“Which God?” Re: Sermon on worldview criteria.

January 13, 2008 at 4:04 pm 23 comments

god.jpgDr. Doug Matthews is perhaps one of the most popular professors at the small evangelical university where he teaches. He has served as a youth pastor, a university cabinet member, a chaplain and as a professor of theology. Last year he was voted as the professor of the year for his brilliant lectures and out-of-the-classroom concern for his students.

Despite my de-conversion, Dr. Matthews is easily my favorite professor. During my de-conversion process, I studied systematic theology and Christian beliefs under him, and he was the primary reason that I remained a Christian as long as I did.

Because of how much respect I still maintain for the man even during my post-Christian days, I was excited to find that he would be speaking in chapel last week. He gave a half-sermon, half-lecture about “Which God?” During his talk, he discussed criteria for determining which ‘god package’ students should chose and briefly outlined some reasons for his turn from skepticism to Christianity.

I am thoroughly convinced that Dr. Matthews is a man of brilliance, charisma, and sincere concern for his students. He could surpass Josh McDowell, Ravi Zacharias or Lee Strobel easily. For that reasons, I feel it is relevant to share some of his thoughts and some of my reflections. You can find his actual sermon by clicking here and finding the podcast for January 10, 2008.

The basic premise of Dr. Matthews’ talk is that there are many potential “god packages” in existence that people can choose from. He defines “god package” as the set of beliefs, holy book(s), founders, doctrines, etc (read: world view). His assertion is that individuals should closely examine the entire “god package” of the various religions before choosing one, and the heavy implication is that upon examining the various “god packages,” one cannot help but arrive at the conclusion that Christianity is true.

Dr. Matthews encourages the students in the audience that an inability to articulate your faith does not necessitate that your faith is unjustifiable. To an extent, I agree with him. The truth value of any form of claim, in this instance a metaphysical explanation, is independent of our philosophical justification of such a claim. However, I fear that the way in which this kind of thought can go is that one can take the position that it simply doesn’t matter whether or not you have justification for a given belief. Because the truth value is independent of our reasoning does not excuse coming to any form of conclusion without following a rational process. As WK Clifford once said, “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for any one, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

Dr. Matthews continued to set out a series of criteria he believes should be used to examine the veracity of a given “god package.” Correspondence, Consitency & Coherence, Comprehensiveness, and Existential & Moral Relevance are the four areas he sets forth.

The first criterion is the idea of correspondence, “Does the god-belief correspond to reality?”

To illustrate what he means, Dr. Matthews shows this video in which an ice fisherman is suddenly eaten by a killer whale, the point being that although we watch the whale attack and devour the killer whale, this does not correspond to what we know of reality, namely that killer whales don’t generally attack people. So then, does Christianity correspond to reality? Dr. Matthews would argue that it does. Naturally, I disagree. Christianity is ultimately one of thousands of metaphysical attempts at explaining reality. However, many of its claims do not correspond to what we experience in reality. For example, Christians often claim that a so-called ‘personal relationship with Jesus’ is the only way to find true happiness, yet there are a proportional number of unhappy Christians as non-Christians. The bible claims that whatever you ask for in prayer, and believe for it, will be given to you, yet a very small number of prayers are actually answered.

The second criterion is consistency and coherence: “Do the ideas of the ‘God package’ hang together? The various affirmations of a “god package” must hang together and avoid contradicting one another. Again, the implication here is that Christianity, over other religious faiths is more consistent and coherent. I’m not so sure. There are countless contradictions in the Bible. The Old and New Testaments do not seem to be cohesive to me. The character of God is distinct in each testament. Old Testament writings largely ignore any idea of an afterlife while the New Testament seems to forsake world gain in favor of an eternal life (Greek thought, anybody?). The Gospels contradict each other. Throughout the ages, Christians have been largely unable to agree on even basic foundational truths of Christianity. In my estimation, Christianity is neither consistent nor coherent.

Next, comprehensiveness, “Do the ideas of the ‘god package’ explain everything well, not just one thing?” Dr. Matthews brings up Mormonism, a popular target of attack for evangelical Christians. Mormonism has a strong emphasis on family, morality and missions. These are three areas in which mainstream evangelicalism can find common ground with Mormons. However, Mormons fail to provide an adequate account of Christology, Soteriology, Eschatology, etc. To further show his point he uses this YouTube video:

In the video, the woman gets two things right: there is a counter, and she should be quiet in the library. But she fails to comprehensively grasp her situation.

So does the Judeo-Christian ‘god package’ do the best job of explaining all of the data? Dr. Matthews would point to science and the ever unfolding understanding of the Big Bang. He points out that Christianity is unique in its affirmation of a universe created ex nihilo, and that until recently scientists almost unanimously affirmed an eternal universe. With Einstein’s theory of relativity, with an understanding of the expansion of the universe, entropy of the universe, etc. it seems more and more likely that the universe as we know it had a distinct beginning. Dr. Matthews attacks the veracity of the Big Bang/Big Crunch model and thus puts forward the Christian metaphysic as superior to all others.

Of the many amateur and professional apologists turned atheists that I have talked to, most were drawn more to some formation of the Argument from Design. Perhaps it is an indicator of my own simplicity, but of the popular arguments for the existence of God, the one that held my attention the longest was the Cosmological/First Cause-type. Still yet, I am often hard pressed to grasp a universe without a beginning, or harder yet, to grasp a universe with a beginning and without a transcendent being. But invariably the cosmological argument leads to the ‘next step,’ “Who caused God?” A particular interpretation of the Genesis may allow Christianity to correlate to a Big Bang model of the universe; however, such a model in no way necessitates a transcendent cause. To postulate such a cause is nothing more than standard “God of the gaps” reasoning.

Finally, Dr. Matthews puts forth existential and moral relevance. “Does the God package bring illumination to my existential experience? To what I am experiencing? To the realities of my life?” This is the portion of the talk where I found myself in the staunchest disagreement to my former professor. He poses the rather pointed question, “Does atheism bring illumination to morality or does it undermine it?” He is quick to qualify this question by stating that you can have good individual atheists, but that the atheistic system undermines morality. In addition he indicates that a Christian worldview brings meaning to life. “The bodily resurrection, I like it!” Dr. Matthews contrasts the Christian “god package” to some eastern philosophies in this way: “they describe what happens when you die in terms of a drop of ink going back into the ocean of nothingness.” The Christian “god package” allows one to look forward to reunion with loved ones and a new physical body in which individuals will not be spirits playing harps on clouds for all of eternity. Dr. Matthews speaks of “the Eschaton” in terms of writers producing great pieces of literature and of explorers finding new and exciting places. In essence, he claims that the Christian worldview provides for existential relevance.

This to me seems to be incredibly weak. I don’t have the patience to yet again delve into the idea of morality without God, which seems like a horse that has been beaten to death (at least in my experience). But the idea that Christianity is existentially relevant seems to me to point to nothing more than a sugar pill. “Christianity is better than Buddhism because if I believe in Christianity I can look forward to an afterlife.” What? What does that have to do with the truth-claims? This seems nothing more than spiritual hedonism.

Finally, Dr. Matthews cautions against two extremes: blind faith and what he calls “reasonalotry.” Much to his credit, he is critical of Christians who tell others to “just have faith.” It takes blind faith to follow Hitler or Stalin, to find meaning in cocaine, to remain with an abusive partner or to wait for a spaceship in the tail of a comet. Instead, he points to a true understanding of faith as radical trust in response an intellectual affirmation of Christianity. Kudos!

On the other hand, he is quick to criticize what he calls “reasonalotry.” He speaks of his days as a skeptical student at Wheaton College. At one point it got back to him that someone said, “Doug Matthews worships his own reason.” He asserts that his skepticism had less to do with mind and more to do with heart/will. Further, he claims that many people who don’t believe in God do so because of poor relationships with their parents. I find that claim to be absurd. This seems to completely invalidate conclusions of thoughtful people in regards to their de-conversion. I think it fair to say that my relationship with my parents had little to do with my conversion to Christianity or away from Christianity.

In my three and a half years as a student at my university I have attended many, many chapel services. I can count the number of services that seemed to be genuinely challenging and/or stimulating on one hand. I am encouraged that the school would put forth a man like Dr. Matthews to at least admonish the students to ask questions. Unfortunately, I recognize that most all of the students are so impressed by his verbosity and knowledge that they will blindly follow in his footsteps because they assume him to be infallible.

– CarriedTheCross

Entry filed under: CarriedTheCross. Tags: , , , , , , , .

Spiritual cross-dressing 8 Reasons why I no longer believe

23 Comments Add your own

  • 1. cipher  |  January 13, 2008 at 5:02 pm

    He points out that Christianity is unique in its affirmation of a universe created ex nihilo, and that until recently scientists almost unanimously affirmed an eternal universe.

    I don’t know he can say that; Christianity got its foundational myths from Judaism.

    Dr. Matthews contrasts the Christian “god package” to some eastern philosophies in this way: “they describe what happens when you die in terms of a drop of ink going back into the ocean of nothingness.”

    This is absolutely asinine. In addition to being an unwarranted generalization and an oversimplification, it demonstrates the utter lack of understanding Christian apologists have of other religions. I’m 51, and I have never come across one who really understood the “opposition”. I think that, most of the time, their minds aren’t subtle enough to grasp Asian metaphysical concepts. Often, however, I think they’re afraid to examine them too closely – they suspect, at some level, that doing so could prove destructive to their truth claims. And, probably, a lot of them just see it as a waste of time – they know they’ve got absolute truth, so why bother?

    he claims that many people who don’t believe in God do so because of poor relationships with their parents

    One could just as easily claim that people believe because of the fear instilled in them by parents and authority figures. I love it when they indulge in psychoanalysis.

    There doesn’t appear to be anything new here. It’s the same old stuff, just presented in what appears on the surface to be a slightly newer package. If this man truly is the best they have to offer, it pretty much confirms my opinion of Christian apologetics.

    BTW, the Buddhists also ask “What caused God?”, when confronted with theistic arguments. They also argue for an eternal reality, although, in their cosmology, as with that of the Indians, there have been many successive universes.

  • 2. CarriedTheCross  |  January 13, 2008 at 5:44 pm

    “In addition to being an unwarranted generalization and an oversimplification, it demonstrates the utter lack of understanding Christian apologists have of other religions.”

    In his defense, if you listen to the sermon itself he does caution that it is an incredible oversimplification of eastern philosophy. I think his point is more that in his paradigm of an afterlife, life will continue much the same as we experience it now, less certain undesirable qualities.

  • 3. SermonFan  |  January 13, 2008 at 6:08 pm

    His entire lecture seems to be based on confirmation bias. He didn’t set out to objectively compare religions but only to ask the questions for which he could rationalize the answer “Christianity,” sort of like trying to find all the equations for which “4” is the answer and pretending that means “4” is the only valid answer to an equation.

    Such a position is easily dismissed by contradiction. One need only find one conflicting example to show his premise s false. thus, for example, It is extremely amusing, as cipher pointed out, that he neglects to attribute to Judaism the values and ideas he extracts from the Old Testament (even as he denies Mormanism credit for using the Old and New Testament.)

    This guy may be extremely engaging and personable but his arguments, as relayed by you, are crap.

  • 4. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 7:23 pm

    But invariably the cosmological argument leads to the ‘next step,’ “Who caused God?

    ———————————–

    Christianity has always taught that God is Without beginning and without end, based on the metaphysical beliefs of the Judaeo-Christian Tradition.

    You are correct, that cannot happen in the physical universe. However, by the very definition of metaphysical, god(s) is/are not defined by the physical universe he/she/it/they has/have created.

  • 5. cipher  |  January 13, 2008 at 7:33 pm

    However, by the very definition of metaphysical, god(s) is/are not defined by the physical universe he/she/it/they has/have created.

    Which is really just another way of saying that you’re defining it in such as way so as to lead to the conclusion you want.

  • 6. carriedthecross  |  January 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

    “His entire lecture seems to be based on confirmation bias. He didn’t set out to objectively compare religions but only to ask the questions for which he could rationalize the answer “Christianity,” sort of like trying to find all the equations for which “4″ is the answer and pretending that means “4″ is the only valid answer to an equation.”

    To be fair, keep in mind his audience. He was speaking to a crowd of 1,500 evangelical college students. His objective was not to convert skeptics and atheists, but to reinforce already held beliefs of like-minded Christians. I have no doubt as to his ability to stand his ground against a large majority of atheists.

    The purpose of the post is to show what is being taught/preached by the ‘opposition.’

  • 7. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:07 pm

    Which is really just another way of saying that you’re defining it in such as way so as to lead to the conclusion you want.

    ————————————-

    Actually no it doesn’t. The result we want is to definitively prove that God exists. Really, the concept that the metaphysical is beyond understanding puts both theists and atheists at a disadvantage.

    Atheists can’t prove that gods don’t exist, and Theists can’t prove that they do.

    It actually Screws us both.

  • 8. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:10 pm

    Actually, what it does, more accurately, is give more weight to the agnostic argument.

  • 9. carriedthecross  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:12 pm

    “The result we want is to definitively prove that God exists. Really, the concept that the metaphysical is beyond understanding puts both theists and atheists at a disadvantage.”

    To borrow from Richard Dawkins, you cannot prove that the “flying spaghetti monster” exists and the atheist cannot prove that the “flying spaghetti monster” does not exist. But through the power of reason and observation, I can say with the utmost certainty that there is no such thing.

    It is intellectually dishonest to redefine terms and to dodge genuine questions because there is no hard evidence for the existence of your deity.

  • 10. cipher  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:13 pm

    His objective was not to convert skeptics and atheists, but to reinforce already held beliefs of like-minded Christians.

    Why would these kids need their faith “reinforced” ? And, if they did, was it necessary to do so by denigrating other faiths? Seems like a pretty weak arsenal to me.

    If he was attempting to prepare them for the arguments they’ll hear from non-believers, I think he did a poor job there as well. Most atheists would be unimpressed by these arguments, at least – and many could refute them easily.

    I don’t know you and I don’t want to attempt to second-guess you, but it sounds to me as though you’re looking for reasons to leave the door open to this man and his arguments – as though, at the last minute, he’s going to pull you back from apostasy.

  • 11. HeIsSailing  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:18 pm

    I can’t believe the picture of Doug Matthews was replaced with a Jack Chick version of God (a faceless, glowing, giant man on a throne)!! Talk about giving the guy no dignity.. ;-)

  • 12. carriedthecross  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:21 pm

    “I don’t know you and I don’t want to attempt to second-guess you, but it sounds to me as though you’re looking for reasons to leave the door open to this man and his arguments”

    Please don’t get me wrong, I may be sympathetic to the man, but I am by no means sympathetic to the belief system. I do; however, fear dogmatism from atheists as much as I fear dogmatism from theists. I very genuinely believe that theism opens an avenue for a great amount of harm in the world, but because I was a devout Christian theist for six years of my life I understand how strong the psychological pull to a religious belief can be.

    Also, as one who is drawn to the political realm, I understand all to well that perception is far too often more important than content. I desire for atheism to replace theism as the norm in America. To that end, I recognize that charismatic and engaging Christian speakers can capture the hearts and imagination of large groups of people. Even nominal theists who rarely attend church and rarely change their behavior as a result of their religious belief can often be hostile to atheism. That said, I simply do not want to too quickly dismiss the influence of the “generals” of the Christian faith.

  • 13. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:29 pm

    To borrow from Richard Dawkins, you cannot prove that the “flying spaghetti monster” exists and the atheist cannot prove that the “flying spaghetti monster” does not exist. But through the power of reason and observation, I can say with the utmost certainty that there is no such thing.

    ————————————————-

    That’s the entire point i’m making. By the very definition of the Metaphysical, your reason is incapable of understanding this thing. You and I are honestly, too stupid, to understand the hypothetical god/flying spaghetti monster.

    We barely are able to apply reason to the physical universe. We can barely understand the world in which we live. How can we apply reason to something theoretically, much more complicated than physics.

    Honestly, while I believe in God, and am a devout Christian, the question of the Origins, as you put it, really gives a lot of weight to the agnostic argument, that God/gods are impossible to disprove/prove, and thus we cannot say definitively if one exists.

  • 14. cipher  |  January 13, 2008 at 8:49 pm

    We barely are able to apply reason to the physical universe.

    Well, I think that most physicists would disagree, strongly. And, if it’s the case that we cannot prove God’s existence or non-existence (a plausible position), then, of course, if you want to be a theist, you need to make the oft-touted “leap of faith”. At that point, an atheist or agnostic can justifiably ask you, “Why? On what basis do you make it?” And, it seems to me, that the only answer a theist can give under those circumstances is, “Because I want to” or “Because I need to” or “Because I have a feeling that He exists”. As the Dalai Lama always says – if it gives you hope and causes you to behave compassionately, fine. But you (Christians in general, I mean) are expecting the same from people who apparently have no aptitude for such belief – and, in your world view, the consequences of not believing are eternal damnation. It’s completely unreasonable.

  • 15. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 9:08 pm

    And, if it’s the case that we cannot prove God’s existence or non-existence (a plausible position), then, of course, if you want to be a theist, you need to make the oft-touted “leap of faith

    ——————————————-

    Yep, exactly. No Christian who honestly understands his faith and its teachings thinks that we can prove our faith empirically.

    We, have always believed, until the recent fundamentalist movement, that the reason for faith is movement in our lives. Not by trashing evolution (which is obviously the mechanism of Creation) or trying to make the bible make scientific claims that it does not make.

    We believe, because he has given us faith, not because I can prove it in a textbook.

    Scripture often speaks of faith. Christ Himself said blessed are they who do not see yet believe.

    We believe there is Proof, beyond reason. We do have to take a step beyond reason. Only immature Christians will tell you otherwise.

  • 16. cipher  |  January 13, 2008 at 9:18 pm

    Well (if I understand you correctly), if He gives you faith, then He decides who believes – and, by extension, who is to be saved. That’s Calvinism, which I won’t even discuss.

  • 17. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 9:20 pm

    Well, I think that most physicists would disagree, strongly.

    ——————————————

    The more you learn the more you learn you don’t know.

    Sure, we know that For every Reaction there is an equal and opposite Reaction. What we don’t know is why there is. What about the mere collision of particles causes them to repel each other?

    We know that Gravity is a force that attracts bodies Dependant on their mass. We do not what causes this force, we do not know WHY seemingly unconnected masses move toward each other, other than the one word answer “gravity”.

    We know that the current expansion of the universe is due to a “big bang” that occured billions of years ago. We don’t know what caused the Singularity to suddenly expand.

    We have hints that there is something we have termed “dark matter” and “dark energy”. We know almost NOTHING about what this is, and what affect if any it has on our existence.

    For every question we answer, we create ten more questions.

    Only an idiot thinks he understands the workings of physics.

  • 18. mathaytacechristou  |  January 13, 2008 at 9:28 pm

    Well (if I understand you correctly), if He gives you faith, then He decides who believes – and, by extension, who is to be saved. That’s Calvinism, which I won’t even discuss.

    —————————-

    No, i am not a calvinist, because i believe that he gifts us with both faith and free will.

    We all have a choice to make, but the initiation between the divine and humanity, is always initiated by the divine. We cannot have faith unless he allows us, but simply because he allows us does not mean we will choose to follow.

    It seems to me, that most atheists I have met, are mostly familiar with the fundamentalist variety of Christianity. If you are to go down the rabbit hole farther than a sociopolitical movement of 20th century america, you will find that there is much about Christianity that is simply ignored by the fundies.

    We are a deep, mystical religion. We have many beliefs that cannot be understood on a rational level. But, because we believe in something beyond ration, we do not need to have a rational basis for our faith.

    You will call that dodging logic. However my point is that logic is limited. Very Valuable, but limited. It is capable of answering some questions, but not all.

    I am not trying to convert you over the internet. People who think they can argue someone to faith is silly. My only goal is to simply open your mind to the concept that logic is not infallible.

    In fact, the idea that logic is limited by the brain of the one practicing logical deduction, is itself logical.

  • 19. Robert  |  January 14, 2008 at 3:07 pm

    Just mention Anne Frank burning in hell and all his hifalutin arguments come crashing down.

    According to Christianity, most of humanity will burn in hell. An ink drop in nothingness is far, far superior to knowing that your 12 year old daughter is writhing in agony forever.

  • 20. LeoPardus  |  January 14, 2008 at 4:07 pm

    mathaytacechristou:

    It seems to me, that most atheists I have met, are mostly familiar with the fundamentalist variety of Christianity.

    Fair enough. I’d say that corresponds to my observations.

    We are a deep, mystical religion.

    What branch are you talking from? The Orthodox and some Catholics are about the only ones I know of who can say this without being laughed off the stage.

  • 21. Grey  |  January 16, 2008 at 12:55 am

    I am an angnostic who stumbled across this post, but I feel the need to state a few things.

    1) I don’t think any person can be a true atheist, because every person does ascribe to some system of belief, the only question is what set of beliefs
    2) My system of belief is not faith based
    3) I do not believe logic# The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: is fallable, but I know premises can be
    4) Whatever allows people to fill their own void will be what they pursue (religion, politics, hockey, heroine…its all the same)

  • 22. Stutz  |  January 16, 2008 at 10:57 am

    “1) I don’t think any person can be a true atheist, because every person does ascribe to some system of belief, the only question is what set of beliefs”

    Not true. Atheist = having no belief in God. That’s it–no more, no less. “No belief” is not a type of belief. Sure, everybody believes things. For example, I believe that humans generally try to do good, as they see it. I also believe in causality as a principle. I’m still an atheist, however, because these “beliefs” have nothing to do with what I think about God.

    Most atheists do not claim to “know” there is no God. Atheism is a description of non-BELIEF. Agnosticism, on the other hand, is a description of KNOWLEDGE, not of belief (or non-belief), i.e., “I do not know if God exists.” Not knowing does not necessarily also mean making no judgment about belief. Technically, everybody is agnostic, because it is impossible for any human being to ever prove or disprove God. So what’s the point of describing yourself that way? The only real issue is what all the evidence and logical reasoning points to as being the most rational position to take despite the fact that we’ll never know for certain.

  • 23. bipolar2  |  January 20, 2008 at 9:39 pm

    ** A godless anti-metaphysician’s apologetic **

    If ‘theism’ is meant to include both the mono- and poly- variants; then, the opposite of ‘theism’ is ‘non-theism.’

    >> Non-theism is not atheism

    There are non-theistic religions. Chinese ancestor worship and Shintoism, for example. These, of course, do posit the existence of spirits of the dead or of spirits (living forces) within nature.

    Theravada Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. One which denies the reality of both the so-called external world and the reality of an internal world — the self. Its theory of knowledge is a pure phenomenalism.

    Gods there may be, but they also long for release from suffering. Karma with its attendant doctrine of reincarnation is the last metaphysical roadblock to Nirvana, a condition free from all illusion and outside karmic necessity.

    >> religion belongs to culture, not some super-nature

    Words like ‘god’ ‘theism’ ‘atheism’ are highly ambiguous (multiple acceptable meanings) and are also vague (criteria for in/exclusion are ill-defined).

    Perhaps the atheist is, to use Nietzsche’s word, a complete “anti-metaphysician.” One who opposes any doctrine of a supernatural realm, whether of Platonic ideas, gods, demons, spirits, minds, karma, reincarnation.

    “We godless anti-metaphysicians” accept only one world. The world we call ‘Nature.’ And, not to forget, our human handiwork, culture. Religion belongs to cultures embedded in nature.

    Religion is a cultural construct.

    bipolar2
    © 2008

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed


Attention Christian Readers

Just in case you were wondering who we are and why we de-converted.

de-conversion wager

Whether or not you believe in God, you should live your life with love, kindness, compassion, mercy and tolerance while trying to make the world a better place. If there is no God, you have lost nothing and will have made a positive impact on those around you. If there is a benevolent God reviewing your life, you will be judged on your actions and not just on your ability to blindly believe in creeds- when there is a significant lack of evidence on how to define God or if he/she even exists.

Twitter

Archives

Blog Stats

  • 1,997,175 hits since March 2007

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 199 other followers