|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 04/12/2008 : 16:11:12 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave wrote: | The fact is that science and skepticism rely upon evidence and self-criticism, while religion does not, and so the conflict isn't about "realms of knowledge" but rather the methods through which knowledge is acquired. Gould's NOMA doesn't address that and so science continues to step all over religion's toes, and vice versa. |
I agree with you except that I don't use the word "religion" that way. I'd say that religious faith or theological claims or something like that, but I know that's what you mean in this context. |
Well, no. The roles that religion plays in society aren't generally based upon evidence or self-criticism, either. For the majority of adherents, morality is simply handed down from God (and to say otherwise is anathema). And in many cases, the social, community roles that religions have are imposed upon the adherents by the leaders for political purposes (again lacking in evidence or self-criticism).
I'm not arguing that these roles cannot be useful, just that they're no more based on science and skepticism than are the foundational tenets of faith of any of the major religions. And in some cases (for example, the Catholic view on condoms), the social, moral or community roles of religion directly contradict what we can see that science would tell us (that people live longer, happier lives without AIDS, to continue the example). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 16:41:28 [Permalink]
|
Well, no. The roles that religion plays in society aren't generally based upon evidence or self-criticism, either. For the majority of adherents, morality is simply handed down from God (and to say otherwise is anathema). And in many cases, the social, community roles that religions have are imposed upon the adherents by the leaders for political purposes (again lacking in evidence or self-criticism).
I'm not arguing that these roles cannot be useful, just that they're no more based on science and skepticism than are the foundational tenets of faith of any of the major religions. And in some cases (for example, the Catholic view on condoms), the social, moral or community roles of religion directly contradict what we can see that science would tell us (that people live longer, happier lives without AIDS, to continue the example). |
I have a different take on this. I think everything you just wrote is only true to some degree. But by and large, I do not think that human beings derive moral values from any self-aware thinking process, be it adherence to tradition/authority or logic/reason. What we as individuals initially bestow a sense of value on comes out of individual tendency plus upbringing. Then, whether someone is religious or not, I think they are equally likely to use rational thinking to consistently defend and live by the values they've adopted.
To give an example:
Let's take two values which require balance against each other: the value given to the lives and condition of life for animals AND the value given to the right of human beings to use animals for clothing, food, research, etc. All sorts of rational or irrational reasons could be given by different people to explain how they balance these two and where they draw their own line on what and how humans should be allowed to use animals. Some won't eat animals because of a belief in reincarnation. Others won't because they believe there is ample scientific evidence that animals have a certain degree of awareness and ability to deeply experience pain. But I think in every person's case, the conditions of their own cultural environment plus their own individual predispositions (I guess you could say that was genetic influence) contributes to establishing the value, and the rationalization or explanation of the value comes later.
Another example:
When people convert from one religion to another, I don't think the beliefs or lack of beliefs makes them think differently. It is no coincidence that increased anti-Muslim sentiment in America has compelled some Arabs to distance themselves personally from Islam and others to become more devout in their faith. Both sets of people would claim they are gravitating to that for personal reasons, but clearly when we look at the larger picture, their personal feelings are influenced by society. There is a reason black Americans in inner city Philadelphia are way more likely to convert to Sunni Islam than middle class white Americans living in Allentown. But those black Muslims truly claim to believe in the literal interpretations of Islam, and they will claim that their values to not get divorced, to not drink and smoke, etc. come from their faith, not their frustration and disgust with the generally violent and abusive urban youth culture.
I think it is the same with us religious skeptics. Whether a skeptic becomes a Libertarian or Liberal, or in some cases even Republican, Ayn Rand Objectivist or warm and fuzzy Humanist, Satanist or highly progressive Christian, apathetic to or passionate about politics, closet or outspoken atheist, etc., has little to do with reason and much to do with our personal tendencies and background experiences. We come up with the explanations for our own values after the fact.
I should mention that these ideas are not entirely my own. Much of my thoughts on how human beings develop a moral sense is agreeing with a lot in Marc Hauser's book "Moral Minds," which I believe I wrote a book review for a while ago on SFN. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/12/2008 16:45:33 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 16:49:54 [Permalink]
|
| I can't find my review to Moral Minds by Marc Hauser in the SFN archives. Did I not post it? If not, I can. I know I posted it to my blog. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 20:37:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Whether a skeptic becomes a Libertarian or Liberal, or in some cases even Republican, Ayn Rand Objectivist or warm and fuzzy Humanist, Satanist or highly progressive Christian, apathetic to or passionate about politics, closet or outspoken atheist, etc., has little to do with reason and much to do with our personal tendencies and background experiences. We come up with the explanations for our own values after the fact. |
You say you agree to some degree, but it seems to me that we're in complete agreement. I certainly wasn't saying that only religions lack a basis in science and skepticism. My enjoyment of Lewis Black's comedy certainly does not.
I was pointing out that Gould's NOMA was a solution to the science-vs-religion problem which completely missed what the problem is. The only values that science has are those of evidence and self-criticism. To most religions, such values would be self-defeating. Gould was wrong in thinking that the conflict is when two independent "realms of knowledge" overlap - the problem is when two diametrically opposed methods of gaining knowledge focus on the same subjects. And there is no way to keep them from doing so because science is constantly expanding and the devout tend to think that the object(s) of their beliefs have some effect on the real world.| I can't find my review to Moral Minds by Marc Hauser in the SFN archives. Did I not post it? If not, I can. I know I posted it to my blog. |
It's not in the archives. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2008 : 22:11:23 [Permalink]
|
Dave, yeah it seems we do agree. How dull. 
| I was pointing out that Gould's NOMA was a solution to the science-vs-religion problem which completely missed what the problem is. The only values that science has are those of evidence and self-criticism. To most religions, such values would be self-defeating. Gould was wrong in thinking that the conflict is when two independent "realms of knowledge" overlap - the problem is when two diametrically opposed methods of gaining knowledge focus on the same subjects. And there is no way to keep them from doing so because science is constantly expanding and the devout tend to think that the object(s) of their beliefs have some effect on the real world. |
This is an excellent way of putting it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 00:45:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dave, yeah it seems we do agree. How dull.
| I was pointing out that Gould's NOMA was a solution to the science-vs-religion problem which completely missed what the problem is. The only values that science has are those of evidence and self-criticism. To most religions, such values would be self-defeating. Gould was wrong in thinking that the conflict is when two independent "realms of knowledge" overlap - the problem is when two diametrically opposed methods of gaining knowledge focus on the same subjects. And there is no way to keep them from doing so because science is constantly expanding and the devout tend to think that the object(s) of their beliefs have some effect on the real world. |
This is an excellent way of putting it.
|
Marf, we haven't always communicated clearly on this issue and I know I share a blame in that. So I've decided to take a step back, reevaluate my words and actions, and start anew from a clean slate. Perhaps I can state my thoughts more clearly without further antagonizing things.
Because if you agree with what Dave's said here, I can't help but believe that our positions can't be that far apart. I feel that I've been trying to say this as well. In the past when I've said that there is a conflict between science and religion, this is *precisely* what I mean. When it comes to methods for acquiring knowledge, indeed even when it comes to what counts as knowledge, science and religion are diametrically opposed.
Science is applied skepticism. It works by testing assumptions. Trying to prove hypotheses wrong. It recognizes that individuals hold biases, and the scientific method is the system used to eliminate those biases. Things are not true because you wish them to be true, or because you have enough faith that it is true. Your personal desires don't come into it.
Religion, on the other hand, embraces bias. As Dave said, it literally requires it. Religion celebrates wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and all the other mental traps we as skeptics are taught to avoid. They call it faith. Even those religions that claim skepticism as a value never really apply it rigorously. If ones looks hard enough, there is always a departure point where skepticism is abandoned.
So that's the conflict in a nutshell. As you can see, it's all about methods of acquiring knowledge. NOMA seeks to starkly delineate science and religion's areas of inquiry, but it doesn't reconcile their methods. It's compartmentalizing. Not a true, lasting harmony. Just resolving the conflict temporarily by separating the combatants.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/13/2008 00:47:32 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 06:27:09 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Marf, we haven't always communicated clearly on this issue and I know I share a blame in that. So I've decided to take a step back, reevaluate my words and actions, and start anew from a clean slate. Perhaps I can state my thoughts more clearly without further antagonizing things. |
I appreciate this and thank you.
I'm the type of person who talks (or in this case, writes) to understand things better myself. And while I'm sure I more often than not fail to make what I'm trying to say clear, I get tired of strawmen and hostility. I'm on this forum to think and discuss, so I push harder on subjects where I think there is more chance for disagreement. Then I have a better chance of either clarifying in words and thoughts what I have a mere inkling of, or changing my mind about something. Both have happened for me on SFN.
| Religion, on the other hand, embraces bias. As Dave said, it literally requires it. Religion celebrates wishful thinking, confirmation bias, and all the other mental traps we as skeptics are taught to avoid. They call it faith. Even those religions that claim skepticism as a value never really apply it rigorously. If ones looks hard enough, there is always a departure point where skepticism is abandoned. |
And as I've said, I do not regard religion to be something which only tackles claims about reality. I also think many if not most people never confront themselves or are confronted by someone else to bother thinking about what they literally believe about things. (Edited to add: this is why I support and am part of freethought as a movement - to confront people. I think many people who are challenged to examine their beliefs will realize they are freethinkers.)
Indeed, NOMA has a huge blind spot, and that blind spot is why it fails to address the common conflicts between science and religion in exactly the way Dave said. But as Ghandi once said, "In any confrontation between two views, each side holds a bit of the truth" From all my thinking, reading, the discussing of this matter, I'm currently of this position:
-the biggest part of the conflict between religion and science is what Dave already said. In that case, I find truth clearly on the side of science.
-another part of the conflict is a semantics issue, and the failure of people to put importance on defining their terms, and also the problem of some people to assume to understand how terms are being used.
-a final part of the conflict comes from an inability of people on both sides to separate the knowledge and belief aspects of religion from all the other aspects, which include moral instruction, a sense of ultimate meaning, community, aesthetics, ritual, cathartic subjective experiences. Those on the side of science often mistake endulgence in the other aspects for an embrace of the irrational, and those on the side of religion will often assume that an attack on irrational beliefs is an attack on their community and rituals, their sense of overall meaning in life, and their chosen moral path. In The Four Horsemen, Sam Harris brought up the issue of powerful personal experiences that some individuals have, and which often end up being the greatest moments of their lives. These are often interpreted as "religious experiences" with some ridiculous and irrational claim about them, Harris suggest, because religion is the only institution which takes these experiences – which in-of-themselves are real and powerful – seriously.
In short, I agree with people when they say science belongs in the realm of acquiring knowledge about reality, and religion, or let's say spirituality since it tends to be much more broad and less tainted a term, belongs in the realm of meaning and morality. If both religious and nonreligious people who said that actually stuck to it instead of confusing literal claims about reality with what are literary devices and their connected experiences, indeed there would be no conflict between science and religion.
If applied universally, everyone would technically be agnostic, though individuals might still label themselves religiously. I honestly believe this shift in the nature of religion has already started to happen – consciously for some adherents, and unconsciously for those who've never bothered to stop and think about what they believe, but whose true beliefs are exhibited by their actions.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 04/13/2008 06:30:43 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 09:45:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
-another part of the conflict is a semantics issue, and the failure of people to put importance on defining their terms, and also the problem of some people to assume to understand how terms are being used. |
Yes, and I think this is the area that I think you feel too many skeptics give short shrift to. And by not properly addressing these universal human longings, albeit couched in religious language, I agree that many people see skepticism or a materialistic world view as impoverished, limited, and unappealing. But I also see religion (and by this I specifically mean supernatural world views, not secular philosophies), as ultimately unfulfilling in this area as well. Religion may offer answers, but not particularly good ones.
I think that observation by Harris is particularly astute: "religion is the only institution which takes these experiences seriously." However, I see this "interest" by religion to be entirely self-serving and predatory, like a psychic who offers a grieving mother the chance to contact a dead child. The problem with vague religious language is not that it facilitates poetic expression of the ineffable, but that it allows the faults and failings of religion to be obscured behind a haze of meaningless statements. Where you might be inclined to see an honest person wrestling with unanswerable questions, I see a con, even if the only mark a person is swindling is themselves. I think this has been the source of our greatest acrimony. In the past, I've read certain statements of yours as protective of this practice, mostly because you tend to have sympathy for people and give them the benefit of the doubt. I, on the other hand, see tolerance for indefinite language as propping up a form of dishonesty. Real truths can stand to be expressed clearly.
| -a final part of the conflict comes from an inability of people on both sides to separate the knowledge and belief aspects of religion from all the other aspects, which include moral instruction, a sense of ultimate meaning, community, aesthetics, ritual, cathartic subjective experiences. |
I wouldn't say an inability to separate, merely an unwillingness to do so. A great portion of my desire to expunge vague religious language stems from an effort to remove the barriers which the religious use to conceal their efforts to entwine the emotional, moral, and epistemological elements of their beliefs. Forcing people to clarify their beliefs is the first step to disentangling real human concerns from superfluous supernatural detritus. And I never assume people with non-literal supernatural beliefs have necessarily already done this. Often times such fuzzy language is a sign that they haven't done so. That they have a vested interest in keeping their beliefs nebulous and unexaminable.
In short, I agree with people when they say science belongs in the realm of acquiring knowledge about reality, and religion, or let's say spirituality since it tends to be much more broad and less tainted a term, belongs in the realm of meaning and morality. If both religious and nonreligious people who said that actually stuck to it instead of confusing literal claims about reality with what are literary devices and their connected experiences, indeed there would be no conflict between science and religion.
If applied universally, everyone would technically be agnostic, though individuals might still label themselves religiously. |
Yes! On this we agree totally. Perhaps then we're merely arguing over tactics, because I need to hear people state--in no uncertain terms--when they are or aren't "confusing literal claims about reality with what are literary devices." Religion can be a powerful narrative in people's lives even when adopted by those who don't necessarily imbue their beliefs with literalness. I think of Valiant Dancer, who is as a committed skeptic as you'll find, but who also finds value in the rituals and ceremonies of pagan worship. But the thing is that he is always clear about what he's doing, not only with us but to himself. I don't see any self-deception with him. And it makes all the difference in the world.
| I honestly believe this shift in the nature of religion has already started to happen – consciously for some adherents, and unconsciously for those who've never bothered to stop and think about what they believe, but whose true beliefs are exhibited by their actions. |
I'm not quite sure I share your optimism, and I definitely don't see those who fail to consciously delineate between the poetic and the supernatural elements of their beliefs as working toward rational skepticism. I see it as resistance.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/13/2008 09:49:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 14:50:30 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by H. Humbert
Real truths can stand to be expressed clearly. |
I would agree with this so long as the caveat is made that sometimes the real truth is "we don't know."
I submit that the questions for which "we don't know" is the only truthful answer are those questions for which most religions presume to have an answer (and in many cases, a not-very-good answer). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 04/13/2008 : 16:09:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Dude wrote: | No, because the claims you list after my bolding are explicitly about the naatural world. Just because there is no way to prove or disprove a claim doen't mean it should get a free pass. |
I totally agree. So to explicitly refrain from dealing with those claims isn't an expression of religious neutrality, it is assigning religious privilege. Would you (or anyone else) agree?
|
As a proud member of "anyone else", I agree!
I' sure we've all seen this aversion to dealing with religious claims before. I understand it to a certain degree, especially for smaller groups trying to increase their membership or popularity.
In fact, the Australian Skeptics have discussed this in the past. See this somewhat old article "That the Skeptics should not tackle religion" for a good example.
I believe this article mostly boils down to a matter of focus (or focuses on focus, if you will), and , as it turns out, the Australian Skeptics decidedly do deal with religious claims and ratbaggery, in practice if not in (strict) principle. |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 04/14/2008 : 06:40:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I have a couple questions that have come up in recent conversations with others, and I'd love you guys' input ('cause I really respect the regulars on this forum and view you as skeptics with dedication and integrity):
What would it mean for a skeptic organization to be religiously neutral? |
Guess: Questions of religion have been scoped out of the organization's charter? (For whatever reason...)
| Can an organization claim to be apolitical, speak out against creationism and ID in public school, and not be hypocritical? |
Yes. Politics is the means here. But the real issue is the goal, which is cultural. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 04/15/2008 : 11:32:21 [Permalink]
|
Humbert wrote: | Yes, and I think this is the area that I think you feel too many skeptics give short shrift to. And by not properly addressing these universal human longings, albeit couched in religious language, I agree that many people see skepticism or a materialistic world view as impoverished, limited, and unappealing. But I also see religion (and by this I specifically mean supernatural world views, not secular philosophies), as ultimately unfulfilling in this area as well. Religion may offer answers, but not particularly good ones. |
I agree about supernatural worldviews. Again, the difference we are having is that you regard religion as primarily being a supernatural worldview, and I regard religion as primarily being different things depending on the community.
| I think that observation by Harris is particularly astute: "religion is the only institution which takes these experiences seriously." However, I see this "interest" by religion to be entirely self-serving and predatory, like a psychic who offers a grieving mother the chance to contact a dead child. The problem with vague religious language is not that it facilitates poetic expression of the ineffable, but that it allows the faults and failings of religion to be obscured behind a haze of meaningless statements. |
I agree on this when it is a religion (and sadly these kinds are the vast majority) that claims to give dogmatic answers, rather that providing community which encourages critical thinking, and narratives – totally open to interpretation - through which to filter these experiences. Quakers sit in silence until they are moved by the spirit to speak. The Inner Light isn't defined as anything in particular, which is what has opened the door to Buddhist and atheist Quakers. That is the type of religious community that is not taking advantage of people, but rather, bringing them together in a sense of a shared sense of meaning and concern for the betterment of humanity.
| Where you might be inclined to see an honest person wrestling with unanswerable questions, I see a con, even if the only mark a person is swindling is themselves. |
They only swindle themselves if they commit to any irrational answers. Consideration and meditation on those answers alone is not irrational, and can be part of personally meaningful experiences and thoughts.
| I think this has been the source of our greatest acrimony. In the past, I've read certain statements of yours as protective of this practice, |
You have often confused my political defense of all law-abiding religious communities to be tolerated with my personal defense of non-theistic, non-dogmatic religion to be encouraged and seen as skeptical allies. I do not defend irrational beliefs from intellectual criticism. In fact, I have over the years eagerly participated in the intellectual criticism of irrational beliefs.
| mostly because you tend to have sympathy for people and give them the benefit of the doubt. |
It may be that I give certain progressive religious folks the benefit of the doubt, and perhaps some of them are just mangling language when they express their beliefs. But so far I'm not convinced of that and I am still claiming that many progressive "believers" are ultimately freethinking agnostics.
| I, on the other hand, see tolerance for indefinite language as propping up a form of dishonesty. Real truths can stand to be expressed clearly. |
Maybe I'm more sympathetic to and aware of the limitations of language because I'm a visual artist. I can tell you what moves me, but I can't share that experience with you. Many truths which are expressed through the "lies" of fiction, poetry, and art are communicated far more effectively through those methods. I respect religious people who are advanced enough in their thinking to realize that all the sky daddy, soul, heaven and hell, and other literal stuff is a far cry from the reality of the spiritual experience. I don't see it as dishonesty or any kind of failing that they can't get across the truth of their experiences clearly in words except to say what it is not.
| A great portion of my desire to expunge vague religious language stems from an effort to remove the barriers which the religious use to conceal their efforts to entwine the emotional, moral, and epistemological elements of their beliefs. Forcing people to clarify their beliefs is the first step to disentangling real human concerns from superfluous supernatural detritus. And I never assume people with non-literal supernatural beliefs have necessarily already done this. Often times such fuzzy language is a sign that they haven't done so. That they have a vested interest in keeping their beliefs nebulous and unexaminable. |
I'm sure that's true of some and not true of others. And as you said, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt. However, only if their actions mirror what I want to assume of their beliefs.
| Yes! On this we agree totally. Perhaps then we're merely arguing over tactics, because I need to hear people state--in no uncertain terms--when they are or aren't "confusing literal claims about reality with what are literary devices." Religion can be a powerful narrative in people's lives even when adopted by those who don't necessarily imbue their beliefs with literalness. |
I think we are arguing other both tactics and one other thing. I think there are agnostics and atheists who don't know they are agnostic or atheist because they've either never thought about it or they are using religious words because they're scared off by the connotations of "atheist", "doubt" and "skeptic", and warmed by the connotations of words like "faith", "believer". You might say I'm being condescending toward those individuals by excusing their behavior out of sympathy and lack of confidence in such peoples' ability to be linguistically honest with themselves. And yes, I am being condescending. Can't help it – I just don't believe that everyone is equally capable of rational thought and equally capable of separating their emotions enough to be totally honest about their true beliefs that their actions clearly confirm are.
| I think of Valiant Dancer, who is as a committed skeptic as you'll find, but who also finds value in the rituals and ceremonies of pagan worship. But the thing is that he is always clear about what he's doing, not only with us but to himself. I don't see any self-deception with him. And it makes all the difference in the world. |
I was under the impression that Val does have religious beliefs. Based on this: | But, Marf, we theists do embrace the irrational with these beliefs. |
From this conversation: http://www.skepticfriends.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=9719&whichpage=5&SearchTerms=irrational
But he'll have to clear that up for us.
| I'm not quite sure I share your optimism, and I definitely don't see those who fail to consciously delineate between the poetic and the supernatural elements of their beliefs as working toward rational skepticism. I see it as resistance. |
It is pretty normal and natural for people to consciously resist change even as their actions embrace it. The only sort of resistance to a modern, secular, and humanistic society that I worry about is the politically active sort, not the personal and passive sort.
|
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
two random questions
