The Number of the Beast

CR, is this a summary of your argument?

1) You see yourself as conscious.

2) You don't understand how science, which is concerned with matter and energy, and the interrelation between the two, can ever explain how someone could be conscious and have volition.

3) You see Objecitivism as a philosophy which can never explain consciousness, and is therefore only limited to the materialistic aspect of the Universe.

Therefore

4) You conclude that God is responsible for Consciousness.

Do I get the gist of your argument correctly?

Craig Haynie

Post 81

Sunday, April 25, 2004 - 5:37pm

Brendan:

You said: As I understand it, Rand claims that axiomatic concepts are undeniable, in that they must be used in the very act of denying them. And that is true, if we all agree on the meaning of the term, and are talking solely about the concept rather than its referents.

No. "The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." [Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 56]

If a God actually existed, existence would include God as one of its referents or "units" as Ayn Rand preferred to call them. Nothing can precede existence or be the cause of it, because any such thing would not itself exist.

Actually, I think you are confusing "modes" of existence. Notice that Ayn Rand included "consciousness" as an existent, but consciousness is not a physical existent, only a psychological one. Fiction, fictional characters, history, and nostalgia all exist, but do not exist in the same mode. Rand did not make the differences in modes of existence explicit, except for the distinction between the physical [which she called "material"] and psychological [meaning all aspects of consciousness]. This is the reason Ayn Rand emphasized Objectivism was not a materialist (strict naturalist or physicalist) philosophy. If you think Objectivism is materialism, you do not understand Objectivism.

Does that help?

Regi

(Edited by Reginald Firehammer on 4/26, 3:55am)

Post 82

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:37pm

Hi, Nate.

In deference to Rodney, whose sentiments I share, I�ll keep this brief.

You asked: >>In what way does the wine and bread used at Eucharist become imprinted with the "Christ" quality?<<

By miracle invoked by the priest at Mass.

You: >>That is, if the bread and cup of wine already so blessed were placed with many other pieces of bread and wine that have not been so blessed, is there really a way to tell the difference?<<

No, you can�t. The �accidents� of the Eucharist � i.e., the physical characteristics of the bread and wine �

remain the same.

You: >>Could one, in theory, bless other objects in the same way so that they also become the flesh of Christ in some other form (a rock, a tree, or even another human)?<<

No. I would imagine for a priest to invoke this miracle for any other purpose than the carrying out the liturgy of the mass would be a sacrilege.

Finally, you quipped: >>For the record, I don't find Catholicism "extremely disagreeable," but I do find this aspect of it to be somewhat, well, unbelievable.<<

You�re not alone, Nate. I read recently that sixty percent of Catholics in this country do not believe it either.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 83

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:38pm

Hi, Brendan.

You noted: >>Countering this type of misunderstanding is time-consuming and tedious, and I can understand why one might give up in frustration. But there you go. Who said the intellectual life was easy!<<

And I�ll be the last to complain. Because of my so-so grasp of the terminology of philosophy and the number of �terms of art�, let�s say, peculiar to Objectivism, I find it best to express myself using only the plain meaning of words. However, I recognize that this can cause problems when a word has both a plain meaning and a special meaning in philosophy. So if a bit a tedium is needed to make sure we�re all speaking the same language, I benefit as much as anyone else. Therefore, patience not frustration is my byword.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 84

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:42pm

Hi, Regi.

Making the point that volition is not free will, you offered the following analogy to me in another thread and repeated here again for Brendan�s benefit:

>> The proper analogy is the computer. The hardware of a computer has a fixed and determined nature, but a program running on that computer is not determined by the nature of the physical components of the hardware. The program can do anything possible to programs, and is not determined or limited by the hardware at all.<<

Life is the software of the body, then? That certainly has a certain panache to it, Regi, and it makes an interesting point that the acts of volition need not be caused, thus determined and limited, by the physical nature of the body. OK. Setting aside the quibble that the limitations of hardware do in fact limit the performance of a program even to the point of whether it will run or not, this analogy still leaves a lot unsaid.

If the hardware (body) does not determine what the program (volition) is � what does? Whatever the source of the program, how is the program loosed from the constraints of physicality so that it freely determining its next step? If there is no such freedom, just an infinite series of causes and events that lead up to the program confronting a choice, how is that not still materialism? If there is freedom, then is the computer program analogy apt?

Here�s where the analogy falls apart for me. It does not even make sense to speak of a program freely determining its next step. Indeed, a computer program is an entity that is deterministic in the extreme. It can only branch (i.e., choose) according to an algorithm that has pre-determined when and how it will branch per any given set of inputs. Branching does not demonstrate volition. It is the predetermined selection of a response when certain conditions are met.

Maybe an answer to this question will help me to figure this out, Regi. If the hardware (body) does not determine the lines of code of the program (volition), what does? Or have I pushed your analogy past the breaking point by trying to make it do more than you intended?

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 85

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:48pm

Hi, Craig.

You offered the following summary of my argument:

Your first point: >>1) You see yourself as conscious.<<

Yes, I am aware that I am conscious.

Your second point: >>2) You don't understand how science, which is concerned with matter and energy, and the interrelation between the two, can ever explain how someone could be conscious and have volition.<<

Not quite. I understand that a basic principle of physics is uniformity. This uniformity means each cause of a given nature will always produce the same effect. Thus, everything subject to the laws of physics exists in a deterministic universe � i.e., that spacetime in which nothing is free of the chains of causation. This determinism of the physical universe is what makes identity possible, and discovering and explaining identities is what science does. It provides us with an objective knowledge of reality.

Yet I experience consciousness as self-awareness and volition as free will � i.e., as phenomena free of those chains of causation. If my experience accurately reflects reality, then reality must consist of something more than the physical universe, which science explains. It must include things related to, yet beyond the physicality of the universe, which science may not be able to explain.

Your third point: >>3) You see Objecitivism as a philosophy which can never explain consciousness, and is therefore only limited to the materialistic aspect of the Universe.<<

I see in Objectivism a contradiction in its metaphysics. It describes a universe that is, in principle, objectively knowable in its entirety � i.e., it is reducible to matter and energy thus explainable and identifiable through science. Yet it also posits consciousness that is self-aware and a volition that is free will. Objectivism maintains such descriptions of consciousness and volition are critical to keep the philosophy out of the clutches of materialism, but it contradicts itself by precluding from reality any possibility of that which is trans-material.

I have gone on the record that I think the reason for this contradiction is that Objectivist metaphysics unnecessarily denies the existence of God and to protect that position it limits reality to only the material universe. Yet to vest its ethics, politics, and aesthetics with any meaning, Objectivism must embrace consciousness and volition as givens, even though experience tells us they are apart from the material universe. So Objectivism fails to explain consciousness and volition to avoid upsetting it other givens necessary to protect its atheism.

Your conclusion: >>Therefore 4) You conclude that God is responsible for Consciousness.<<

No. All I have argued is that if my experience of consciousness and volition is correct, then reality is greater than the physical universe, and if so then there is room in reality for God. The fact that such room exists is not proof of God, only that his existence would not contradict the reality of our experience.

I hope I haven�t gummed up too much of what you tried to boil down to a set of straightforward statements, Craig. But I think it is important to understand that I have not been saying that Objectivists are wrong to be atheist. Rather, I think they are mistaken to incorporate atheism into their philosophy to the extent that it requires them to materialists � or even worse, materialists who fail to recognize they are such.

Regards,

Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

P.S. Thank you for defending my intellectual honesty in the �Arbitrary� thread.

Post 86

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 2:50pm

Duplication of the above.

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 4/27, 5:23am)

Post 87

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 3:32pm

Regi: "The units of the concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist." [Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, p. 56.�

This is your reply to my comment that Rand�s undeniability claim regarding axiomatic concepts relates only to the concept and not its referents.

If the denial of the concept is also a denial of the referents, this implies a necessary relationship between these concepts and their real-world referents. But since the referents are contingent, no such relationship can be established. Further, the concept existence here is based on an epistemological theory, in which case existence is a derivative rather than a primary concept.

Another difficulty with the above quote is that if the concept of existence is included under the phenomenon of consciousness, as it surely must be, Rand has smuggled her conclusion into her premise. The concepts "existence" and "identity" subsume the units of consciousness, but consciousness also subsumes the concepts existence and identity. Rand is merely begging the question.

�If a God actually existed, existence would include God as one of its referents or "units" as Ayn Rand preferred to call them.�

Yes, if you subscribe to Rand�s explicit metaphysics and epistemology, such a being as you describe could not by definition be the traditional God. But for obvious reasons theists interpret the notion of existence quite differently.

�Actually, I think you are confusing "modes" of existence.�

Hardly. My argument was based on making a clear distinction between concepts and their referents, between the mental and the physical.

Brendan

Post 88

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:45pm

Bill,

You asked: If the hardware (body) does not determine what the program (volition) is � what does?

The computer illustration is only an analogy. The point is, given a sufficiently sophisticated computer (mostly in terms of memory size) virtually any program can be run on it to do anything programs can do.

The specific answer to your question is, the life of the organism determines what volition is, not what it does. Nothing determines what volition does, else it would not be volition.

Life is the self-sustaining process of a living organism. The physical organism does not "cause" or "determine" the life. It is the opposite. An organism remains an organism only so long as the life process continues. The moment the process ceases, the organism reverts to a non-living entity, even if all the parts remain identical. The physical organism is used by the life process to sustain itself, as a process, and the organism, as living entity.

Just as a computer is just so much useless hardware without the programs which run the computer (note, it is the running program that makes the computer function, not the other way around), so it is the life process that makes an organism a living entity and without that process, the organism is just so much physically determined matter.

The behavior of a non-living entity is entirely predictable by the laws of physics, but the behavior of a living organism could not even be guessed from the physical nature of the organism, however complex it is, and the moment the life process ceases, that behavior of an organism, unique to it as a living entity, ceases.

Note, also, there is no way to put together an organism and, "start it up," from the outside, so to speak. Life always comes from life. (This is not a principle of Objectivism, however.)

Regi

Post 89

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 5:58pm

Bill, I am aware that you have been repeating the above thoughts in many posts and threads, so I guess none of the answers have satisfied you. I think I see why, and I am now working on my own reply, which I hope you will consider in isolation from all others.

I don't hope to change your mind, but at least I would like you to feel that you have been fully heard and understood. Other posters have made many valid points, but maybe I can add a bit more and present things in a manner and order that will speak to your concerns.

I also hope to show incidentally that you are mistaken about Objectivism's attitude toward the concept of god (as opposed to the attitudes of some Objectivists). But that is not the main thing to me.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 4/26, 6:16pm)

Post 90

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:04pm

CR, I understand what you're saying now, I believe.

I see the anomaly too. If I am self-aware, and have volition, (and I do), then somehow I'm violating causality when I use my body. I am breaking the deterministic chains whenever I move my arm. Moreover, there is no known explanation for consciousness. However, these things are not outside the realm of science, and they're not outside the realm of an Objective Universe. If someday, it can be proven that someone's body was in State 1 before the willful act, and then in State 2 after the willful act, and the body did not follow the logical progression of causality, then this will be something which will be incorporated into our knowledge of the Universe. The Universe does not have to be uniform in every respect. (Doesn't quantum mechanics appear to behave without such consistency, as well?) What the Universe DOES have to do, is be objective to impartial observers. It has to have a set of rules which can serve as a foundation for knowledge. It cannot behave completely in an arbitrary and inconsistent manner. If we looked out and saw the heavens and sky ever-changing and fluid, yet we experienced causality within our experiments here on Earth, then this would be all we need to establish an Objective Universe, because we would have found at least one rule which works. If the Universe were not objective, then we could not depend on anything working, and we would have no foundation for knowledge, and there would be no computer in front of you, nor any subject matter at all!

But there's more. Just because we don't know something, doesn't mean we can make up an explanation. Reason is our only tool of knowledge. It is the process of non-contradictory identification. There simply is no other process by which we can learn about the Universe. Faith is inherently contradictory. I can have faith that Mt. Saint Helens won't erupt, and some geologist might have faith that it will. I can have faith that cold-fusion will solve the world's energy problems in 10 years, and some oil company stock holder can have faith that it won't. There is no way to validate faith, nor control the process. It cannot be a source of knowledge, and if God demands that we use it, then he is demanding that we use a method of cognition that simply will not work in the Universe he created. Moreover since we cannot live without using Reason, he is demanding that we throw away the only tool we have to comprehend the Universe he created, and to LIVE in the Universe he created.

But the reason that God does not exist, and the reason it's so important to an Objectivist philosophy, is because it goes to the heart of metaphysics. God does not exist because he cannot be defined. To exist without definition is not to exist at all. This is the law of identity, the foundation of the Universe. Everything in the Universe exists AS SOMETHING. Failure to have an identity is a failure to have an existence. So, the first step to finding God is to get away from infinity. He cannot be omnipresent, omnipotent, and the creator of the Universe. These are the things that deny Him his existence by definition. And these are the things that those who believe in Him, depend on -- something which can be anything they want Him to be.

Sincerely,

Craig Haynie

"... the same attribute cannot at the same time belong and not belong to the same subject in the same respect; we must presuppose, in face of dialectical objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above. For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be..." Aristotle (1005:20)

Post 91

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:36pm

Brendan,

If the denial of the concept is also a denial of the referents, this implies a necessary relationship between these concepts and their real-world referents.

Of course. The necessary relationship is determined by reality, that is, the real-world referents, themselves. A concept is legitimate if it correctly identifies its referents. If it does, to deny it, is a denial of its referents. To deny the concept man is to deny there are men, and the denial is mistaken.

But since the referents are contingent, ...

Contingent on what? Except for the man-made, no entity is contingent on anything if it is a "real-world" entity.

Further, the concept existence here is based on an epistemological theory ...

No, it precedes the theory. (You do know that by calling it a theory you have tacitly validated it. A theory is a hypothesis that has been proven. Did you mean hypothesis?)

Another difficulty with the above quote is that if the concept of existence is included under the phenomenon of consciousness ...

It isn't. Consciousness is included as one of the referents of existence.

The concepts "existence" and "identity" subsume the units of consciousness...

Yes!

...but consciousness also subsumes the concepts existence and identity.

Not in Objectivism, it doesn't. How could it? I think you are confused by the fact that both what we are conscious of exists, and the aspects of consciousness itself exist. That does not mean the concept consciousness subsumes, as one of its referents, the concept existence. The mistake is the same is saying the concept man subsumes the concept animal, because all human beings are animals. Human beings are subsumed by the concept animal, but not vice-versa.

�If a God actually existed, existence would include God as one of its referents or "units" as Ayn Rand preferred to call them.�

Yes, if you subscribe to Rand�s explicit metaphysics and epistemology, such a being as you describe could not by definition be the traditional God.

I did not describe any God. I only said existence includes all things that exist. It only means, if God exists, He must be one of the things that exist. If you say God is not one of the things that exist, I agree with you.

Regi

Post 92

Monday, April 26, 2004 - 7:39pm

Hi Regi,

Note, also, there is no way to put together an organism and, "start it up," from the outside, so to speak. Life always comes from life. (This is not a principle of Objectivism, however.)

Hold on a second here. Does this mean that life has always existed? This statement seems to be in direct opposition to the fact that the early universe was unsuitable for sustaining organisms.

Nate T.

Post 93

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 5:44am

Nate,

I suspected someone would be alarmed by that assertion.

Hold on a second here. Does this mean that life has always existed? This statement seems to be in direct opposition to the fact that the early universe was unsuitable for sustaining organisms.

The apparent opposition assumes the life "process" must always have been confined to its present manifestation. The actual case is an unknown. The largely conjectural "science" of cosmology is on very unstable ground (one reason it keeps changing its assertions) and offers no argument refuting the possibility that life "always existed."

Objectivism does not grant the possibility existence has a beginning. "Existence exists," has no temporal component. In my article, "Objectivism Characterized,"
I point out the following contradiction by Leonard Peikoff:

The minor contradiction is found in these two quotes from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand; "Consciousness is not inherent in the fact of existence as such; a world without conscious organisms is possible," (p. 5); and, "The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable," (p. 23).

Obviously, Objectivists have not given this matter as much attention as they ought to have. Since conscious organisms are a fact of reality, and Peikoff says, an alternative to such facts is not only not possible, but cannot even be imagined, it means existence without conscious organisms is neither possible or imaginable.

(The, "cannot even be imagined," phrase is somewhat careless. I suppose it is rhetorical, but even then, can only apply to metaphysical (non-contingent) existents, not the man made. If what is not already a fact of existence could not even be imagined, nothing would ever be invented.)

Since this subject is somewhat outside the general discussion of this thread, I suggest, if you want to pursue it, we start another thread. I think it is an interesting subject and appreciate your noticing the issue.

Regi

Post 94

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 1:23pm

Rodney:

I look forward to reading what you have to say on the subject of consciousness and volition.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 95

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 2:04pm

Craig:

I appreciate that you have taken the time to consider the finer points I've been trying to make. Lacking a complete vocabulary in philosophy, I acknowledge that I have had to start off with blunt statements and refine them as we go along to get to the nuance I wanted to communicate. I think we're getting there now.

You wrote: >>... there is no known explanation for consciousness. However, these things are not outside the realm of science, and they're not outside the realm of an Objective Universe. If someday, it can be proven that someone's body was in State 1 before the willful act, and then in State 2 after the willful act, and the body did not follow the logical progression of causality, then this will be something which will be incorporated into our knowledge of the Universe. The Universe does not have to be uniform in every respect. (Doesn't quantum mechanics appear to behave without such consistency, as well?)<< [My emphasis.]

If the universe lacks uniformity, how does that impact the Law of Identity? Can we objectively identify that which is not determined by the laws of nature? The reason I pose these questions, Craig, is to lead up to a larger question: Is there a valid distinction between that which we can know objectively -- i.e., identification by scientific means -- and that we know subjectively -- e.g., volition as free will through experience.

(As for the quantum world, I suspect its non-deterministic appearance is a function of our ignorance of its true nature -- perhaps as 11-dimension spacetime -- rather than a genuine failure of causality.)

You also wrote: >>But the reason that God does not exist, and the reason it's so important to an Objectivist philosophy, is because it goes to the heart of metaphysics. God does not exist because he cannot be defined. To exist without definition is not to exist at all. This is the law of identity, the foundation of the Universe. Everything in the Universe exists AS SOMETHING. Failure to have an identity is a failure to have an existence. So, the first step to finding God is to get away from infinity. He cannot be omnipresent, omnipotent, and the creator of the Universe. These are the things that deny Him his existence by definition. And these are the things that those who believe in Him, depend on -- something which can be anything they want Him to be.<<

Yes, but if the universe is not uniform, then the Law of Identity may not hold regarding everything that can exist. On what basis do we assume that human reason is perfectly capable of objectively identifying everything that can exist in reality? After all, a human being is an organism that appears to have evolved from lower animals. We know lower animals are limited in their capacity for thought. Why at this point in the evolution of the human species do we assume that our capacity for thought has reached an apex in the comprehension of all that is real?

Is it possible that our reason is presently limited at this stage of evolution so that we can only identify objectively that which is reducible to science? If the present nature of our brains may limit what we can objectively know, does that mean that nothing else can exist except that which we can know objectively? To think such would be subjectivism, don't you think? Like Brendan stated, a lot is assumed when we assert as an axiom existence exists.

What I'm getting at, Craig, is it possible that the Law of Identity is an artifact of the limitation of our human reason? If so, we may need to acknowledge the reality of things we cannot, because of this limitation, know with the certainty of those things amenable to objective identification.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 96

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 2:15pm

Regi:

You have made some intriguing statements about life to me and Nate. One statement from you I would like to examine:

>>The behavior of a non-living entity is entirely predictable by the laws of physics, but the behavior of a living organism could not even be guessed from the physical nature of the organism, however complex it is, and the moment the life process ceases, that behavior of an organism, unique to it as a living entity, ceases.<<

OK. I agree with this. If the life process is not determined by the laws of physics that direct physical nature of the organism it is inhabiting, why isn't volition free will? In other words, if life is free of physical causality, then so is volition.

Regards,
Bill a.k.a. Citizen Rat

Post 97

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 2:47pm

Bill,

If the life process is not determined by the laws of physics that direct physical nature of the organism it is inhabiting, why isn't volition free will? In other words, if life is free of physical causality, then so is volition.

The physical aspects of an organism conform to the laws of physics. The life process does not violate any of those laws, but it is not itself subject to them, because the life process is its own cause.

Remember, cause is determined by the nature of the entities that are acting. Events do not cause events, entities cause events by behaving according to their nature. A non-living entity has only its physical nature to determine its behavior. If it is in a hot environment, it gets hot. A living organism has, in addition to its physical nature, the life process that sustains it as an organism, which is a different nature than a non-living entity. It is the life process that determines the behavior of an organism. When an organism is in a hot environment it might get hot, but it might sweat or perform some other function to cool itself, or it might move out of the heat, depending on the particular nature of the organism.

The life process is not "free of physical causality," in the sense that it can violate it. All of the physical aspects of an organism must conform to the requirements of their physical nature. In fact, if the physical aspects did not exactly conform to the laws of physics, the life process could not successfully use those physical aspects of the organism to sustain itself. The life process depends on the physical laws of causality not being violated.

It is only in this sense that volition is also, "free of physical causality," because volition is an aspect of a living organism. Volition can choose anything that is physically possible, not just anything at all, and requires knowledge, for example, to choose anything. Life, consciousness, and volition all have specific natures with specific requirements that determine how they function and can be used, just as physical entities do, but the principles that govern the psychological aspects of existence are not physical. If that is all you mean by, "free will," fine, but it is not what most people mean by it.

Regi

Post 98

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 4:59pm

Citizen Rat brought up two particular points which need to be addressed:

"If the universe lacks uniformity, how does that impact the Law of Identity?�"

It doesnt. even if the universe has drastically different properties across space and time, any one of these different "phases" of existence still is what it is and cannot logically contradict itself. there are all manner of logically possible worlds which, if physical laws change over distance or time, could exist. it is logically possible, for example, that in some region of space, gravity does not exist, and that it is a local effect of some phenomena strictly around us. it is logically possible that in some far off region of space, that spacial inflation happened differently and they have 3000 dimensions instead of 3. it is logically possible that there are legions upon legions of odd types of particles and matter waiting to be discovered with mind boggling properties, but they interact so seldom with matter as we know it that we can't see them. it is logically possible that, in some region of space, the laws of physics rapidly shift and change, producing worlds which look like they came from david hume's imagination. its logically possible that somewhere, space is so warped and bent as to make euclidean geometry utterly useless and some radically different geometry must be used instead. however, even in the cases of all these strange bizarre scenarios, should they exist, they all share in common two things for certain with the world we know in our own lives: A: they are what they are and must be what they are.
B: what they are will involve no contradictions of formal logic. they cannot both be what they are and not be what they are simultaneously.

"What I'm getting at, Craig, is it possible that the Law of Identity is an artifact of the limitation of our human reason?"

here, like kant, you wish to declare reason limited in order to make room for faith. you are also stuck with an inherent paradox. you have two claims which you may use to declare reason limited, to declare things beyond reason: first is reason itself, but the more you shrink reason, the more you cut the ground from under your own argument: if reason says there's no reason to believe in reason, then, well this also means there is no reason to believe in this arguement either. the other way you have is by appeal to faith. but as the rest of us consider faith invalid and irrational assertion, you won't get very far with that either. where there is no evidence, there is no grounds to believe anything. even if you manage to limit reason successfully, this does not make room for faith-- there are still no grounds for accepting what is without evidence, and all you have done is open the door for skepticism

Post 99

Tuesday, April 27, 2004 - 6:15pm