In Faith magazine, physicist Stephen Barr discusses whether modern physics had anything to teach metaphysics and theology:
Might the discoveries of modern science have implications for theology? They certainly cannot alter the substance of “the faith once delivered to the saints”. They can, however, affect our cosmological and philosophical ideas and thus change the way we conceive of certain religious truths. To take an obvious example, even though the Church had no teaching on the location of Hell, it was once generally supposed by theologians to be somewhere inside the earth. Today this view would strike most Christians as extremely implausible, if not absurd. This is not a question of a change in doctrine, but of a change in “World Picture”, to use a term of the Polish physicist and philosopher Fr. Michat Heller.
In every age, people naturally form World Pictures that are syntheses of ideas derived from various sources – prevailing scientific theories, philosophical speculation, revealed truth, widely accepted notions, and “common sense”. In this way, non-theological currents of thought, including scientific ones, inevitably and often unconsciously influence the ideas of theologians. Clearly, there is a danger of theologians becoming too wedded to current, and possibly transient, scientific theories. But, as Fr. Heller notes, it is also risky for theologians simply to ignore scientific developments, as many do, for they may then unwittingly retain in their thinking elements of older, scientifically obsolete World Pictures. There are no simple rules here; discernment and prudence are required.
December 20th, 2010 | 12:11 pm
Excellent essay, as always, by Prof. Barr.
In particular, his closing:
“In short, Aristotelian/Thomistic philosophy has paid a heavy price for the two and a half centuries in which it largely ignored what was going on in the natural sciences. A sustained re-engagement with science would enrich its conceptual and linguistic resources. This re-engagement cannot simply be an attempt to translate statements of modern science into existing Aristotelian terms. That cannot be done in many cases. Rather, many more Aristotelian/ Thomistic metaphysicians than currently do must learn to listen to and understand science in its own native tongue.”
December 20th, 2010 | 12:54 pm
Stephen Barr’s comments brought to mind a few remarks of world renowned astrophysicist and agnostic, Robert Jastrow:
“Now we see how the astronomical evidence supports the biblical view of the origin of the world….the essential elements in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same. Consider the enormousness of the problem: Science has proved that the universe exploded into being at a certain moment. It asks: ‘What cause produced this effect? Who or what put the matter or energy into the universe?’ And science cannot answer these questions. …
“At this moment it seems as though science will never be able to raise the curtain on the mystery of creation. For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”
I think it is certain that many of the notions of contemporary science will seem as naive in a thousand years as the science of a thousand years ago now seems to us. Rather than relying on ever-changing scientific “truths,” it has always been and will continue to be far easier to arrive at the truths that really matter via the shortcut of a reasonable faith. We can believe in a bodily resurrection simply because we have grasped the truth that “nothing is impossible for God.”
December 20th, 2010 | 1:16 pm
Pure CS Lewis. We will have some picture in our head whenever we deal with abstracts. Electromagnetic force is not a better picture than an old bearded guy in a chair, just more congenial to current minds. The important part is to remember that we see only a representation, not the reality, and must constantly remind ourselves “Not thus.”
December 20th, 2010 | 3:12 pm
It is a great problem that traditional Aristotelian/Thomistic metaphysics and modern science no longer speak the same language, as they did in the Middle Ages.
God bless Stephen Barr for attempting to repair the breach. Both disciplines suffer for this unnecessary enmity.
And yet …
… suspicions on both sides must remain, for good reason. The natural sciences have embarked on an absurd mission of usurpation since the Enlightenment. It is difficult for us fans of theology and metaphysics to achieve rapprochement with an opponent sworn to annihilate us. A truce is possible when both sides lay down their arms. Why would modern physicists do that? They are too busy winning, lecturing us outside the laboratory about the impossibility of God. And the masses, by way of a sneering intellectual class, give cover to the benefactors of modern science who bequeathed us all such wonderful toys like air travel and rural electrification.
We need more Stephen Barrs and fewer Richard Dawkinses. Otherwise a spirit of re-engagement will remain impossible. The problem is not on our side. We amateur but faithful theologians cannot be blamed for acting defensively in the modern climate. And unilaterally conforming ourselves to “what [is] going on in the natural sciences” does not help advance the dynamic. Such signals only make the scientistic materialists believe faith is on the ropes, ready for a knock-out blow. It perversely discourages their cooperation.
Such concessions may seem worth the risk to Dr. Barr, who has faith the truth will out. The scientist too is a man of faith, as Ratzinger said, acting under the presumption that the universe is intelligible and therefore ultimately worth examining. But if science is not willing to concede its own dependencies, the theologians could walk a thousand miles in their direction and still not reach common ground with scientism’s eternally retreating borders.
Talk of symbiosis has to be made with care. The Thomists and Aristotelians are not the problem here. The scientists believe they are arguing from a position of insuperable strength. As such they are not in a negotiating mood. If truth indeed will out, both sides have to first agree it possible. Until then a state of war exists, gestures of appeasement to no avail.
I suspect Dr. Barr is not comfortable with martial language to describe this struggle. As a scientist he is more likely comfortable with terms of his own trade, such as “symbiosis.” But we are indeed engaged in a battle over who is even allowed to make claims to the truth. Theologians are on the outside looking in. Do the insiders even know what “The Queen of the Sciences” is? Do they have the slightest frame of reference why it was once exalted as such?
The great absence here is humility. Talks of rapprochement are a non-starter until both parties learn how to take a hard look at their own limits. Until then, concessions simply feed the prevailing hubris, which is quite monstrous already without our encouragement. It is possible the Thomists may teach modern scientists by Barr’s suggested example. Not likely, though.
The quiet theologians will continue quietly and humbly to ply their trade even as Babel is built and destroyed and rebuilt outside, snatching all the headlines. It is up to the scientists to check in on their social inferiors’ hovels if they ever feel the need, not vice versa. The celebrity scientists would hardly notice what grand, necessary modifications are made to the theological masterworks down in the ghettos in an attempt at reconciliation with their more popular, more practically-applicable knowledge seekers.
So, by all means, theologians, engage the latest scientific theories and evidences. Do not awkwardly jam recent discoveries into ancient frameworks out of passive fidelity. Adjust the framework as needed. But be wary of the modern temptation to capitulate. One needs a mind of great subtlety — a mind like Dr. Barr’s, in fact — to discern which of these competing understandings of the universe has authority over any given, specific circumstance. Those minds are in short supply, and our academies see no need to train their students in the ways of such subtleties anymore.
Keepers of the tradition must be wise as serpents here. If all we had to worry about was knowing the truth — rather than seeing to its proclamation — concessions to sworn enemies would be advantageous. The independent standard of truth would adjudicate our disputes (as every scientist fantasizes it should be). But we do not live in a realm so pure. We live in Babel, we are cursed with irreconcilable languages, and the untutored ultimately will decide what is to be considered true. Concessions could very well yield final defeat in that unforgiving arena. Knowledge can indeed be forgotten without jealous protection. Those are the hard realities to consider, even as we very necessarily dream our ecumenical dreams.
December 21st, 2010 | 12:07 pm
harry –
One must be very careful about distinguishing between “cannot answer” and “hasn’t answered yet“. Let me give you an example, from J. S. Haldane, “Mechanism, Life, and Personality”, 1913, dismissing the ‘mechanistic theory of heredity’:
Reading this passage, it’s striking how clearly he recognized the functional requirements that a mechanism for inheritance would have to meet. But he could imagine no physical arrangement that could satisfy those conditions, and concluded that therefore such a mechanism was impossible. Indeed, he insisted that a spiritual explanation was the only remaining option.
What if he had decided to “push the analysis further”? Might we have discovered DNA decades earlier?
December 21st, 2010 | 12:13 pm
harry –
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
“[W]hen people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was [perfectly] spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together… When my friend the English literature expert tells me that in every century scientists think they have worked out the universe and are always wrong, what I want to know is how wrong are they? Are they always wrong to the same degree?” – Isaac Asimov
Easier, I’ll grant. Truths? Well…
“To surrender to ignorance and call it God has always been premature, and it remains premature today.” – Isaac Asimov
December 21st, 2010 | 12:29 pm
King –
Sure, you can be defensive if you want. You can regard people who disagree with you – or perhaps even just don’t understand what you’re saying – as enemies. But Dr. Barr seems to be suggesting that maybe if you learned their language you might have a better shot of persuading.
(Heck, if you still want a war, wouldn’t understanding their language give you better intel?)
Well, anyone’s allowed to make claims to truth. The question is how those claims are backed up, isn’t it?
http://xkcd.com/836/
http://xkcd.com/808/
December 21st, 2010 | 1:00 pm
The Asmiov quote is atheistic snark at its most annoying. The arrogance contained within its presumptions is the condition that prevents reconciliation (or “symbiosis”) with even good-faith, scientistic opponents. A surrender to God is not the equivalent of a surrender to ignorance.
In fact, the surrender to the ineffable God made the worship of Asimov’s precious idols possible in the first place, under the presumption that the universe and its ways (once called “creation”) are intelligible and meant to be examined closely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChuJ-9ypeqs
But this is a theological and epistemological discussion that modern science, out of rank presumption, has excluded itself from participating in.
December 21st, 2010 | 3:00 pm
King –
That contribution can be overstated. If you assume the universe is incomprehensible… then what? That was my point in quoting Haldane above.
However, if we grant that theism in general, and Christianity in particular, were historically necessary to the beginning of science… that doesn’t imply they’re still necessary.
Astronomy grew out of astrology. Chemistry grew out of alchemy. The modern disciplines even retain a lot of the terminology of their predecessors still. But they don’t need their predecessors in any intellectual or foundational sense anymore, they’ve left those wombs.
Now, it’s possible that theology and metaphysics have a contribution to make to science. But that case needs to be made, not just asserted.
December 21st, 2010 | 3:50 pm
Hi, Ray,
It is good to hear from you again.
I wrote:
You wrote:
A reasonable faith is not the same as surrendering to ignorance. Far from it.
I have never been to Greenland. For all I know it doesn’t exist at all. There could be a conspiracy among cartographers to fool everybody about the existence of Greenland. I haven’t bothered to travel there myself. Photographs of the Earth from outer space showing Greenland could have been altered with photo-shop for just that purpose. I haven’t used pure reason and empirical evidence to scientifically verify that Greenland exists. Yet a reasonable faith in the testimony of others leads me to believe it is really there. As I said earlier, a reasonable faith is a shortcut to the truth.
Most people do not have DNA testing done to verify that they really are their parents’ child. They take their very identify on faith. In fact, if you think about it, most of what you know is based on a reasonable faith, not on what you have bothered to scientifically verify. You take the shortcut of reasonable faith to the truth every day.
It is reasonable to conclude there is a God from the things He has made. That has always been true, but the discoveries of modern science has made it more true than ever today.
December 21st, 2010 | 10:15 pm
harry –
December 22nd, 2010 | 1:35 pm
The larger issue is the impossibility of synthesis with a party directed by presumption and unconscious arrogance. There is no discussion until those obstacles are addressed. The worst thing to do in the meantime is adopt the language of those causing disunion in the first place. That only feeds their presumption, as demonstrated by intellectual trust-fund prodigals such as Ray Ingles above.
I guess it’s nice to see a congregant of the church of scientism deliver his position here, but frankly I’m bored of the attempted interaction. They are positively inert.
Maybe at the highest levels there is some genuine ecumenism going on. But life is lived in the trenches, down and dirty here in the internet comboxes of blog posts. We are simply in no mood to volunteer for the pain of unpacking the assumptions they aren’t even aware they indirectly assumed. A doctrinal change handed down from their patriarchs — Hawking, Hitchens, Dawkins, Ditchens — would be much more efficient. But they don’t even recognize themselves as a faith, so what are the chances of convening the necessary council?
I’ll hold fast to my “sky fairy” or “flying spaghetti monster” and the practices that derive therefrom (like tarot cards and divining rods). I’ll cling to the works of superstitious fideists like Aristotle, Aquinas, and Ratzinger. They can have their stick-figure comic strips proclaiming the creed like icons in an orthodox cathedral.
Do you see what I mean, Dr. Barr? Have pity on us laymen. And do update us on the progress of the high-level symbiosis talks. I will stand corrected if you can deliver one line from them that doesn’t reek of profound, unearned condescension.
Until then, it remains a rigged deal.
December 22nd, 2010 | 3:20 pm
Hi, Ray,
You wrote:
‘Religious faith’ used to be more common sense than faith. Common sense dictated that we acknowledge that the “mutually-supporting web of supporting information,” while not scientifically proving there is a God, demanded that we reach that reasonable conclusion. Today, due to the fact that indoctrination has replaced education in many instances, what is for the most part just common sense appears to many to be irrational faith.
Where there is order it is reasonable to look for an orderer. Where there is design it is reasonable to look for a designer. Art – an artist. Intelligibility – an intellect. The Universe didn’t have to be intelligible. It is. Why? Sure, observed natural order can be explained by the laws of physics, but why are there “laws of physics”? There didn’t have to be. Yet there are and such laws are a manifestation of the intelligibility of the Universe – an intelligibility that it is reasonable to conclude is derived from an Intelligence. We can reasonably assume there is a God for the same reason we assume a signature drawn in the sand on the beach is just that and not something the waves accidentally created. God’s signature is all over the place: in the sweetness of a baby, in the beauty of a sunrise, in there being such things as joy and humor. His signature is easily discerned using common sense and a quite reasonable faith. If His signature is no longer discerned by many in contemporary society, it is because they are still stumbling around in the intellectual darkness created by the “Enlightenment.”
“If then, the light inside you is darkness, what darkness that will be!”
December 23rd, 2010 | 8:34 am
It’s okay, King. I’m sure people here can tell the difference between arrogant condescension and arguing for a position. :)
December 23rd, 2010 | 8:58 am
Bertrand Russell tackled that a while back: “…the whole idea that natural laws imply a lawgiver is due to a confusion between natural and human laws. Human laws are behests commanding you to behave a certain way, in which you may choose to behave, or you may choose not to behave; but natural laws are a description of how things do in fact behave…”
Contra Swinburne, if we find an electron that has positive charge, we haven’t found a particularly unruly electron; we’ve found a positron! If we find a rock that falls up, the law of gravity is wrong, not the rock.
I admit that ‘common sense’ and religious faith have a close relation. The problem is that ‘common sense’ has proven not to be a good guide to understanding the universe.
Species don’t change, true… on human timescales, for forms of life that can be detected without technology. Things can’t be both a particle and a wave at the same time… except at scales pre-technological humans can’t see. Time is constant and absolute… until you move at speeds pre-technological humans can’t detect or measure. Things always fall down… until you reach orbit, at least.
And yes, under many conditions we’ve found, complex order can indeed come from simpler order. Simple enough order to even arise by accident, without intelligent intervention, it would seem.
I suppose it can come across as arrogance to point out that things that ‘everybody knows’ just ain’t so. But it’s actually humility; looking at things as they are and trying – not always successfully, and usually only succeeding in specific areas – to put aside preconceptions and biases. Science progresses not by figuring out what’s right so much as by determining – laboriously, with lots of human error getting in the way – what’s wrong.
December 23rd, 2010 | 10:58 am
Hi, Ray,
You wrote:
Natural law is a behest commanding nature to behave in a certain way. ;o) Russel doesn’t really answer the question. The laws of physics appear to be miraculously fine tuned to allow for life. Again, we should let common sense and a pinch of faith lead us to the rational conclusion.
Here is an excerpt from another First Things article that addresses this point, the discussion of which is currently taking place at:
http://www.firstthings.com/article/2010/12/philosophy-lives
Professor Haldane, the author of the article, makes his point very politely. It is apparent from the comments that others see it the way I do: Multiverse theory is an irrational, desperate attempt to avoid the conclusions that common sense demands, and is based upon atheistic religious/philosophical assumptions, not scientific ones.
December 24th, 2010 | 10:19 am
harry –
There are atheists who argue that religion in general is a desperate attempt to avoid the conclusions about death that common sense demands. (I’m not one, BTW, though I think that does make a contribution.) Presumably you disagree with them, right?
“Before impugning an opponent’s motives, even when they legitimately may be impugned, answer his arguments.” – Sidney Hook
“That is why the motive game is so uninteresting. Each side can go on playing ad nauseam, but when all the mud has been flung every man’s views still remain to be considered on their merits. I decline the motive game and resume the discussion.” – C. S. Lewis
How about we leave motives aside, as we can never come to any conclusion regarding them, and “resume the discussion”?
Our ‘natural laws’ are human models working to account for regularities we encounter. It was long thought that Euclidean geometry was ‘the way the world works’, was the real geometry. After Einstein, hyperbolic geometry seems to be the better model. Did a new memo get sent out to spacetime? Or did we find a better description of reality?
How would you demonstrate your claim that natural laws are ‘prescriptions’ rather than ‘descriptions’? Upon what foundation does that claim rest?
December 24th, 2010 | 11:25 am
Hi, Ray,
Your response to my last post was excellent. I will respond to your thoughtful remarks when I am able to do so — I am going to be busy for a little while, it being Christmas eve.
Thanks,
Harry
December 26th, 2010 | 9:49 am
Hi, Ray,
You wrote:
Religion could very well be only an attempt to avoid conclusions about death for some people. That would be an immature religiosity. A loving and grateful response to the love of God, more than securing eternal life, is, I think, a better motive for embracing Christianity. (Although obtaining eternal life is a very nice fringe benefit!) The Christian’s faith is utterly reasonable. Much less of it is required for the Christian than for the atheist. The atheist can’t prove God isn’t there. He takes his belief about God on faith. He puts what I consider to be a blind, irrational faith in the creative power of mindless chance. The Christian, on the other hand, has a reasonable faith because it is arrived at by reason itself. It is reasonable to conclude, for example, that if the Universe had a beginning then there must be an existence of some kind that is not a part of nature, a super-natural existence, that launched nature. A reasonable faith gets one over that last chasm between one’s self and the Truth that reason alone can never bridge. Reason leads one up to the precipice of that chasm. A reasonable faith enables one to pass over it.
You wrote:
I had said:
I really do think multiverse theory is irrational. I think it is a fact that it is based upon atheistic religious/philosophical assumptions rather than religion-neutral, relentlessly objective science. So I guess the “impugning” on my part was in using the word “desperate.” Yet multiverse theory really does strike me as being desperate. Modern scientific discoveries have been relentlessly undermining atheism’s re-definition of science as a project which must affirm atheistic materialism. Science never was that, and more and more people are beginning to see the absurdity of defining science that way. They see that atheism, being essentially a religious viewpoint, does not have the certainty of science, and that science perverted by atheism for the purpose of promoting the idea that atheism does have that certainty, is now proposing for belief, in response to those modern scientific discoveries, notions so far-fetched that their main effect seems to be to reveal the reasonableness of theism. The handwriting is on the wall. True, religion-neutral science is slowly being restored.
If I am wrong about their being desperate, I am right about the fact that they should be. Atheism’s grip on modern science is an aberration. Those who hold the reigns of power in many institutions of science that have been hijacked by atheism have the unshakable confidence of those who launched the Titanic, and their project its future. From my perspective, if they are oblivious to what is happening, it is all the better that way.
You wrote:
I am willing to attempt to discuss the existence of other Universes – the existence of which, by definition, is unverifiable by science – but there really isn’t much that can be said definitively about that which is unobservable and unverifiable, is there?
I agree that questioning one’s motives in many instances is counter productive and reveals a lack of objectivity as well as a lack of charity. I am not sure this is one of those instances. I wasn’t questioning your motives in particular. It is not all that exceptional for one’s religious/philosophical beliefs to get in the way of one’s scientific objectivity. It happens all the time. Commenting on that happening is not necessarily an attack on anyone.
The scientific establishment has certainly not shown any restraint in questioning the motives of those scientists who believe Intelligent Design is legitimate science. I think it is quite appropriate to point out blatant instances of members of the scientific establishment doing exactly what they accuse the advocates of Intelligent Design of doing: letting their religious/philosophical beliefs undermine their scientific objectivity and become the true motive for their supposedly “strictly scientific” agenda.
By the way, ID really does have a scientific basis, as intelligence is a known reality, and it is therefore legitimate for science to consider it as a causal factor in the explanation of a given phenomenon. ID’s claim to being legitimate science is valid. Atheism’s re-definition of science is what is not valid.
You wrote:
Take a look at this:
http://www.geraldschroeder.com/FineTuning.aspx
It seems that the values for many constants are exactly what they had to be to allow for life in the Universe.
December 26th, 2010 | 12:12 pm
Hi, Ray,
I didn’t get all my comments pasted into my reply to your remark:
Here are the rest:
The fine-tuning of the Universe – Hawking refers to it as “the miracle of fine tuning,” makes life possible. Why it is so finely tuned – why the particular values of many constants, out of many values that appear to have been possible, are in place, is a question with no scientific answer.
A law is a “law” because it is prescriptive – it prescribes or proscribes certain behavior. That is what makes a law more than just a description of behavior. I think the term “law of nature” probably originated with this prescriptive aspect in mind, more than the notion of it being a description of the behavior of nature. This is not to say that the laws of nature aren’t descriptive. They are. Yet in many cases, as far as we know presently, they are just the way things are – and the way things are is an exact match of the amazingly stringent requirements that would have to be spelled out in a “prescription” for a Universe that allowed for life. Hmmm … ;o)
December 31st, 2010 | 1:13 pm
Harry, hope you’ve had good holidays. I’ve been busy with family and fun, but I figured I’d check in here quickly. To continue…
Long ago, I saw a joke ‘final exam’ full of impossible questions. One stuck with me, for both its humor and its philosophical heft: “Define the universe. Give three examples.”
We do not at present know what conditions obtain for the constitution of universes. It may well be that the universe we see is the only possible configuration. (As Einstein put it, “Did God have any choice in creating the universe?”)
This isn’t just ‘desperate pleading’. We don’t know exactly why many constants have the values they do… but we have a long history of eventually finding reasons for such values. The temperature water freezes at, and the anomalous way water freezes, is vital to life on our planet. Until we understood quantum mechanics, we could imagine water freezing at a different temperature and everything else staying the same. But now we know that to change the way water freezes, you’d need to change fundamental constants like the ratio of mass of electrons and protons, which would change all of chemistry. Proposing that there might be fundamental conditions and relations that mandate the constants we see is quite plausible.
Even if the constants can vary (or could have varied)… the degree of fine-tuning can be overstated, too. One study I saw (sadly not available on the web anymore that I can find) varied three parameters at once, and found stars or star-equivalents in at least 40% of the ‘possible universes’. Then there’s the ‘life as we don’t know it’ problem. We can imagine life in very strange conditions – see Dr. Robert Forward’s “Dragon’s Egg” for thoroughly-worked-out xenobiology on a neutron star.
The Earth once looked deliberately designed for life… but two findings have weakened that view considerably. First, we’ve found the size of the universe and the number of planets to be rather larger than we believed for most of history. (Indeed, the last couple decades have witnessed the discovery of hundreds of exoplanets). Secondly, evolution has shown that a lot of the ‘tuning’ can be of life to the environment than vice versa. (See: ‘oxygen catastrophe’)
Speaking of evolution, once upon a time biology made a convincing case for design. We’ve since discovered that a huge amount of complexity can develop from very simple initial conditions. Elaborate biology is no longer a ‘slam dunk’ for design. So far as I can see the above considerations prevent ‘cosmic fine tuning’ from being the slam dunk many theists try to present it as, without even considering multiverses.
But let’s look at multiverses for a minute. It’s true that at least many versions of multiverse theories are not currently testable scientifically, and some are explicitly not ever testable in a scientific sense. However, some versions are (at least potentially and eventually) testable. And secondly, most theistic alternatives are likewise explicitly not scientifically testable. Knocking the one and giving the other a pass seems inconsistent to me.
Fortunately, there’s an alternative. As I’ve argued before, human intuition is a terrible guide in situations where we have no experience and can’t perform tests. The origins of universes is an area where we lack experience and (currently and for the foreseeable future) can’t perform tests. So, logic would indicate we should be non-gnostic about the topic. (Not agnostic, which by definition considers the topic unknowable, just nongnostic, considering the topic one we can’t decide yet.)
I am an atheist with respect to religions I’ve looked at (e.g. Christianity), either due to what I find to be logical flaws or contrary evidence. In terms of origins and whatnot, I’m non-gnostic. Give me some evidence and I’ll be glad to look at it. Until then, we’ve nothing but speculation and opinion. (Gratuitous quote: “You are not entitled to an opinion. An opinion is what you have when you don’t have any facts. When you have the facts, you don’t need an opinion.” – David Gerrold)
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact