what you say here Wanderluster, but I disagree in the STRONGEST possible way with the idea that religion underlies science. Quite frankly, I can’t believe that people can look around themselves today and think that religion is a sound basis for values. Religion provides the justification for countless murders every day (Iraq), PREVENTS the progress of science (stem cells, cloning), preserves brutal and inefficient customs (genital mutilation), and ensures general ignorance for the masses (intelligent design, young earth, etc).
I don’t need religion to come to the conclusion that “we should take care of ourselves and our environment and our neighbors.” A little philosophy will grant access to all the various ethical positions to choose from. Religion just prevents people from thinking for themselves.
April 3, 2007 at 12:42 am
I disagree, I think war between two conflicting value systems is the reason for all the murders in Iraq, which is too bad because if the current administration were more skilled in the arts of diplomacy, less people would die.
I think we all learned what happens when you clone people from Star Wars.
I think those things are slowly changing, its just slow because the process of preserving important values while changing old customs is a difficult one.
Nah. The masses have always been ignorant regardless of the idea it (the masses) conglomerates around. Its been true throughout history, including the modern and post modern eras. Its only when you get to know people as individuals that ignorance goes away. I think if you tried to give philosophy to the masses, it would just end up as another religion.
You know what good old Bacon had to say about that: “A little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth man’s minds about to religion.”
It isn’t that religion grants access to multiple ethical positions, that much is definitely the job of philosophy and a life without philosophy would be a much poorer one for sure, its just that religion provides a basis for choosing between the various ethical positions. As stated above: “Religion aims to answer questions about what we should do with ourselves.”
Atheism makes no logical sense unless you either give up on everything in the world of action and live only the life of the mind (good for those few really smart/crazy people) or degrade science to the status of a quasi-religion and then claim that scientific dogma is better than theological dogma.
April 3, 2007 at 10:17 pm
1. Over the weekend, Sunni Insurgents detonated truck bombs that killed over 60 Iraqis in Tall ‘Afar. Shi’a policemen retaliated with the targeted killings of over 30 Sunnis. The violence against U.S. forces is just part of the religious violence in Iraq. You shouldn’t let religion off the hook by blaming “conflicting value systems,” since Sunni and Shi’a Islam share the same values.
2. I think the religious threat to scientific advancement should be taken seriously, regardless of Star Wars.
3. Which important values are being “preserved” while women have their clitorises cut off and labia sown shut?
4. If the masses are ignorant, isn’t that the result of many ignorant individuals?
5. Why do you think Atheism requires giving up on the world, or turning science into religion?
April 3, 2007 at 11:45 pm
1. I think you are just flat out wrong about Sunnis and Shiites having the same value systems. If that were the case, democracy would be working better in Iraq.
2. In many ways I agree with you, but there needs to be a balance between orthodoxy and revolution otherwise we lose valuable aspects of life.
3. I have no idea, the movie I watched about it was in a foreign language.
4. There are circles of competence within which people are quite knowledgeable; outside their circle, people are ignorant. The masses is something that occurs when the circles of competence collapse into each other. In ages past, the circles had fairly good working relationships with each other and as such remained distinct yet cooperative and as such the masses were mostly unempowered. Then democracy came along and empowered the masses, good things happened, philosophy was born and then republicanism was born, after which both died for centuries, possibly for inherent causes. When they were revived in America, great care was taken to keep the relationships between the circles strong through the electoral college and separation of powers, etc. but the mass media eroded that somehow.
5. Well, on what basis do you avoid moral relativism if you are an athiest? Its either give up on everyone else and live inside your head according whatever moral system your idiosyncrasies prompt you to adopt or claim that science (the orthodox method of the modern and post-modern eras) is TRUTH itself, instead of being simply the pursuit of greater knowledge about the empirical world. If you choose this second option, science becomes just another religion, in my opinion.
April 4, 2007 at 10:09 pm
I agree that moral relativism flows rather naturally from atheism, but I disagree that it presents the dichotomy you describe.
While accepting moral relativism, one can still argue in favor of reasonable ethical positions, and all humans can potentially understand the reasoning due to our common biology. So we don’t need some moral absolute to appeal to in order to have shared ethics.
Likewise, a moral relativist can still recognize that science is merely a process to understand our environment insofar as we can interact with it. That doesn’t mean equating science with Truth.
April 4, 2007 at 11:29 pm
I still can’t accept this common biology thing, quite. In what way does common biology give immediate rise to an ethical system?
April 5, 2007 at 1:05 am
I never said “immediate rise,” for if that were the case, then there would already be a commonly recognized ethical system.
Rather, common biology allows for shared Reason. Reasoning allows argument and systematic thought. Argument allows us to convince other people to agree with us. Systematic thought allows us to create ethics. Put them all together, and you get human beings that can create ethics and convince other people to behave in accordance. No God required!
April 5, 2007 at 1:28 am
Wanderluster (btw becoming a Wanderluster from Socrates is quite the jump), your discussion with Skepticalmind is quite fascinating.
And I guess I would have to say that one need not only be motivated by religion (in terms of traditional faiths) to kill people. Events of the past century have shown how National Socialism, and Stalinist/Maoist Totalitarianism – all motivated by scientific/psuedo-scientific notions of progress – and totally secular ideologies killed probably more people than ever before.
How can one differentiate the goals and methods of ‘good science from bad science’ (evolution vs creationism say)? Or science from psuedo-science without a standard yardstick; and does absolute relativism – a contradiction in terms? – let you have such a yardstick?
Kuhn’s scientific revolutions theory shows that science as a project does rest on constant doubt essentially since the best theories may well be the ones that will be accepted by your peers and survive experimental tests. And Skepticalmind could point out that in religion – say the Abrahamic faiths – there are certain things one can’t question that one knows are false (such as the world being created in seven days).
I guess the issue is where to strike the balance, between having enough room to question without sacrificing the ability to have a reasonable yardstick to judge right from wrong. It’s difficult, and I don’t see moral relativism as the way forward…Just some rambles…
April 5, 2007 at 1:39 am
Yeah… Tequila Socrates was just my idea of a joke. He was going to be the gadfly to get everyone talking and then I was going to kill him off (To Kill A Socrates? huck huck)
On the note of science motivating killing, how about the war in Iraq? At least a couple of those deaths were from bombs dropped by the US and at most an absurd number of them and all in an effort to bring secularism to the middle-east.
As for Kuhn. Yeah. For some reason I got Kuhn and Popper mixed up in my head. I meant my reference to Popper to be to Kuhn. Strangely, Kuhn seems to be a positional slut in this argument. I am using him on my side and you seem to be using him against me…?
I agree with you for the most part, Benji. For me, I have struck the balance at cultural relativism (according to my understanding of the composite terms as opposed to Skeptical Mind’s). There’s a bunch of cultures around the world. The morality of any given person is related to whatever culture is politically empowered in the country where they live. If you aren’t involved in a culture, you have no right to judge it. If you aren’t involved in a culture, you’re probably going to end up fucking up if you try to enact political revolution since you will assume that the people whose regime you are trying to alter want what you want. (via Iraq: we want secular democracy that places science above religion, so must they… is this a correct assumption? I don’t honestly know the answer, but I can see a lot of things in the current situation that would seem to indicate taht secular democracy might destroy a lot of things Iraqis hold dear.)
The key to striking the balance is not to place scientific culture above all other cultures, but rather to try to promote healthy relationships between cultures and to make political immigration possible (difficult, so that people don’t try to move everytime things don’t go their way, but still yet possible). In this way, any given person will be given the best chance possible of subscribing to the social contract they wish to live under. The poor man masturbating the banana has a bad relationship with other cultures and as such a bad relationship with his own. Instead of believing in God as he claims to, he only considers God to be true if he can convince everyone else of this by jerking off a banana.
If he accepted that not everyone in this world wants to believe in God, he could go about his way truly believing in God while everyone else went about their way and eventually ended up in hell. Meanwhile, all the people who don’t believe in God could go about there own way, make their way in life according to their whims and then cease to exist when they die while the banana-masturbator misses out on all the good stuff in life because of a stupid belief and then after a while, dies and ceases to exist.
I mean, look at Madmouser, I think she might be 14 or something and already she gets it. She popped over here, told us we were blind and then went back to dreaming about whatever it was she was dreaming about before, utterly unconcerned that we heathens over here are doubting what she obviously believes in very strongly. She basically said “This is my way, where is yours?”
In my opinion, most of the bad things in the world comes from people believing they are right universally as opposed to individually and then attempting to choose their way not severally but collectively; well that and competition for the scarce resources necessary to live in which a given person/people want/s.
Skeptical Mind – Ok, so science doesn’t prevent us from using reason to determine rationally which ethical system we want to subscribe to severally, but which ethical system does it lead us to adopt collectively? If science rests on constant doubt and yet what you say is true, then it seems to me that each person would be lead by Reason to adopt whatever ethical system their idiosyncrasies dictate and then to doubt themselves constantly to the point of being unable to live ethically, which in my mind is equivalent to moral relativism.
Said a different way, beer is unhealthy for human beings. An ethical system derived by reason from common biology would consider drinking beer unethical? And yet, I enjoy beer… the whole common-biology derived ethical system just seems so irrational I don’t know where to go from there except to repeat that I enjoy beer…
April 5, 2007 at 10:11 pm
Yes! Wander’s final comments above are close to what I’ve been getting at. Each person thinks for himself, and adopts whichever ethical system he finds most convincing. This must be constantly doubted, as there is no moral truth. This is moral relativism.
I’m not sure why you don’t like this, though. And where did the beer thing come from? I never said science would dictate ethics, but even if it did for some people… you could just disagree with them. Your role would be to convince them to adopt a different ethical system that permits beer drinking. If your arguments make sense, then you’re likely to convince them.
April 5, 2007 at 11:37 pm
I believe the same thing at the cultural level (cultural relativism). I would believe it at the individual level (moral relativism) except that I believe cross-cultural communication is ultimately a lonely endeavor and if I didn’t tie my morality to something greater than myself, then I think all sorts of communication would take on the character of cross-cultural and life would be rather lonely.
As a foreigner here in Japan, my ethics are basically mine to choose, I can behave in basically whatever ethical manner I so choose, though the more I conflict with Japanese ethics, the more Japanese people will simply marginalize me. And yet look what I am doing: I choose to follow Japanese ethics most of the time so that people respect me when I speak and I am using a blog to tie myself back to my own culture through conversation and debate and when I am engaged in that pursuit, I follow American ethics so that people will respect me.
Why bother if their ethics are just as valid as yours? It isn’t necessarily that I disagree with you on the validity of your position, its just that I think if that is your position, every argument you have made about anyone other than yourself is invalid. A true moral relativist would need to be mute on all matters pertaining to humanity.
April 6, 2007 at 1:21 am
You speak as if moral relativism is a choice! If there is no moral truth, you can’t simply choose that there is. You can choose to pretend that there is, or even delude yourself into believing that there is, but it won’t be true. Doesn’t truth matter? Or are you a relativist about truth too?
April 6, 2007 at 2:22 am
I’m confused, is what I am. At least, I am confused about the point you are trying to make.
I’m also an empiricist. What exactly does truth refer to in the empirical world or is it just something you made up?
In my opinion, abstract truth matters a whole lot less than friendship. Friendship ulimately necessitates shared participation in a culture. As far as being a relativist about truth, I think I am, but I am not sure you are and maybe you don’t want to be. In my opinion, truth must be related to the real world. In your opinion, what is truth related to?
April 6, 2007 at 9:39 pm
I think that answered my question… it sounds like you would join in a mass delusion if it promised friendship. There’s definitely something to be said for that; I’ve heard this argument before phrased the following way: “Religion is a lie, but we should go along with it for the sake of peaceful and meaningful lives.” I just happen to disagree that religion and mass delusion aid in friendship and peace.
I am not a relativist about truth, because I don’t think humans can ever know the nature of abstract truth. Maybe there is a Truth “out there,” as in… This is the way the world REALLY is. But, we can’t know that, because we can’t step outside ourselves. Thus, I consider myself an empiricist by default. Empiricism isn’t the way to understanding reality, but it is one way of investigation that all humans share. Therefore, empiricism is one path to our collective “truth.” Another path is abstract reasoning, which all humans also share. Between science (empiricism) and reason, I think you pretty much do away with any need for religion and delusion.
April 8, 2007 at 12:27 am
I like Nietzsche’s attitude toward religion in the abstract sense of the word best. Especially as described in “Thus Spoke Zarathrustra” and “Beyond Good and Evil.”
September 9, 2007 at 4:01 pm
Love Making Advice for Everyone
Includes: kissing and romance tips; dating and relationship advice. Has lovemaking become dull? Discover 500 exciting lovemaking tips!
May 21, 2009 at 12:03 am
[...] bring this up because of a great conversation on science and belief over at Wisdom of the Capybara. In the Seven Valleys, it is related that the Imam `Alà has said, [...]