Skeptics get a bad rap.
We need to differentiate between a Skeptic worldview (where we flat out reject everything) and a Skeptic epistemology, where we demand verification of any and all truth claims (both religious and otherwise). Skeptic epistemology is a moral imperative (religions- particularly Christianity- agree with me here. In general, they contain lots of warnings about false prophets and changes to scripture). I want to talk about what I see as the proper application of skepticism in our search for truth.
The first thing we have to realize (or rather admit) is that our perception of reality is untrustworthy. There are too many studies on human psychology that show us doing horribly irrational things for us to entertain the notion that what we think we know always matches with reality. Moreover, there are too many painfully real present-day examples of people doing absurd things in the name of their religion. So when is it appropriate to trust our senses, feelings, and beliefs, and when is it not?
There are a few instances that jump to mind here. If your belief in something is based on feelings, emotions, Faith, Divine Impartation of knowledge, an Infallible Leader, or any other objectively unverifiable basis, you have a problem: it's a virtual certainty that someone, somewhere (probably a great many someones) believe in a diametrically opposed truth based on the same evidence. The Christian claims divinely imparted belief? So does the Muslim. The Buddhist claims inner peace and joy as evidence of his religion? So does the Christian. Your specific belief may be unique, but the basis of your belief is not. So on what strength are you to say that your belief is well founded, but everyone else's is purely psychological? It seems like you're forced to pick one of two options- either everyone else is lying, or humans are capable of being utterly convinced of a truth (on the same basis that you are utterly convinced), and still be wrong.
If a claim demands action but makes no prediction, you ought to be extremely suspicious. Such claims have historically been used as methods of control, but more to the point, you don't actually have any reason to believe them. Once they start making proscriptive claims about what you ought to do, they are now literally asking you to bet something on their truth. It's one thing to accept a claim as plausible (and "believe" it, in the weak Bayesian sense) on the strength of authority- you believe a friend who tells you your favorite sports team won. But once you have to take action on this belief (or abstain from action), your standard for belief (your critical Bayesian level, if you will) must increase in proportion to the level of action required. If a physicist tells me certain kinds of radiation are not harmful, I believe him. If he asks me to carry some of the glowing material, the standard of evidence I require increases a great deal.
The key thing i'm arguing for here is that we have to recognize the fundamental possibility that our truth-telling mechanisms are wrong. I say "fundamental" here in the sense that this possibility is always present, no matter what level of enlightenment, relationship with God, understanding of the universe, or epistemological epiphany we reach. Not only is it always possible that we're wrong, it's actually statistically likely that we're wrong. A claim of anything else is either a claim that you believe your truth more strongly than any other religion believes in its truth, or that you have a better truth-telling mechanism than they do (a claim that suffers greatly when your belief depends on Faith, emotion, etc). Science, it should be noted, claims the latter- that it has a better truth-telling mechanism (it's a pretty convincing claim).
The point here is that, as the relative extremity of the action required increases, so too should your requirement of evidence. And in fact, there are some things that might be true, but you should be so suspicious of them, that in practice you never actually believe them. If a religious claim ultimately requires you to commit what you know to be a moral evil, you are obligated to reject the religious claim- even if it's true! Because our truth-telling mechanisms are untrustworthy, it's much, much more likely that you're wrong about what God is telling you than it is that God is actually telling you to slaughter all those innocent people.
So what's the takeaway here? First, most people aren't skeptical enough. Second, Faith is not valid evidence. Third, whatever belief system you end up with, it must be beholden to your moral principles, not the other way around. It is wrong- both ethically and epistemologically- to subjugate your conviction of right and wrong to any authority other than your own. You are responsible for your actions. Should such a day come, you will stand before God on judgement day. And I can think of no other response that a benevolent God could have to someone who knowingly did wrong in his name than "How dare you?"
I've shortened your sentences to save space.
ReplyDelete“The first thing we have to realize (or rather admit) is that our perception of reality is untrustworthy.
Then are you saying that reality cannot be known?
“There are too many studies on human psychology “
Could you provide a link or point me in the direction of one of these studies. Just curious to see one.
“ people doing absurd things in the name of their religion.”
Sure, but people do absurd and terrible things without religion. Christ’s teachings of forgiveness and loving your enemies actually acts as a deterrent from doing terrible things to each other. I only need to get in a car and drive in rush hour traffic to remember how easily I can hate people.
“ believe in a diametrically opposed truth based on the same evidence.”
But they aren’t the same evidence at all. They aren’t the same teachings. To say that all religions are exactly equal doesn’t seem to be a reasonable assumption at all.
It seems like you're forced to pick one of two options- “
So everyone must be wrong? People should not be basing their beliefs on their personal experience and personal divine revelations. They should be basing its teaching and the historical veracity of its claims.
“Science, it should be noted, claims the latter- “
Science can tell me a lot of truths. But it can’t tell me how loving I should be, how forgiving I should be, when I should put the lives of others before mine. It can’t tell me how to find peace, happiness, and fulfillment. It can study people who have found those things, but what if it found they all had religion? Science is great at telling me about matter, but it’s lousy about telling me what matters.
The point here is that, as the relative extremity of the action required increases, so too should your requirement of evidence.
Yes. Agreed.
And in fact, there are some things that might be true, but you should be so suspicious of them, that in practice you never actually believe them.
Then I can’t believe the truth?
"If a religious claim ultimately requires you to commit what you know to be a moral evil,"
If something is a moral evil then how can it be true? Wouldn’t that be the religion not aligning with reality?
It is wrong- both ethically and epistemologically- to subjugate your conviction of right and wrong to any authority other than your own.
But didn’t you say that right and wrong are real and objective? You seem to be here advocating a subjective right and wrong system of belief. And you told me in the beginning that I couldn’t trust my own perceptions as well. I’m afraid this one leaves me a little bit confused.
1. Then are you saying that reality cannot be known?
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that you can't be certain that your idea of reality is accurate. When it comes to extremely low level things ("that chair exists"), we're all but 100% sure (and really, nobody disagrees at this level). But as we abstract ourselves from direct observation, we start synthesizing facts that we "know" (and I'm willing to concede that we "know" things like "that chair exists") to form beliefs about much more complex systems. And once you pass some threshold of complexity, people operating from the same low level facts ("that chair exists") end up at wildly different conclusions. And it's this conception of reality that we can't be sure is accurate. We can be confident in our beliefs (in a Bayesian sense) if we've weighed the evidence and arrived at a reasoned conclusion, but we have to admit that, as humans, "our perception of reality is untrustworthy". When you claim to have better truth than someone else, you're claiming to have a better implementation of a truth-telling algorithm, but you're not claiming to be running on different hardware. Human "hardware" is fundamentally capable of being wrong about reality, as evidenced by the proliferation of vastly different and contradictory belief systems.
2. Could you provide a link or point me in the direction of one of these studies. Just curious to see one.
Sure. Here's a few interesting ones:
Asch Conformity Experiment
Cognitive Dissonance
Stanford Prison Experiment (which took in even the experimenters)
Irrational Investment Behavior
Spontaneous Group Formation
3. Sure, but people do absurd and terrible things without religion. Christ’s teachings of forgiveness and loving your enemies actually acts as a deterrent from doing terrible things to each other. I only need to get in a car and drive in rush hour traffic to remember how easily I can hate people.
No argument here- my point was just that people do absurd things for beliefs which are not true. You're right, they do absurd things for non-religious reasons all the time. I just use religion as an example because religion is the easiest place to find people taking drastic action based on belief in opposing truths (since most people agree that at most one religion can be right)
4. But they aren’t the same evidence at all. They aren’t the same teachings. To say that all religions are exactly equal doesn’t seem to be a reasonable assumption at all.
ReplyDeleteWell, we need to differentiate what they teach from what reasons they give for believing in their teaching. I agree with you that they aren't all teaching the same things, but I do think they rely on much of the same evidence. The Christian claims the Holy Spirit as self-authenticating; the Buddhist claims Enlightenment as self-authenticating. Both are saying that the experience of their religion is convincing evidence. Any argument you can make against the self-authenticating nature of Buddhism, Buddhism can make against you. The point is that either the Buddhist is lying about the self-authenticating nature of enlightenment, or he's wrong. If he's simply wrong, then it's clear that "self-authenticating" input can be spoofed to the human brain. You may think your self-authentication stronger than his, but he thinks his stronger than yours too (if you disagree that Christianity makes the self-authenticating claim, then we may make the same arguments for Islam in regards to "history" and "miracles"). I'm not saying that you're wrong- but I am saying that at least one of you is wrong. And whoever is wrong is still totally convinced they're right.
5. So everyone must be wrong? People should not be basing their beliefs on their personal experience and personal divine revelations. They should be basing its teaching and the historical veracity of its claims.
Well, I think I just disagree with you on this one. There is no amount of historical proof that could ever convince me of a miracle- mostly because there's more than one religion makes this claim. But really, even if there was only one religion, I would have a hard time dedicating my life to a religion based on historical evidence. Eyewitness testimony is notoriously bad even in today's legal system. Why should I think it was any different 2000 years ago? How could I possibly trust such an implausible claim as a miracle purely on the basis of "historical evidence"? I do think historical evidence is important to establish some reasonability (we shouldn't take seriously any religion that can't provide historical evidence), but it is not sufficient for knowing the truth- if it was, how are their so many Muslims convinced on the basis of historical evidence who are flat out wrong?
And it seems to me that Christianity explicitly claims a relationship between you and God, and presents God as the embodiment of Love (that's the whole point of the doctrine of the Trinity). Followers of such a God- who desires a relationship with them- should have a strong personal experience with Him.
6. Science can tell me a lot of truths. But it can’t tell me how loving I should be, how forgiving I should be, when I should put the lives of others before mine. It can’t tell me how to find peace, happiness, and fulfillment. It can study people who have found those things, but what if it found they all had religion? Science is great at telling me about matter, but it’s lousy about telling me what matters.
ReplyDeleteI almost agree with you here. The only point I would contest is that all the people who have found peace, happiness and fullfilment have had religion. First, I just don't that's true (there are at the very least a great many Atheists who claim to be happy). But second, I don't think this solves our problem even if it is true. This shows that happiness/peace/fulfillment doesn't depend on being right (unless you're saying only Christians are actually happy). It just depends on believing something. Christians are fond of saying there's a God-shaped hole in your heart. Atheists are fond of saying there's a hole-shaped God in your head.
7. Then I can’t believe the truth?
Well, this is an oversimplification, but in some cases, yes. It may be true that God demands that you fly a plane into a building to kill infidels; I contend that even if it is true, you still shouldn't do it. Not because you're "not allowed" to believe in this (it's the truth, after all, in this hypothetical), but because it's way more likely that you're wrong about what God wants than it is that the benevolent God wants you to go out killing innocent people. Even if you were to become absolutely convinced that this is what God wants, you still shouldn't do it. This is the whole point of the ethical injunction argument given in the link from the main blog post. It's also the reason the story of Abraham (almost) sacrificing Isaac is such a big deal (because it's glorified in the Bible, when it ought to be villified)
8. If something is a moral evil then how can it be true? Wouldn’t that be the religion not aligning with reality?
ReplyDeleteWell, let's take a real world example. I think denying homosexual's the right to marriage is a moral evil. I believe it is wrong. Since Catholicism disagrees with this, am I to declare Catholicism wrong? It's certainly possible that I'm wrong here. I agree that there seems to be something "disordered" (in the clinical sense) about it. But not experiencing myself, I don't see a way I can be at all sure of this claim, much less legislate it. At the very least, I'm pretty confident that it's a lot more wrong to discriminate against people in this way than it is to be gay. The same goes for pressuring women and families into not using birth control. I believe it's wrong. Are you saying I should overide my idea of right and wrong because "the church tells me so"? And if so, then what's the line of "moral wrongness" the Church can direct me to do, and what's the point at which I need to stop and say "hold on- this is wrong!"
9. But didn’t you say that right and wrong are real and objective? You seem to be here advocating a subjective right and wrong system of belief. And you told me in the beginning that I couldn’t trust my own perceptions as well. I’m afraid this one leaves me a little bit confused.
That's a fair criticism of what I'm arguing here, and I'm definitely not saying this is an easy problem to solve. What I am saying is that if there is an objective moral standard, the only access we have to it is through our subjective moral intuitions. Our intuitions are an approximation of the standard, not the standard itself- so in all cases, it's possible that we're wrong. But that does not mean that we subjugate our understanding of morality to another authority. It's possible that we're wrong, but it does not follow that the Church is right. If we're willing to subjugate our moral intuitions to an outside authority, then we have no defense against an authority that is wrong- and we should be at least as sure of our moral intuitions as we are about the truth of whatever authority we're considering subjugating ourselves to
1. Then how do we ever know we are right? 2. Thanks! 3. I see.
ReplyDelete4. Catholicism does not exactly make the self-authenticating claim. The personal relationship is not stressed as much as the corporal relationship. We as a member of the Body of Christ can mainly know Christ through his Church, the sacraments, the scriptures, and other people. Consolations and desolations will most likely happen at some point though.
I still think that further evaluation of the claims of each particular religion is needed.
5. So are you saying that we can never really know if a religion is true? Would there be any point to investigating them?
6. I did not mean to imply that science had said anything on a link between happiness and religion, but was just hypothetically saying what if, which you covered.
7. The story of Abraham is certainly a difficult story to understand and I know that there are several ways that it is interpreted by Catholics but the one way it is absolutely not taken to mean is that we can kill people if we think God told us to. However, I do see your overall point.
8.Haha, yes, you got me there. We first have to have the same perceptions for that to work! As a Catholic I would define marriage as the union of one man and woman for life for the bearing and rearing of children in a stable home. I feel this is logical and biological. Can you help me understand your view of marriage and where the boundaries should be drawn and why (multiple partners, etc)? Does the government have a right to limit it? And just so you know, I am not sure how I feel about legislating it. If it is simply a matter of morals, then society can do as it wants but should the leave the Church to dissent (as with divorce) and perform marriages as it sees fit. However, it does seem to have farther reaching affects to society to me. I need to look more into this and I am interested to hear your thoughts.
When you say the church pressures women to not use birth control, do you mean in it’s teachings or are you referencing the recent HHS mandate? Have you read Humana vitae? I bet you get sick of hearing Catholics ask you that.
9 Well, if God did become a man, then that is another story.
1. It depends what you mean by "know". If you mean "be confident", then you just need a certain threshold of belief that comes from overwhelming evidence. If you mean "be 100% sure", then you can't know. The proof here seems pretty easy- anyone who's ever converted/deconverted has at one point "known" the opposite to be true.
ReplyDelete4. I agree that further evaluation is needed. I do think some will be apparently more reasonable than others. But, we can't just ignore the fact that many religions are citing the same sources. If you believe that one historical claim is more convincing than the other, is that because it is a better claim, or because you're culturally biased for or against one of the claims? The answer is not so intuitively clear, particularly when people of the other religion (coming from a culture where that religion is prevalent, just as Christianity is here), look at the same historical evidence as you and reach the opposite conclusion
5. Again, it depends what you mean by "know"
7. "but the one way it is absolutely not taken to mean is that we can kill people if we think God told us to"- I agree with you here- when I was a Christian, nobody I knew would make this claim. But it sort of seems like the Bible does, when it glorifies this story as a great act of Faith.
1. You mention miracles in the “you can’t know” piece. What do you think of the shroud of turin? I know there has been some controversy over the carbon dating but I have seen several places that says new information invalidates it.
Deletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/20/shroud-of-turin-jesus-burial-cloth-authentic_n_1161363.html
A good book I read on it is the Resurrection of the Shroud by Mark Antonacci. Of course I read it as a believing Catholic, but I think if the things he says is true (that it would take radiation to make the image) then it brings up some interesting questions. There have also been books written by scientists who actually worked on the cloth. I know this isn’t a slam dunk miracle (can there be such a thing?) but it can be perhaps be thought provoking if you’re looking for modern day material evidence.
7. I believe the bible is not open to individual interpretations and we end up with thousands of competing Christian churches all claiming they correctly interpret it when we do. But If I did come to the conclusion that the bible was telling me that I should be listening for God to tell me to kill people then I would have all of Christiandom against me.
1. I honestly don't know a whole lot about the shroud of turin. My understanding was that it was viewed more as a relic than as evidence of a miracle. Per Wikipedia, "The Catholic Church has neither formally endorsed nor rejected the shroud, but in 1958 Pope Pius XII approved of the image in association with the Roman Catholic devotion to the Holy Face of Jesus" and "Antipope Clement VII refrained from expressing his opinion on the shroud; however, subsequent popes from Julius II on took its authenticity for granted".
DeleteAlso per wikipedia, independent tests placed the shroud thread around 1260-1390 A.D. Further, "Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval “invisible” repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth"
Basically, it seems to me a tenuous claim, particularly since scientists by and large aren't allowed to study it directly (not surprising- if it really is a holy relic, then you don't want scientists mucking it up. But we can't exactly declare it definitive if we refuse to test it)
It seems to me that it's plausible that this is a fake from the 13th century AD. And since there's a plausible explanation for how this could exist without a miracle, it seems like a bad truth-telling mechanism to conclude it's a miracle.
7. Fair enough- you would be going against all Christendom. But is that really why you wouldn't do it? Not because you know it's morally wrong?
1. And since there's a plausible explanation for how this could exist without a miracle,"
DeleteI would urge you to see all the evidence for and against it yourself dismissing it. The STURP team of the late 70's and early 80's concluded it was definitely not painted and no one has been able to accurately reproduce an image like it despite the fact our technology is well beyond that of the 12-13th century. If you ever come across that book I mentioned someday and have a little free time, I do hope you read it.
7. God was testing Abraham, so yes I wouldn't do it because it is morally wrong and because my faith tells me it is.
Child sacrifice was very common in Abraham's day, and perhaps he misunderstood God's true nature at the time, it may sound like a cop out to say things were different then, but they were. I don't know why God asked him to do it, I don't know what it must have been like for Abraham, but I do know that I live in a society that has made it law that it is ok to kill children in the womb and my Church stands nearly alone is trying to protect them.
Ooops, I meant "before" dismissing it.
Delete8. Here's my thing on gay marriage: I have no idea what that experience is like. But if it's anything like the way I feel about the girl I love, then I don't see how we can possibly a) discriminate against that relationship, b) legalize that discrimination, and c) vilify that relationship in the public and private sphere. This isn't just a question of "legal" or "not legal"- imagine if everywhere you went, you and your husband/boyfriend/significant other were stared at, talked about behind your backs, and if 1/10th of the people you met hated you instantly, just because you were together. I can't imagine what that life would be like.
ReplyDeleteIf your religion wants to condemn gay marriage, that's fine- it's your religion, do what you want. I agree that there seems to be something biologically unintended going on there. But then, my definition of marriage has absolutely nothing to do with "for the bearing and rearing of children in a stable home". I think the point of marriage is a truly intimate relationship between people who love each other. Children can be a part of that, but they are not the point of that.
I have a great deal (though still not nearly enough) of empathy for homosexual people. To legally discriminate against them is wrong. If you want a separate "sacramental" marriage just for heterosexual Catholics, more power too you. But we're talking about codified, legal discrimination for tax purposes, inheritance, hospital visits, health care, and a whole host of other things married couples enjoy. I ask myself how I would want to be treated if I were a homosexual, and that is not it.
My view on birth control is less defined, mostly because I didn't even know this was prohibited by the Catholic church until the health care uproar a few months ago. Frankly, it confuses me a great deal- almost like the Amish giving up technology for the sake of giving up technology, or Christian Scientists refusing to go to the doctor because "God will heal them if he wants them healed". Coming from a protestant background, I don't see how this connects to teachings in the Bible in the slightest, and I don't see how using contraception could possibly be considered wrong. I've read the Catholic arguments for it, and I remain thoroughly unconvinced (even if Christianity is true). The best argument I can make is that, from my reading, study, and teaching of the Bible for most of my life, this idea never even occurred to me. It seems dangerous and irresponsible to press this belief onto couples who don't want kids right now. This is not a religious issue, it's a health issue.
“I think the point of marriage is a truly intimate relationship between people who love each other. “
DeleteDo you define marriage as two people? What about laws against incestuous marriages and underage marriages? I’m not saying that these kinds of marriages will follow, but if marriage is just about loving someone, how can we discriminate against any union? If we draw a line in the sand, someone may be unhappy. Should the government even have an interest in our personal relationships at all? Shouldn’t I be able to determine who gets my benefits or visits me in the hospital, even if it’s just a friend? I don’t really know. Even Bertrand Russell once said ““But for children, there would be no need of any institution concerned with sex…It is of children alone that sexual relations become of importance of society, and worthy to be taken cognizance of by a legal institution.”
“Coming from a protestant background, I don't see how this connects to teachings in the Bible in the slightest, and I don't see how using contraception could possibly be considered wrong.”
Please remember that the Catholic Church does not teach sola scriptura, but that the rock of the church was Peter and the apostles, not the bible. A reading of the bible is probably also not going to give you an easy answer on embryonic stem cell research, cloning, just war theory, and the death penalty. The bible does say “be fruitful and multiply” and there's the "seed of Onan" controversy, but everything is arguable. There have been methods of birth control for millennia, but the advancement of hormonal birth control made it much more clinical and accepted. As a protestant, did you know that all major Christian religions considered birth control methods to be unacceptable before 1930?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_birth_control
http://www.bibleandbirthcontrol.com/earlychurchfathersonbirthcontrol.html
My point here being is that did the nature of sex and reproduction change in 1930 or did societal pressures change their views?
I would argue that it is dangerous to have sex without being open to new life, because it happens even when people use birth control or have been sterilized. An increase in birth control has shown to lead to an increase in abortions (which opens another can of worms). The Guttmacher institute reports that about 50% of women seeking abortions were using BC the month they conceived. A 10 year study in Spain showed an increase in BC use from about 50 to 80% and abortions went from about 5 1/2 to 11 1/2%.
I always find it interesting when someone says religion shouldn’t have anything to do with X, because if there is a God that made us, it would seem that religion would be an integral part of our whole being.
"but if marriage is just about loving someone, how can we discriminate against any union?"
DeleteHere's the thing- your definition of marriage doesn't cover this either. If marriage is just "for the bearing and rearing of children in a stable home", there's no reason you can't do that with an incestuous relationship, or an underage relationship, or a polygamous relationship. Further, you would need to apply the same argument to people who are incapable of having kids- naturally sterile people. Should we prevent them from marriage and sex?
The truth is, we (all of us, not just me and you) bring a lot of baggage to our idea of what a healthy relationship is. But we pretty much all agree that it includes 2 consenting, mentally competent adults. The incest question is interesting, since several states in the U.S. allow cousins to get married, which is awfully close to crossing that incest taboo we have in todays culture (as I'm sure you know, this taboo has not always existed, particularly in the old testament)
"Please remember that the Catholic Church does not teach sola scriptura, but that the rock of the church was Peter and the apostles, not the bible"
For my own edification, where does this authority come from? Is it the one verse in the Bible where Jesus calls Peter the rock of the church? Or does the Church have the authority simply because it claims to have the authority?
"A reading of the bible is probably also not going to give you an easy answer on embryonic stem cell research, cloning, just war theory, and the death penalty"
...But a reading of the Bible is going to give you a moral basis for making decisions on these matters. That, after all, is what the Church is doing (unless you're claiming divine inspiration for the Church, which is another question. As I've said before, if we're depending on someone else's divine inspiration to tell us what to do, then I think we've lost our basis for believing it)
"My point here being is that did the nature of sex and reproduction change in 1930 or did societal pressures change their views?"
There's another possibility. Perhaps society advanced, and religion is catching up with it- just like with slavery, segregation, women's rights, non-arranged marriages, freedom of speech, democracy, and a myriad other things. You may say that these things are all morally consistent Christianity, and even that Christians were some of the driving force behind these beliefs (and I won't even argue with you here), but the Bible and the historical Church have had ample opportunity to take hard stances on these issues, and they haven't. Not until society has changed (or been open to that change)
"I would argue that it is dangerous to have sex without being open to new life, because it happens even when people use birth control or have been sterilized."
DeleteOh, I totally agree with you here. When you have sex, you're taking a huge risk. Whatever we want to say about abortion (I'm way closer to the Christian view here than the Secular one), getting pregnant is still a huge deal. But it seems nuts to me to say "because we can't be sure that you won't get pregnant, we should disallow all the best ways we have of decreasing the odds of you getting pregnant". That's like disallowing seat-belts because you shouldn't be driving if you're not prepared to risk getting into an accident.
"I always find it interesting when someone says religion shouldn’t have anything to do with X, because if there is a God that made us, it would seem that religion would be an integral part of our whole being."
Yeah, I see what you're saying here. But I do think God can be over-applied to some areas. Suppose (and I'm totally making this up), that Islam banned alcohol because it changes the perception of the person that drinks it. Based on this argument, we also shouldn't allow anesthesia. So, we can make the argument that surgery is religiously wrong. I think this is an over-application of God (I'd be interested if you disagreed here). Yes, if God is real, he should be an integral part of our lives- but I really don't think God cares if I have a hamburger or a sandwich for lunch. And I don't think he want's me to forgo surgery out of principle. And I don't think he's checking whether two people are using contraception before declaring a sex act "good" or "bad".
Are you saying you are willing to draw the legal line at 2 people? What would you say If a bisexual man that wanted to marry a man and a woman because they were born that way and they really love both, would you think it right or wrong to prevent them? I’m just curious to know on what grounds you would prevent three or more. I have always thought incest was forbidden because of genetic problems. A sterile heterosexual couple does not redefine marriage as we currently know it, but any other combination of people does and that is the question we are wrestling with here.
Delete"For my own edification, where does this authority come from?"
As I know you are fully aware, the bible wasn’t written during the lifetime of Jesus. He commissioned his apostles and they went out and about preaching and teaching long before the last word of the New Testament was written and even longer before the canon of scripture was finalized. So it is not possible to say that the church draws her authority from the bible when the church existed long before it. The church has authority because of Christ. This is attested to by the bible and by the early church fathers. I really hope you get a chance to read Four Witnesses or any other writings on the early church. Here is a link that kind of breaks down the biblical backings, unfortunately it’s a bit tedious and I hope to find something more user friendly in the future:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
Do you think you would you be more likely to believe in a divinely inspired book than a divinely led church or neither?
“but the Bible and the historical Church have had ample opportunity to take hard stances on these issues, and they haven't."
I’m not sure what you mean that the Church did not take hard stances on these issues. I would like to see examples of what you mean but I’m afraid we’re severely limited on time and space here.
However, the church has taken a hard stance on birth control and abortion for its entire history. In what way has society advanced in this area? Medically it may have advanced but morally? Children are so often seen as burdens and punishments nowadays. They get in the way of our careers and our material pursuits. Have men become more faithful to their wives or girlfriends and more dutiful fathers? Have marriages become stronger and longer? Again, how do you define progress? The fact that we have advanced the ability to have sex without the idea of responsibility does not seem like progress to me.
"That's like disallowing seat-belts because you shouldn't be driving if you're not prepared to risk getting into an accident.”
DeleteThe biological function of sex is to make babies, the purpose of driving cars is to get from A to B, wrecks are an unintended consequence. People don’t think putting on a seatbelt will prevent the wreck but they do think putting on a condom should prevent the baby. And it’s a problem when we start seeing the baby as an unintended consequence, a punishment that wasn’t wanted. I would be much happier if everybody engaging in sex even with birth control thought “we could make a baby, and wouldn’t that be great!” but they don’t and it’s the unintended consequences that suffer for it.
“I really don't think God cares if I have a hamburger or a sandwich for lunch”
Haha, love that. Oh but didn’t you know, the bible tells you can’t eat fat in Leviticus! No cheezburger for you. But seriously, I disagree with any number of other Christian faiths. Some don’t believe in drinking alcohol, some don’t believe in blood transfusions, some don’t believe in seeking medical treatments. It’s usually a difference of biblical interpretations, and while I disagree with them, I wouldn’t take their right to follow their religion or conscience away from them. Except I believe the state has a right to step in for children to receive blood transfusions and medical treatment, the right to life overrides the right to religion. You might find it hard to believe but the Church actually teaches that the sex act is always good, it’s just so good in fact that it is very wrong to misuse it and have the wrong attitude doing it. God might not care if you eat cheeseburgers, but he might care if ate a cheeseburger in front of a starving man without offering him any. I do think it is a bit of a stretch though to equate eating with making babies, they’re not quite in the same league.
“It doesn't make sense to arrive at the Christian God unless you first conclude that humans are broken and sinful, and if we don't have some universal access to the moral law, we can't expect people to reach this conclusion”
This is interesting, and I’d like to know more about your thoughts on brokenness and sin someday.
"Are you saying you are willing to draw the legal line at 2 people? What would you say If a bisexual man that wanted to marry a man and a woman because they were born that way and they really love both, would you think it right or wrong to prevent them?"
DeleteThat's a fair question. My honest answer here is I don't know. It does seem like the hypothetical pro-three-person-marriage camp could make most of the same arguments the non-hypothetical pro-gay-marriage camp makes. I tend to think that our idea of polygamous marriage isn't so far off from our grandparent's view of gay marriage ("eww! that's just wrong!", without any reason as to why). Given a sufficient number of polygamous triples (instead of couples?) engaged in loving, apparently healthy relationships, I think I would have to conclude that maybe my understanding of human sexuality was flawed, and polygamy was a viable option and should be legally protected. I do find this conversation ironic, given, you know... the Old Testament. Clearly at one point people were just fine with polygamy.
"I have always thought incest was forbidden because of genetic problems"
Yes, that is certainly one of the problems with incest. But I don't think that's why we as a culture reject it- we reject it on moral grounds, not biological ones.
"A sterile heterosexual couple does not redefine marriage as we currently know it"
I would argue that it does, if our definition of marriage is "a vehicle for producing and raising babies".
"but any other combination of people does and that is the question we are wrestling with here."
That's not the question I'm wrestling with (maybe this is why we disagree?) I don't really know if homosexuality is "right" or "wrong". It may very well be wrong. The question I'm struggling with is whether or not homosexuality being "wrong" (if it is indeed wrong) justifies us from stripping a group of people of some pretty fundamental rights? At the very least (since I suspect that you'll argue about whether or not marriage is a right), it's stripping them of dignity, respect, and most importantly, personal and religious freedom.
"I really hope you get a chance to read Four Witnesses or any other writings on the early church"
DeleteHere's my current reading list, in order of intended reading:
What the Buddha taught (half way done)
Why I believed (missionary-turned-atheist)
No God But God (Islam basics)
Four Witnesses
Godel Escher Bach (supposedly awesome cognitive science book)
I'll get there eventually! :)
"I would like to see examples of what you mean but I’m afraid we’re severely limited on time and space here."
That's fair. It sounds like I need to spend some time on the History of the Church, and the things that the church has done/failed to do that I disagree with, since this seems to be one of the principle objections I have to Catholicism- particularly if Catholics are under the impression that the Catholic Church has been basically Holy. This is in stark contrast to the mainstream image of the Church in the US. I'll make a note to do a post on this as soon as I can get around to the research...
"However, the church has taken a hard stance on birth control and abortion for its entire history."
Right, but those are the things up for debate here (not so much abortion, since it seems to me that that whole debate simply comes down to the question "when does a fetus become a human?"). But on the things that we agree on (slavery, women's rights, etc.) the church didn't break from society to support in its first few thousand years. Some would argue it wasn't until society broke from the Church that these things became a reality (I don't know enough about history to make this claim, but I've certainly seen this claim made by others). My point is that the Church hasn't been this bastion of right though throughout it's history- it's let a lot of bad behavior slide without condemning it.
"Do you think you would you be more likely to believe in a divinely inspired book than a divinely led church or neither?"
Way more likely to believe a book. A couple of reasons here- first, once a book is written, unless you manage to change every copy of it, it can't be corrupted (or, it's at least harder to corrupt than an individual or institution with unquestionable power). Only its interpretation could be corrupted. Second, I don't trust people (i.e. the clergy) claiming authority for themselves. I'm much more apt to trust someone claiming authority for something outside themselves. Third, a divinely inspired book requires one miracle. A divinely inspired leader (or group of leaders) requires a continuous stream of miracles. In particular, I'd be more inclined to trust a holy book that claimed to be the literal transcribed word of God by a special messenger (if Jesus had written a book) or prophet (the Koran comes to mind). Obviously the authenticity of the source is a huge deal, but a single divinely inspired person seems way more likely than a host of divinely inspired people who are clearly not even close to perfect (i.e. child abuse scandals). Why would they be perfect in exactly one area (and the one unverifiable area to boot)?
"In what way has society advanced in this area?"
DeleteIt seems to be true that every generation thinks their children are the worst generation ever. Our parents rebelled against their parents. Their parents did it before them. I think it's really hard to make the argument that we're "getting worse" than our parents, since that's pretty much what every generation has said, and I reject the idea that we're worse off than we were even a hundred years ago (talk to a racist or sexist grandparent if you're not convinced). Here's an interesting article I read today on how the fathers in our parent's generation were basically totally absent from their children's lives, which is driving greater involvement by today's dads in their kids lives.
But for the sake of argument, lets say the state of marriage is deteriorating. Children are seen as burdens- well they are! They require enormous amounts of time, money, and effort. But just because something is a burden doesn't mean it's not a good thing. I've yet to meet anybody who has a good marriage who doesn't say it's the hardest (and most rewarding) thing they've ever done. We should be wary of children, because having kids is a big deal. Having a realistic view of children is not a bad thing (in my opinion).
"Have men become more faithful to their wives or girlfriends and more dutiful fathers?"
Not sure- I haven't seen statistics on this. That said, I would venture a guess that Islamic societies have much lower adultery rates than the US- mostly because of the whole death penalty thing. And I certainly wouldn't argue that Sharia law is morally superior to freedom of religion.
"Have marriages become stronger and longer?"
Also not sure on the statistics here. But I have heard tons of anecdotal stories of women in our parents generation who felt horribly repressed by the expectations of staying home and being a mother- and who's marriages were held together by force of will and the shame of divorce, rather than by love, trust, or any of the things marriage is supposed to be about. I'm not sure it's clear that we're worse off today than we were back then. As Louis C.K. (a comedian) puts it- "No good marriage ever ended in divorce"
"The fact that we have advanced the ability to have sex without the idea of responsibility does not seem like progress to me."
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think sex is a HUGE responsibility. I'm actually even mostly on board with the abstinence-until-marriage idea, just from a moral and practical perspective (not invoking any sort of religious ideology). But I think it's absurd to extend that to "married people can't use birth control"
"The biological function of sex is to make babies, the purpose of driving cars is to get from A to B, wrecks are an unintended consequence. People don’t think putting on a seatbelt will prevent the wreck but they do think putting on a condom should prevent the baby."
DeleteLet me ask you this- whats your view on Natural Family Planning? My understanding is that this is an accepted practice within the Church (correct me if I'm wrong)- the argument being that it is just as effective as birth control! It seems like you're advocating that you should intend to get pregnant every time you have sex. Otherwise, you're not entering it with the right mindset. In fact, if you do anything at all to lessen your odds of getting pregnant, then you're treating sex as something other than what it was intended for. I guess I'm saying, I really don't see the difference between NFP and the pill.
"I would be much happier if everybody engaging in sex even with birth control thought “we could make a baby, and wouldn’t that be great!” but they don’t and it’s the unintended consequences that suffer for it."
So if a Christian couple wanted to wait to have babies, but were open to the idea of a baby if it came along, would it still be wrong for them to use contraception? I'm confused as to whether your objection is to the method (physical contraception vs. NFP), the intent (wanting a baby vs. not wanting a baby), or the mindset (viewing a baby as a good thing vs. viewing a baby as a bad thing).
"the bible tells you can’t eat fat in Leviticus!"
well, it was a ham sandwich ;)
"God might not care if you eat cheeseburgers, but he might care if ate a cheeseburger in front of a starving man without offering him any."
You don't see a parallel here with telling a gay man he can't have sex?
"I do think it is a bit of a stretch though to equate eating with making babies, they’re not quite in the same league."
I agree. But I don't think it's a stretch to compare contraception to blood transfusions. And I think both are an over-application of God (perhaps mis-application is a better word? I can see your argument that a correct view of God does belong at the center of a correct view of sex)
Ah! sorry for the quintuple-whammy, but I remembered the name of the book I was thinking of when I talked about "anecdotal stories of women in our parents generation who felt horribly repressed by the expectations of staying home and being a mother- it's called "The Feminine Mystique". I haven't read the book myself, but I've heard a few interviews on it and it's a fairly well-known work. It would be an interesting read if I someday run out of books (yeah right XD)
Delete“it's stripping them of dignity, respect, and most importantly, personal and religious freedom.”
DeleteSo you may support polygamous marriage if enough people promote it as a good thing? Could we be stripping them of dignity, respect, and freedom too right now? There are certainly people living polyamorous and polygamous lifestyles today and a person’s rights don’t exist because they scream loudly enough for them and have enough people on their side, they just are. I’m not trying to push you to say that polygamous marriages must be ok too, but I’d like to agree on a definition of marriage that isn’t so nebulous that it can mean anything.
I’ll try to read some of the books on your booklist too! I saw Leah mention that GEB book, you may have to explain that one in small words for me.
"Oh, don't get me wrong, I think sex is a HUGE responsibility."
Wow, that is a pretty counter cultural idea these days. You’ve pretty much expressed the view that the Church of England had in mind in 1930, and I can hear the masses now, “Jake wants to take us back to the morality of 1930!”. I’d be interested to know if you’ve ever had to defend your position on responsible sex to other atheists or even Christians.
“I guess I'm saying, I really don't see the difference between NFP and the pill.”
DeleteHere is a link to a long explanation if you have the time:
http://www.priestsforlife.org/articles/nfpdifferences.html
But the short answer is, it’s hard to be saying yes to God with your mind, when you are saying no, no, no , Please God No!! with your body. The use of birth control devices or pills puts an explicit barrier up. NFP uses sexual restraint. That being said, the couple using NFP still needs to have the right attitude toward sex, never just using their spouse for their own sexual gratification. A really great read (I know, I know, you have so much free time to read) is Theology of the Body by Chrisopher West, which is an explanation of John Paul II’s writings on sex (which includes the necessity of the female orgasm!).
I'm confused”as to whether your objection is to the method”
Well my statement was certainly not an orthodox position so I see your confusion. Unfortunately I think the physical contraception is an extension of the attitude that having sex is the ultimate good that is sought while having a child is a choice. Any couple who has suffered from infertility knows that having a child is not choice. You don’t always get one when you want it and don’t always not get one when you don’t. Using contraception encourages the false idea that we can just choose not to create a child. Please read this link paying close attention to her last sentence:
http://marlomc.wordpress.com/2010/08/27/the-birth-control-divorce-pill/
While I realize that this woman’s last sentence does not represent the whole of womanhood, I fear it represents a lot. That she is willing to risk divorce at a later point for the ability to have “free” sex now is not in any way loving toward the child she may inadvertently conceive or her future husband she may divorce. I think at its heart contraception is self-centered because it says I will use my sexuality for my own purposes and not it’s life-giving and love-giving purposes. If a couple was using contraception but able to say they were ready and willing to have a baby together, then at least a ray of light about the grave responsibility there were undertaking would be shining in. I am in no way trying to endorse birth control but the awesome power of sex. Hormonal birth control has the added disadvantages of health risks to the woman and abortifacient properties for the child. So if you know of any couples using BC but open to life, I’d be happy to tell them about NFP!
You don't see a parallel here with telling a gay man he can't have sex?
I admit that I don’t know what it would feel like to be in a homosexual person’ shoes, but I do believe in a creator, and that the creator gave us our bodies as gifts with digestive systems for eating and reproductive systems for reproducing. I cannot just turn off that belief in a creator and I don’t feel I am in a position to tell a gay man whether he can or cannot have sex with other men. I realize that not everyone shares my particular beliefs and I am not out to tell gay or straight people how to live their lives. I believe our purpose in life is to seek holiness, and that it often comes at a cost, for all. I would like to reiterate that I’ve recently become uncertain about how I feel legislating civil marriages and will continue to weigh the evidence.
"felt horribly repressed by the expectations of staying home and being a mother- it's called "The Feminine Mystique".
I have not read the book either but I did a quick google search for “are women happier today” and every hit on the first page was about women being unhappier today. I’m not going to argue for sharia law or for women to get out of the workplace, but for whatever reasons, the sexual revolution doesn't seem to have made us any happier. I’ll need to do more research on this.
Sorry if I've skipped over a lot, but the different threads are starting to confuse me and I was trying to hit the main points.
I just want to add a couple of things. I have a two year old, so I know all to well that children are a wonderful burden. But what I meant to say is that it seems people see them increasingly as an obstacle to the "real" goals of life (the right job, the right house, the right lifestyle). And I did not mean to imply that our generation or previous generations are better than future ones. I know enough of history to know there is truly nothing new under the sun and I have great hope for the youth. My question was more specifically, did severing sex from procreation with birth control actually make us freer to love more abundantly, or did it help to make us more selfish in the long run? I don't have statistics to settle the question, but I know enough real world examples from my own life to make me think the latter.
DeleteOne more one more thing. I thought of an analogy on the NFP/birth control topic. Let's take two men who want to avoid gaining too much weight. One restrains himself from eating too much while the other regularly overindulges and then purges to indulge again (I speak here not of bulemia which is a mental disorder but something more like the practice Romans are accused of, whether it was real or not). Now they may both achieve the same end of not gaining weight but one is abusing the use of his bodily functions and working against his nature, while the other acknowledging the bodily functions and is working them.
DeleteHey Jennifer,
DeleteI'm going to leave the birth control stuff alone, since I think we could probably spin in circles on it for years :) I think I've made all the points I had to make, and forcefully reiterating them wouldn't be productive (unless you had a specific question you wanted answered that I missed, in which case I'd be happy to reply). Suffice it to say, it sounds like we have fundamentally different approaches to the concept- I see birth control as a way to statistically increase the likelihood a specific desired outcome, and you see it as a reflection of a deeper attitude (either in the individual or in the culture) to treat sex like something that it isn't/shouldn't be (I hope that's a fair summary)
I did want to answer the polygamy question though, since this came up elsewhere for me as well, so I feel like I should probably have my answer stand up to scrutiny.
There's a balance we have to walk as a society between the rights and freedoms of the individual and how the actions of that individual affect others. Polygamy has a very big effect both on the children raised in it and on society as a whole (just as homosexuality does). My current view of polygamy is that it is damaging, both to those directly involved in the practice and those indirectly involved (e.g. children). Firstly, it historically seems to create societies of repression, ostracization, and patriarchy. The only way to sustain such a society is to get rid of most of the young males (either through excommunication, or something even more extreme). Further, it seems like human nature doesn't lend itself well to co-equal status. Where there is segregation, there is inequality (i.e. "no man can serve two masters"). I have a hard time imagining very many people successfully navigating a multi-person relationship in a healthy way. It seems to be the case, both through extrapolation from my own human experience and from anecdotal empirical evidence, that humans don't work well this way. I tend to think that if the polygamous societies throughout the history of the US had been good ones, and had not been these manically authoritarian, violent, abusive structures that we've all heard horror stories about, we as a culture would have a very different view of polygamy.
This used to be my view of homosexuality as well. I had extrapolated from my own experience of not being attracted to other men, and through anecdotal evidence of extremely flamboyant homosexual protests (e.g. the pride parade) that homosexuality was more like a disorder than a healthy sexual identity. However, over the last several years (particularly after going to college and being exposed to new viewpoints), I've reached the conclusion based on empirical evidence (though again, admittedly anecdotal), that homosexual people are generally just normal people who happen to be attracted to members of the same gender.
If I were to see enough evidence similar to this for polyamory, I would conclude that my moral intuitions about what constitutes "proper" human sexuality are wrong. I certainly don't expect to find such evidence (if I did, I would have no basis for being against polygamy), but to have my idea of proper human sexuality be rigid and unable to be changed by evidence seems like a claim that sexuality is a priori knowledge- and I feel pretty comfortable making the claim that I would have no idea what a proper sexual relationship should look like if I hadn't had the experience of being sexually attracted to someone.
I would also point out that, since my empirical evidence for accepting homosexuality is purely anecdotal, I would be open to actual unbiased scientific studies of the affect of homosexuality on society (and in particular on children raised with homosexual parents). If the evidence was clear that it was bad for the children, I would amend my view on whether marriage should include homosexuality. But to my knowledge, there is currently no reason to suspect this is the case (other than religious reasons)
DeleteI think your summary on BC is good. I do have a question though. Do you think it is wrong for Catholics to not pay for BC/sterilizations/abortions through insurance for others if they feel it is gravely immoral?
DeleteI feel similar to you that I need to know what studies show regarding homosexual marriage and children, because that is ultimately what I get hung up on. I have seen studies that show children do better with their wedded biological parents over say single parents or divorced parents. I do think homosexual couples can provide a good home, but I think children going into adopted families deserve to be placed in the best possible situation, one that mimics the ideal closest. Catholic charities usually won't even let single people adopt. I haven't been able to find much research on homosexual couples and children so if you know any studies that you can point me to, I would appreciate it. It's hard to know if you should make something legal without the hard evidence needed that you can only get if you make it legal.
Interestingly, I just realized that you initially stated that homosexual marriage should be legal because of the love that the two people share, but I see now that you would be willing to amend that based on the evidence involving children. It would seem that the state's involvement in marriage ultimately centers on children. While we may come to different conclusions, (you more optimistic, me more pessimistic) I think we may not be as far apart on this one as I first thought.
Deletebtw, this paragraph from Humanae Vitae is probably the best evidence I've seen against the Catholic Church. Phrases like "No member of the faithful could possible deny" and "it is in fact indisputable" fly in the face of all the things I believe about proper epistemological standards
ReplyDelete"No member of the faithful could possibly deny that the Church is competent in her magisterium to interpret the natural moral law. It is in fact indisputable, as Our predecessors have many times declared, (l) that Jesus Christ, when He communicated His divine power to Peter and the other Apostles and sent them to teach all nations His commandments, (2) constituted them as the authentic guardians and interpreters of the whole moral law, not only, that is, of the law of the Gospel but also of the natural law. For the natural law, too, declares the will of God, and its faithful observance is necessary for men's eternal salvation. (3)"
Besides the “indisputable” clause of humanae vitae, were there any of its reasonings that you particularly disliked?
DeleteYou have mentioned parts of Christianity that you wouldn’t accept “even if Christianity is true”. You seem to be saying that even if an objective source of morality (Jesus) was true, that you would still have to defer to your own subjective determinations on issues. While I can sympathize with your distrust of others, this seems like it would still leave us in the same dilemma of everyone determining right and wrong for themselves. Which parts do you think you could accept (the bible as the word of God, the orthodox positions vs. early heretical positions, etc) if it was true?
"You seem to be saying that even if an objective source of morality (Jesus) was true, that you would still have to defer to your own subjective determinations on issues"
DeleteThat's not exactly what I'm trying to say. What I'm saying is that, if there is an objective moral authority, the only access I have to it is through my own subjective determinations. Since these moral intuitions are a huge part of choosing the metaphysical system I believe, my metaphysical system cannot overrule the very moral intuitions that brought me to the metaphysical system in the first place.
If these moral intuitions are not universally accessible, then Christianity (and really every religion) suffers a huge blow. How should we arrive at the correct view of God without a good approximate understanding of right and wrong? (It doesn't make sense to arrive at the Christian God unless you first conclude that humans are broken and sinful, and if we don't have some universal access to the moral law, we can't expect people to reach this conclusion)
To be clear, I don't think this means your religions can't correct you or be a source of truth that you didn't know before. There are different levels of moral conviction, and it's not the same to say "my religion is telling me to love him when I don't want to" and "my religion is telling me to kill someone when I don't want to". "My religion is telling me to not allow homosexual people to get married even though I want to" falls somewhere in that spectrum, and it's a totally valid debate as to where it falls.
"Which parts do you think you could accept (the bible as the word of God, the orthodox positions vs. early heretical positions, etc) if it was true?"
Uh, that's a big question with a big answer. I don't think there's anything specific about mainstream Christianity I couldn't accept, given the right evidence. Homosexual rights comes close. Contraception comes close. Women's rights would meet the bar, but there's definitely valid interpretations of the Bible that don't place women in subservient roles.
But extremist Protestant vs. Catholic wars that have happened throughout history? Politicization of the Church (both through Popes and Monarchs) throughout the middle ages? These definitely meet the bar. So do the extremist sects of Islam that advocate jihad and martyrdom by killing infidels. So does all of Buddhism (I think... post on this to come) by advocating detachment as the ultimate good and passion as what holds us back. Even if these things are true (or directed by God, or what have you), I still wouldn't support them, because I'm very, very convinced that they're wrong- more convinced than I will ever be of the truth of an individual religion.
Oops, I posted part of my reply to this in the post above. The only thing I would really add is that as a faithful Catholic, I know that even the heirarchy must live by the law of love and at times they fail.
DeleteLooking forward to your post on Buddhism.
Can your next post be on the opposite of skepticism? How does one know something and can be certain of that knowledge after the skeptical, or Missouri, process has been completed?
ReplyDeleteYeah, that's what I was planning. I was still looking for a title though, and "After Skepticism" seems much better than "Metaphysical Frontsliding" :)
DeleteI will say that I don't think I have a good answer to this question yet.
Hahaha. I'm excited to see what comes out in your next post.
ReplyDelete