Saturday, August 18, 2007

Tongaling With a Devout Euratheist

The Shallow Mind of an Intellectual Imposter. Unfortunately, that would be me and mine. I can't really tell what this fellow's agenda is, because he rarely communicates in plain English. Much of what he writes might as well be Swedish, for all I know. Then again, I see that the länkar to his bokhylla features most of the middlebrow anti-theist screeds such as The God Delusion and The End of Faith. Furthermore, the glowering expression of this sour Swede tells me that he takes himself, I mean his atheistic faith, very seriously.

Therefore, I will proceed to bring this grumpy nederföcker down, baby. Down to Chinatown. Point by point.

"The blogger is Robert W. Godwin, a psychoanalysist and self-appointed spiritual guru, who runs One Cosmos."

First of all, I am not a psychoanalyst, only a psychologist. And I am certainly not a "self-appointed spiritual guru." Rather, I was appointed by Petey.

Mr. Karlsson avers that we must first "remember that the very definition of a fact is 'Something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed.' A fact is not a part of a theory but the foundation on which every scientific theory is built. A fact is also a thing on which we have universal agreement, or at least theoretically so."

This is an epistemologically naive definition of "fact," as no significant fact speaks for itself in the absence of a theory. Not only is there no such thing as an isolated fact, but we would not know how to recognize important facts unless we have a theory that tells us where to look for them, i.e., what is important. Furthermore, a fact is not -- and cannot be -- perceived by the senses, but only by the intellect. A fact can only be recognized by something that transcends the senses. No experience can tell us what we are experiencing, nor can perceptual experience interpret itself.

For example, as a psychologist, I observe the facts of a patient's psychic life as he free associates. But these facts will not be accessible or observable to someone who is not trained in psychoanalytic therapy. In short, any "fact" emerges in the transitional space between nervous systems and the world they encounter. A fact is not unambiguously "in the world" or "in the observer," but in the space in between, as outlined by Michael Polanyi, who compared scientific theories to probes which extend our senses into the unknown, similar to the way in which a blind person might use a cane. In so doing, the blind person does not attend to the raw sensations ("the facts") of the cane against his hand. Rather, the cane becomes an extension of the nervous system in space, allowing him to "visualize" what is beyond the hand. Only by internalizing the "subsidiary knowledge" of the senses will it lead to "focal knowledge" beyond them.

Karlsson suggests that "A fact is not a part of a theory but the foundation on which every scientific theory is built." This is manifestly false, as it promulgates the naive idea that science is a wholly "bottom up" affair that operates through pure induction -- as if disinterested minds merely survey the landscape and notice things labeled "facts," and then put them together to create a thing called a "theory." I don't think that any philosopher of science has taken the idea of pure induction seriously since Thomas Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (I might add that there are many aspects of Kuhn's philosophy that I reject, but not the general idea that the paradigm we use shapes the facts we see.)

I might also add that if the world were actually structured in the logically atomistic manner suggested by Karlsson, minds -- which are the quintessence of a priori cosmic holism -- could never have evolved in the first place. In other words, the wholeness of the cosmos is prior to our atomization of it into individual parts -- which is why Life and Mind are possible to begin with. A mind is not a pile of neurological facts.

Here is another whöpper: "Since there are no facts (at least not if the word shall retain a fragment of its normal semantic meaning) that can fall outside the frame of scientific investigation I assume that Mr. Godwin means something else, probably conjectures."

"There are no facts that can fall outside the frame of scientific investigation." I would ask Mr. Karlsson: is that a factual statement? If so, would you be so kind as to point out where this fact is labeled in the world? Obviously, this is an assumption, not a fact. And if your perceptions are limited to that assumption, then yes, you will perceive none of the infinite facts that lay outside your blinkered materialistic worldview. Truly, Mr. Karlsson is like the Frenchman at the bottom of the well who imagines that the sky is only as big as the little circle of light at the top.

Of course there are facts that fall outside the frame of scientific investigation. These are called "qualities." Qualities are facts, no less than quantities. But science reduces qualities to quantities, because that is all it can do. It is a fact that Sun Ra was a great composer. But this cannot be proven scientifically. Similarly, "life" is a fact, but life is not equivalent to the quantitative facts of DNA. DNA is a function of Life, not vice versa.

Karlsson -- who describes his own faith as "humanist och militant ateist" -- then states that "it is also only in a trivial sense that science requires faith. Science requires faith in the operation of your senses and the basic laws of logic.... No other 'suspension of disbelief' is necessary, or allowed! to make good science, and in no way are you allowed to “unknow' things known, only to test and investigate them. I cannot see that the this kind of necessary faith (necessary for survival and mental health) can be equated with a faith in an 'aesthetic or spiritual world' nor does Mr. Godwin supply any reason for us to accept that notion. But his own crude grasp of science might to some degree explain this misapprehension."

Let's break this down. "Science requires faith in only a trivial sense," which is to say, faith in one's senses and the basic laws of logic. This is false on its face, and ignores the historical conditions that brought about the rise of science, which was associated with a unique religious metaphysic not shared by other cultures. For example, Professor Rodney Stark's work (e.g., The Victory of Reason) has demonstrated that Islam lacks

"a conception of God appropriate to underwrite the rise of science... Allah is not presented as a lawful creator, but is conceived of as an extremely active God who intrudes in the world as he deems it appropriate. This prompted the formation of a major theological bloc within Islam that condemns all efforts to formulate natural laws as blasphemy in that they deny Allah's freedom to act." Not surprisingly leading historians and sociologists of science have concluded '...it is indisputable' that modern science -- an organized, empirically directed effort to explain natural phenomena through theory construction and testing -- that modern science 'emerged in the seventeenth century in Western Europe and nowhere else.'"

Why is this? If science is so natural, as suggested by Karlsson, why wasn't it obvious to everyone? Why did the 99.99% of other cultures in the world fail to notice these obvious things called "scientific facts?"

Karlsson's faith informs him that "science only requires faith in the operation of your senses and the basic laws of logic." However, it is actually a huge leap of faith to suggest that mere "sense + logic" will disclose a thing called "truth" or "reality." In any event, it is an untrue faith, because reason alone does not disclose the Real, since logic is a circular operation. Logic can only draw conclusions from premises. Furthermore, logic cannot furnish its own materials. Rather, that requires a mind. A thing is not true because it is logical, but logical because it is true. Is this not obvious?

Faith, as I understand it, represents the existence of what Schuon calls "anticipatory perception in the absence of its content; that is, faith makes present its content by accepting it already, before the perception properly so-called. And if faith is a mystery, it is because its nature is inexpressible to the degree that it is profound, for it is not possible to convey fully by words this vision that is still blind and this blindness that already sees."

In this sense, atheistic materialism, no less than religion, is an "anticipatory perception" that determines what the atheist may perceive of reality. Which frankly isn't much.

I guess I'll continue with this tomorrow.

41 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I had never encountered so many pseudo-intellectuals prior to the advent of the Internet. They're all over the Internet. It's a bit scary how many of these guys there are.

8/18/2007 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger walt said...

Raccoons!

The Pebble has landed - on my head, this week:
Call & Response: #4.

All are invited to participate. (Yes, this means you.)

P.S. It's fun.

8/18/2007 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger Gerard said...

After scanning though his page I've got to say, as I did there, that the whole thing reminds me -- because I am a shallow man -- of YouTube - The Big Lebowski - Nihilists with a Ferret

8/18/2007 08:52:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Donny: Are these men going to hurt us?

Walter: No, Donny, these men are cowards. They believe in nothing.

8/18/2007 09:05:00 AM  
Anonymous Van said...

Ooh! Saturday morning OC! Feel as if I should yell out to my brother 'Get up! Johnny Quest is on!"
Actually, I guess I should go back up top and read the post... sorry, got carried away.

8/18/2007 09:46:00 AM  
Blogger juliec said...

You know it's a good day when The Big Lebowski is brought in within the first three comments. I was thinking of The Dude the other day, when I read a blog post somewhere (I can't remember where, but it may have been in the Raccoonosphere) about the spiritual use of the word "abide."

8/18/2007 09:55:00 AM  
Anonymous jwm said...

I went over to the Swede's site. Fer cryin' out loud, what a bunch of tedious horseshit! It cracks me up that people like him find the notion of God so annoying that they will resort to that level of tortured intellection just to try and convince themselves that they really don't believe something that they didn't want to believe in the first place. If he were a true unbeliever, then God wouldn't even occur to him. Not a blip on the radar. Instead, he's got his whole arsenal focused on a target that (according to him) doesn't exist. It's like taking a tube of super glue, and trying to patch up all those tiny holes on the screen door. Lots of effort to keep something sealed.
Let the air in.

JWM

8/18/2007 10:19:00 AM  
Anonymous cosanostradamus said...

Dude!

Please tell me that in this guy's picture, he is not sucking his thumb!?

8/18/2007 10:27:00 AM  
Anonymous cousin dupree said...

Please tell me it's a thumb.

8/18/2007 10:34:00 AM  
Anonymous George said...

I'm trying to recall the last time a Swede -- any Swede -- had anything important to say. Not in the past two centuries, as best I can recall.

8/18/2007 10:42:00 AM  
Anonymous Petey said...

I nominate Bobo Stenson.

8/18/2007 10:46:00 AM  
Anonymous joseph said...

Tage Lindbom was an impressive Swede.

Tage Lindbom was born in Sweden in 1909. He was one of the intellectual architects of the Swedish Welfare State, but later in his life adopted more conservative political views. Having completed a doctorate in History at the University of Stockholm in 1938, he was for many years director of the Labor Movement Archives and Library, housed in the headquarters of the Sedish Labor Movement in Stocklholm. Close to the very center of decision-making, Lindbom helped conceive and implement “the Swedish model.” He was the friend of prime ministers, cabinet ministers, and labor leaders. He served on public boards and commissions dealing with cultural questions, including the executive board of the Royal Opera.

After World War II, Lindbom started to have serious doubts about the cause he promoted. He underwent a slow, but profound intellectual and spiritual change. In 1962 he published The Windmills of Sancho Panza a book that rejected the assumptions behind Social Democracy and related movements. He found himself suddenly isolated. Since breaking with his past, Lindbom has published many books in Sweden, most of which explore the tension between religion and modern secular ideology.

8/18/2007 11:01:00 AM  
Blogger Mizz E said...

In this sense, atheistic materialism, no less than religion, is an "anticipatory perception" that determines what the atheist may perceive of reality. Which frankly isn't much.


"When you see a cloud rising in the west, immediately you say, 'It's going to rain,' and it does. And when the south wind blows, you say, 'It's going to be hot,' and it is. [Idiots!] You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky. How is it that you don't know how to interpret this present time?

He said that.

8/18/2007 11:03:00 AM  
Anonymous Van said...

I left him a note:

"A fact is also a thing on which we have universal agreement, or at least theoreticaly so"

Ah. Bi-Lingual lack of understanding. Impressive.

I think the word you probably were looking for is percepts, not facts. Facts are a lower level uniting of perceived existents with lower level concepts, which we may eventually organize into our conceptual hierarchies as Facts. Facts require conceptual agreement, only perceived existents can be said to have universal agreement.

For instance, your example of Fossils, were for millennia perceived only as rocks - sometimes seeming more oddly shaped than other rocks, but rocks all the same. It was only with a deeper understanding of the world through Science directed by capital "R" Reason, which they became identified and expressed as Fossil Facts.

That requires Reason which isn't locked into circular logic chopping paradigms - which requires an awareness of, and a perspective above, the horizontal plane of existence which contains those perceived existents. Lose the elevated perspective, and you lose the capital "R", and are left with only a logic chopping little 'r' shade of reason and any ability to see beyond your 'facts' – aka Materialism.

Basically, where you made a Left turn at the Descartes-Rousseau-Kant-Hegel outhouse, you needed to continue on straight in order to keep in touch with reality. The rest of what you have to say pretty much follows from that wrong turn, but if you are careful of your step, you should be able to retrace your steps to get on track. Good luck to you.

8/18/2007 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Cosa! Ya beat me to it.

Bet he chose it coz he sees it as making him look pensive (see OneLook: persistently or morbidly thoughtful)

Rodin this is not. Dude! You're sucking your THUMB!

Faith represents the existence of anticipatory perception in the absence of its content & faith makes present its content by accepting it already.

How true.

When reaching for a light-switch, I'm operating in faith that the bulb will come on. When I swing my legs out of bed, planting my feet on the floor, I'm operating in faith that gravity still has a hold on earth.

I'm not 'aware' of any of this. We all act in faith many of times a day, without ever thinking about all that goes into the whole existentialda.

8/18/2007 12:08:00 PM  
Blogger shoprat said...

Tell them you're too intelligent to be an Atheist.

1) It's true.

2) It infuriates them.

8/18/2007 12:09:00 PM  
Blogger Smoov said...

Modern Swedish cultural figures have contributed mightily to Western thought. Do not be tempted to short-change their influence and prestige.

Bork.

8/18/2007 12:55:00 PM  
Blogger walt said...

Hey: don't forget Johan!

8/18/2007 01:05:00 PM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"However, it is actually a huge leap of faith to suggest that mere 'sense + logic' will disclose a thing called 'truth' or 'reality.' In any event, it is an untrue faith, because reason alone does not disclose the Real, since logic is a circular operation. Logic can only draw conclusions from premises. Furthermore, logic cannot furnish its own materials. Rather, that requires a mind. A thing is not true because it is logical, but logical because it is true. Is this not obvious?

Faith, as I understand it, represents the existence of what Schuon calls 'anticipatory perception in the absence of its content; that is, faith makes present its content by accepting it already, before the perception properly so-called. And if faith is a mystery, it is because its nature is inexpressible to the degree that it is profound, for it is not possible to convey fully by words this vision that is still blind and this blindness that already sees.'"

Just wanted to read it again.

It seems to me that without certainty and substance, there is no such thing as faith. If it's not essentially true, then how can one profess to believe it? (Which is why I've never understood the point of undertakings like the Jesus Seminar.)

Granted, our sureness is rooted in things yet hoped for.

It's the unseen part that seems to trip up the spiritually deadened. In this guy's world, I gather not seen = not true? Of course no one can really operate on that assumption. No one can avoid behaving as if unseen qualities exist. Surely, anybody halfway thoughtful would admit that.

8/18/2007 06:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Raymond Chandler's dog said...

Both you and the euratheist forget what science is really built upon--intersubjectivity. Two or more people must look in the same direction and describe what they see, and the descriptions must match or you do not have a fact.

The cat on the mat must be reported as a cat on a mat by >90% of sampled opinions, or it cannot be said to in fact exist.

Facts must be painstakingly manufactured by group consensus.

Now, on the matter of God--People can "look" in the same direction (with some arcane sense which has yet to be adequately described) and people do see something. There is intersubjectivity on the existence of God, however it is actually language that is lagging. We can't describe the sensory experience of God in terms that we agree on.

The field is wide open for someone to describe God in such a way that >90% of sampled opinions say "Yep--there it is. The cat is on the mat. God is on his throne. I see/grok it exactly as you do."

Maybe someone will come up with something. My attempt is borrowed from Robert Heinlein, the science fiction author. God is "grokked" with a sense thåt is not in current use but is developing. How do you Grok God? That is the question.

I feel it as a whispery presence in my mind that creates a warm sensation in my stomach, and raises the hairs on the neck and arms. It speaks in thought pictures, and very subtle ones, and via emotional overtones. It is very subtle, very hard to pin down. But it is there, I feel it. I am a steady and reliable reporter in such matters.

Anyone else care to take a stab?

8/18/2007 10:15:00 PM  
Anonymous Raymond chandler's dog said...

Oops, I see that blogger Van has adequately covered intersubjectivity. My apologies for boring readers with rehash.

I'll add a further request.

Bob writes: First of all, I am not a psychoanalyst, only a psychologist. And I am certainly not a "self-appointed spiritual guru." Rather, I was appointed by Petey.

I request more information on Petey. He holds the answers.

8/18/2007 10:27:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

O


wv: czsdyhqv (really)

8/18/2007 10:36:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

RC Dog said:
"The cat on the mat must be reported as a cat on a mat by >90% of sampled opinions, or it cannot be said to in fact exist."

Oh, you mean like Eugenics, Global Famine, Global Cooling, Global Warming, Power Lines Cause Cancer, Killer Bee's, etc., etc.?

"Consensus" is just another word for BS, 'cause truth is truth, and Truth is Truth...regardless of "consensus" or not!

As Bob has said, many timnes, without an Absolute, there can be no Truth, no facts, no intelligence or wisdom, and no Good or evil.

If a tree falls in the forest, and you're not close enough to see it or hear it, the fact is, it still falls, regardless, and it doesn't require a "consensus" to confirm it.

Now, you blow away your own assertion by sayin':
"I feel it as a whispery presence in my mind that creates a warm sensation in my stomach, and raises the hairs on the neck and arms. It speaks in thought pictures, and very subtle ones, and via emotional overtones. It is very subtle, very hard to pin down. But it is there, I feel it. I am a steady and reliable reporter in such matters."

Okey-dokey...so tell me, why in the hell do you need a 90% "consensus" to confirm what you already know?

I tell you what, read all of Bob's posts, then come back and report what you see.
If you're reliable, honest, humble and honorable, then I believe you'll come to a different conclusion as to what determines "facts".

8/18/2007 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

allotetraploid
how sad tiny and godless
extinct for how long?

8/18/2007 10:48:00 PM  
Blogger NoMo said...

Ben - I would never settle for less than 100% consensus.

8/18/2007 10:51:00 PM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Amen to that NoMo!

8/19/2007 04:30:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Rather, the cane becomes an extension of the nervous system in space, allowing him to "visualize" what is beyond the hand. Only by internalizing the "subsidiary knowledge" of the senses will it lead to "focal knowledge" beyond them."

That's where A-theists don't get it...they can't use canes.
In other words, they must see, without a nervous system, and they think..."that's it. Nothin' else to see."

O boyo, how wrong ye are.

8/19/2007 06:08:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

JWM said:
"It cracks me up that people like him find the notion of God so annoying that they will resort to that level of tortured intellection just to try and convince themselves that they really don't believe something that they didn't want to believe in the first place. If he were a true unbeliever, then God wouldn't even occur to him. Not a blip on the radar. Instead, he's got his whole arsenal focused on a target that (according to him) doesn't exist."

Well put, John!
Obviously he's not an unbeliever.
He's just tryin' to convince himself he is.
Not very convincingly, from what I've seen.

8/19/2007 06:13:00 AM  
Blogger USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Mud-wrestling in the Godsphere: A dour, and I mean "sour, Swede takes a punch at Robert Godwin. Bad idea. "I will proceed to bring this grumpy nederfoker down, baby. Down to Chinatown. Point by point."

Vanderleun, at American Digest, has a way with words, doesn't he?
Ha ha!

Bob-77
Nederfoker-0

8/19/2007 06:34:00 AM  
Blogger Voltron said...

From the Urban dictionary...

Eurotrash:

Post-modern, degenerate, trendy, or out-of-style European cultural phenomena masquerading as avant-garde High Art. Its origins are primarily German/Austrian but have extended to France, Scandinavia, and Italy with success.

"The director's Eurotrash production of Hamlet featured lots of latex, swastikas, and a man wearing a diaper starring as Gertrude."


Sorry, I ain't as eloquent as ya'all...

8/19/2007 07:49:00 AM  
Anonymous Raymond Chandler's dog said...

To verify the value of consensus--it is the only way to QA our own mechanism.

The human body and mind is full of built-in quirks and malfunctions that cannot be self-detected or corrected.

Example: a man goes to a psychiatrist. the two meet alone in his office. the man says to the psychiatrist "I see a pink elephant on your bookshelf, doctor."

the doctor looks and does not see the pink elephant. He assumes that the man is suffering from hallucinations and prescribes him some Seroquel.

however, unbeknownst to the psychiatrist, his grandchild had indeed left a pink elephant (a toy) on the psychiatrist's bookshelf during a visit. The psychiatrist failed to see it because of his snap assumption that it wasn't there (combined with his severe nearsightedness).

the parable says this: it takes three people to diagnose hallucinations, and it would be prudent to get backup on sensations and visons of any kind.

The perception of God can and should be backed by massive consensus so that we can rule out artifact of consiousness, malfunction of the mind, or other snafu inherent to the human mechanism.

Can anyone rebut this assertion, or add to it?

8/19/2007 08:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Van said...

Raymond Chandler's dog said... "Facts must be painstakingly manufactured by group consensus."

Thank you algore.

Concensus is nice to have. Galileo would have been pleased to have the inquisition come to a concensus in agreement upon the facts he identified. They didn't. The facts were still facts.

Those who with clear sighted Reason discover and identify perceptual instances as Facts, seek to help others to seem those percepts as factual links in a wider chain of reality. They seek to enlighten others, to help them to see more clearly, where before they only saw stuff and error. Those who rely on concensus have neither eyes to see, nor minds to Reason with, and seek with all their beings to remain blind in order to preserve their delusions.

"I feel it as a whispery presence in my mind that creates a warm sensation in my stomach, and raises the hairs on the neck and arms."

More than likely that's just a sign that your flea collar needs changing.

8/19/2007 09:25:00 AM  
Anonymous Van said...

Voltron said "Sorry, I ain't as eloquent as ya'all..."

Given the subject, I think that was more than adequate.

8/19/2007 09:30:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

To quote the Iron Lady

"To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

Margaret Thatcher

8/19/2007 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

"So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects."

Maybe that was the goal of the Jesus Seminar?

8/19/2007 11:14:00 AM  
Anonymous ximeze said...

Must have been. What else would result in such watered-down, lifeforceless pap.

Thought of you, Susannah, last week while reading parts of Fool's Gold: A Critical Look at Computers in Childhood. The complete text is available for download thru the Alliance for Childhood site.

Know anything about these guys? Have yet to check them out for agenda, so have no idea whether they're reliable.

http://www.allianceforchildhood.net/projects
/computers/computers_reports_fools_gold
_download.htm

8/19/2007 11:46:00 AM  
Blogger Susannah said...

Interesting site! Hey, GA State involvement!

I do agree with the basic premise. Of course, my solution would be to keep them "home where they belong" for as long as possible. :) No matter how hard a school tries, they have to standardize and measure kids according to a standard. But then, as parents we still have to deal with the introduction of technology to young children. I have one young'un in particular who is into electronic gadgets and it's hard to decide where to draw the line.

The beginning of the paper reminds me a bit of the late Raymond Moore's philosophy (better late than early), which has had a huge influence on the homeschooling movement.

http://www.moorefoundation.com/

I agree with this, and I esp. don't push my boys on the fine motor skills, sitting and concentrating stuff too soon.

8/19/2007 01:52:00 PM  
Blogger Van said...

Ximeze & Susannah,
Computer Geek though I've become, I don't think the computer should be used in any way that doesn't enable kids to do more of, and with less waste, than they would with book, pen and paper.

I've been dabbling with developing an applicaiton which still needs the proper hardware (the ultra mobile personal computers - UMPC's will probably be it, as soon as perfected - essentially large paperback book sized touch screen pc), that will behave as a book, tracking the pages the student has read, answered study questions & colated the students thoughts and notes on the material. Enables the software to handle some of the rote learning situations - point out sloppy handwriting, help with spelling and math drills, etc, give teacher and parents specific access to the students abilities and progress.

PowerPoint book reports? OUT!
Webcrawled book reports? OUT!
'multimedia presentations? OUT!!!
The gems of western civilization in one pocketable box, which they can study as the Founders generation did, without the bulk and time delays of busy work getting in the way of teachers teaching and students learning and doing? IN!

Hopefully coming soon...

8/19/2007 07:11:00 PM  
Blogger Allotetraploid said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8/19/2007 11:05:00 PM  
Blogger Allotetraploid said...

I have posted an answer to this post here. Shortly a reply will be posted to the second part of Bob's apology. After that I'll leave the final word and scene entirely to him to sum up, criticize, distort, remain silent or whatever befalls him.

8/19/2007 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger garym said...

There is a synchronistic apropos discussion of this same topic over at Science is a Method in a post called Materialism as a Reaction To Religion -- reaction as in conversion reaction.

8/21/2007 09:44:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home