Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Why I talk to Christians; Not God

I have perpetuated a misunderstanding that is entirely my fault. Hopefully this blog entry will clear up any confusion.

It was pointed out elsewhere that many of my blogs have to do with Christians. And problems within the Christian community. Because of this focus it was felt (again I can see why) that the reason I deconverted was due to my disappointment with Christians, not so much with Christ.

To briefly reiterate my reasons for deconverting: within my profession we are often placed in situations where we are trying to determine the basic question “what happened?” among a variety of competing positions, statements, proofs and arguments. In order to do so, we developed a methodology whereby a neutral person (or persons) decides which arguments, based upon the facts presented, are more compelling.

We become proficient at determining which arguments will fly, and which will not to people who have no stake in the outcome. I became involved in discussions with non-believers, who provided arguments and facts I had not heard before, except by those who didn’t actually believe them. This opened my eyes to a whole new world of possibilities.

Over and over, as I applied the methodology I use in every other aspect of my life to the questions surrounding Christianity and theism, it was obvious that a neutral party would never find in favor of Christianity. Eventually I reached a point where it was becoming harder and harder to have faith in something I was convinced was not true; despite my desire to maintain my belief.

I could not force my mind to grasp something that at every turn, it questioned why I could believe that, when I knew no jury ever would. That if I was faced with defending Christianity on a legal front, I would be desperately attempting to settle my case, as no jury would find in my favor.

I deconverted from Christianity to atheism. I have written my story elsewhere. To continue to do so would be as boring as watching paint dry.

I debated on a few forums, and even wrote some blogs about arguments for/against God or an aspect of Christianity. Much of me feels this ground is well-trod. Are there new arguments? Yes. But they seem so few and far between, and we seem caught in this perpetual rut of debating the same things over and over. I actually sigh, now, every time I see, “All of the disciples were willing to die for their belief in a physically resurrected Jesus.” How many times can one blog on that?

And it does me no good to blog about what God should or should not be doing. There is no God. Many of us chuckle when we read “you are angry at god.” We have to believe it exists before we can be angry about ‘im, silly! It is similar to saying “You are angry at your College Chemistry Professor.” A resounding point…if I had chemistry in college. Since I did not—the entity “my Chemistry professor” does not exist. Therefore, it is quite hard to get very worked up about him or her.

And how many blogs can I write about what textbook my Chemistry professor should or should not have used? Since there is no such person—that can get a little dry.

But Christians!

Oh, I am quite certain and convinced that Christians exist. And while I may not have much say in what a non-existent God would do; I can hope that perhaps, just by writing a few words, I can have Christians pause and reflect for a moment as to how they appear to skeptics. Maybe even give a new thought or reflection to other theists, or agnostics or atheists or whomever.

I still think that blogs which provide arguments both for and against theism are important. I may still blog a few arguments myself. I most definitely think that blogs that argue for and against Christianity are important. I will absolutely blog regarding Biblical topics in the future.

What has currently drawn my attention, and hence my blogging topics, though, is less the actual arguments themselves, and more the people. How the arguments are presented. What believers perceive skeptics need to hear, what skeptics perceive believers are like.

How I see Christianity handling the upcoming crop of deconverts. (Not well.)

See, I am not writing blogs to have some Christian read, smack themselves on the head, and proclaim “In one reading I have gone from devout Christian to some other belief.” I think that deconversion is a personal journey. I am unaware of any person that was “argued” into deconverting. We search on our own; it is not discovered on a billboard.

I am writing blogs to hopefully make people think. Pause. Learn a bit. I envision most deconverts read my posts, nod their heads, and say, “Yep. Already knew that.” Perhaps a new insight on occasion. When I write to and about Christians, I hope they re-evaluate their presentation to the world.

To be honest, if more Christians actually practiced “Love your neighbor” my blogs could be shorter!

So if you think, because of my emphasis on how Christians act, that this had any part of my deconversion—I apologize. I do not mean to give that impression.

I emphasize on how Christians act because…well…that is how they act! Very very much like the humans that they are.

20 comments:

  1. Another good article, as usual.

    I definitely read my own experiences as you summarize your deconversion ("I applied the methodology I use in every other aspect of my life to the questions surrounding Christianity") and why you're not "mad at God".

    The only person I ever got mad at during my disillusionment about God, was myself, for letting me be so thoroughly fooled by it all. I never even felt angry at my parents for raising me in it, or at various church leaders for promoting it. How could I be? I knew how they had gotten where they were, because I had been there myself.

    ReplyDelete
  2. My de-conversion does not involve any bad church experience either. I noticed some hypocrisy from Christians, of course, but there are hypocrites everywhere. I'm also not mad at God. I am, however, mad at Christians who believe in hell and believe that their God is good (I haven't gotten outwardly mad at anyone about it or anything yet, but if anyone tries to defend it, I probably will). It just strikes me as totally ridiculous. The thing is, I believed it too. I thought it was the "right" thing to do, to believe it, and so do they. They don't think it's ridiculous or wrong or anything. One year ago I thought the same way, so I really shouldn't be mad at them. But, there are hypocrites everywhere. :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. I envision most deconverts read my posts, nod their heads, and say, “Yep. Already knew that.”

    Read most of your blogs dagoods and I've, like you alluded up there nodded my head all the time.

    You are right, deconversion is a personal journey and I hope my friends and family have the yearn and courage to undertake it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The trouble with talking about how "Christians" act is that you are talking about a group of people who self-identify. In your last post, you pointed out the difficulty of making any statement about "fundamentalists", because so few people identify themselves as "fundamentalists". The opposite is true of Christians. You may say anything you like about Christians and it's going to be true because first of all, there are so many people who call themselves Christians.

    So what you are saying is that there are a whole lotta stupid church people out there.

    Nod. Yep. Already knew that. And I haven't even deconverted. :^)

    Church people are famous for being hypocrites, squabblers, and rotters in general. I used to try to separate myself from them. I joined groups that tended to have a lower percentage of Christians - environmental groups and more liberal thinkers, but then I realized that the same foolishness and nasty-ness went on amongst them. It's not as widely publicized, but the environmentalists disagree about whether it's better to re-use or recycle, and the hard-core group gets ticked with those who eat steak or use paper bags instead of cloth ones; vegetarians fight with lacto-ovo-vegetarians and vegans - it's sick! You'd think we could get together to deal with the important things!

    Then one day I realized that I am like that, too.

    The problem is not that we are Christians. The problem is that we are humans. I know that when I own up to being a Christian, I am more or less advertising that I am a close-minded conservative. I am not that. I could protest. I could provide lists of ridiculous doctrines others ascribe to but I do not. But the truth is, I am worse than stupid. I am selfish and lazy. I have known Love and yet chosen selfishness. I have tasted freedom and returned to my rut because I didn't want to struggle. Should I add those things to my lists?

    But Jesus - he is the only relief I have from myself. He is the most beautiful, pure, warm, deep, true thing I have ever encountered. I have chosen him, and I won't let him go. It doesn't matter who thinks me a fool. If it is true and I am one, I likely wouldn't know it.

    But this I know - Jesus is all I long to be, and in him I am more and dream of more than I could ever have before.

    I respect the conclusions you have drawn. I appreciate the criticisms you have made. I know you aren't asking me to deconvert. But DagoodS, God has already pointed these things out to us. If people who profess to follow him don't listen to him, it's not likely they're going to listen to you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. jennypo: If people who profess to follow him don't listen to him, it's not likely they're going to listen to you.

    Sigh. But I can hope, can’t I? You are correct. The vast, vast huge predominance of people who carry the title of Christian both:

    1) Have heard most of what I say before and;
    2) Won’t listen to me anyway.

    Yet it is enjoyable for me to write, and perhaps one person will pause. One would be enough, I think.

    ReplyDelete
  6. jennypo,

    "If people who profess to follow him don't listen to him, it's not likely they're going to listen to you."

    The problem for many of us deconverts runs a little deeper than "Christians" who don't "listen" to Jesus. Rather, the problem is identifying a "Jesus" to "listen to."

    ReplyDelete
  7. I think there is a whole lot of pausing going on. :-)

    aka Zoe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Paul,
    Sorry if I came across as belittling what you and others have been through. That's not what I meant to do. I was smacked in the head with questions a few years ago, and I know it's not easy having your whole understanding of things turned upside down.
    I'm no advocate of the "just believe" theological party. (and there I go with my lists of what I don't believe yet again, *sigh*...) :^)

    ReplyDelete
  9. I read some of your earliest posts just now and wells as the accompanying comments. I think there are a lot of fatal flaws in your post about having an impartial jury judge between Christian theism and everything else. You said that every one is atheistic when it comes to other people's theisms. That's not quite the case. Comparing the Christian God to belief in Venus is a lot different than comparing it with belief in Allah. You also said that most people in history support your position because they were atheistic on the question of the existence of the Christian God. This is a fallacy because it assumes that religious beliefs are wholly mutually exclusive systems. Granted, there is a huge difference between Christian theism and Muslim, Jewish, or Zoroastrian theism (and any other kind of theism you can think of) but they all share a belief in a creator-God. Most of humanity has and currently does acknowledge some higher power.

    Imagine a different courtroom situation. On one side are people from throughout history of all religious persuasions. On the other side are the post-Enlightenment Western materialists. It is actually the second group that is in the minority. I am not saying here that because of this they are wrong, they could very well be correct. All I am pointing out is that they are in a distinct minority. Perhaps someone would also point out that they exist as a reaction against the belief system that led to the modern scientific method. I am speaking here of Christian theism. It would also be pointed out that many of their own assumptions in both their own intellectual thinking and everyday decision-making and valuing are taken piecemeal from the hated faith of Christianity.

    I'm not usually this assertive but since you appeared on Jim's blog to be someone interested in truth, I thought that it would good to follow up.

    Here's a C.S. Lewis quote that sums up my view: "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else."

    Here's another quote that I think those who have deconvert blogs that bash Christianity ought to think about (it is also from Lewis): "Christianity, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The only thing it cannot be is moderately important."

    ReplyDelete
  10. **Granted, there is a huge difference between Christian theism and Muslim, Jewish, or Zoroastrian theism (and any other kind of theism you can think of) but they all share a belief in a creator-God.**

    But isn't this a somewhat modern way of looking at other religions? Because even today, there are fundamentalist that would say other religions are deceived by the devil, and don't follow any sort of creator-God, period. And I'm sure we could find that view in a stronger sense the farther back we go in history.

    **Perhaps someone would also point out that they exist as a reaction against the belief system that led to the modern scientific method. I am speaking here of Christian theism. **

    I wouldn't say that all of the post-Enlightenments hate Christianity. Rather, they hate how it is used to hurt other people. I mean, as it is, the impression is usually that many Christians are the last to accept scientific discoveries, rather than leading the discoveries.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ron,

    Thank you for taking the time to review some of my past posts and comments. Very kind of you. I will do a blog entry regarding some of your concerns, but to give it to you in a nutshell, “Fine. You don’t have to like my methodology. What methodology, as an alternative, do you propose we use to verify the truthfulness of theistic claims?”

    I would agree that “post-Enlightment Western materialists” would also be in the minority if we gathered all the beliefs together in a stadium. In fact, every belief would be in the minority. That was partly the point—we all agree that beliefs are minority positions, and that some are more incorrect than others, and possibly ALL are incorrect. The question is how to weed out the more incorrect from the less incorrect? How to get as correct as possible?

    And what is wrong with taking values, decision-making and intellectual thinking from other beliefs—including Christianity? I would hope that is exactly what we do—if we find something is closer to reality, regardless of who promulgated it, or what their beliefs are—we would embrace it. Would I really care if a Hindu discovered the cure for cancer?

    As to the uniformity of creationism—this exemplifies the point I make in my methodology. Even though many theists believe that god created the universe—they lack the belief (i.e. are atheistic) as to how OTHER theists claim that gods created the world. Do you agree with the Chinese concept of yin/yang and a dragon with a cloud? Or the Hindu concept of Brahma and Shiva creating and destroying worlds? Or the Aztec concept of ages of destruction and the sun created by the blood of a god?

    I could go on and on, but I suspect that you do not believe in the gods of these stories. Even though many (but not all) god-beliefs have a god-creator, they disagree and vary to vast extents as to how that creation came about. You may claim a “similarity” in god-belief by virtue of both holding god as having creative abilities, but there the similarity ends.

    (We can also note how creation stories have changed over the learning of new information. Such as YEC to OEC to Theistic Evolution.)

    As to your C.S. Lewis quotes:

    C.S. Lewis typically falls prey to dichotomy reasoning. Like Jesus being either Liar, Lord or Lunatic. Lewis can’t conceptualize other possibilities, such as Legend, or a combination of the four. It is all or nothing with him.

    Lewis says Christianity is either true and infinite importance or false and no importance. Nonsense. Simply because something is not true does not mean it is not important. How does truth equate to importance? Is Islam true? Most Christians would say no. Does that make in unimportant? Was the Japanese belief of the superiority of their race during WWII true? Nope—but it was extremely important in understanding their tactics.

    And how do we define “important”? Was Heaven’s gate true? Nope. Was it “important” to most of the world? Nope. Was it “important” to the families whose loved ones committed suicide? Absolutely.

    I thought about Lewis’ quotes. Not put together very well, is what I think.

    (And never fear. You were not too assertive or offensive at all in your comment.)

    ReplyDelete
  12. To be honest, I'm not sure what methodology to use when evalutating theistic and/or religious claims. I know that one has to use what are called the "three eyes." The first eye would be the eye of the senses, which is the one we use to make observations about the natural world. This is the eye that is most emphasized by our own Western culture. The second eye is that of mathematics and logic. Through it we see that our universe is well ordered by these very real but invisible laws. The acient Greeks called this the "the Logos." The third eye has been in bad repute ever since the Enlightenment. It is the eye of inner mystical or existential experience. Also, I would say that the old Greek categories of the Good, the True and the Beautiful ought to be used. A religious faith, or a secular philosophy or any life-guiding path ought to satisfy all three criteria as well as acknowledge and form a coherent account of the three "eyes." A life-guiding view (I dislike the term "worldview") needs to account for all these things that I just mentioned in a way that doesn't collapse them into only one category. That is, reductionism doesn't work.

    I agree with you that taking values from different views is a good thing when those views are closer to reality. The point I was making was that some holistic views are closer to reality than others. I think borrowing prayer from Christianity into an atheistic life-view makes as much sense as stating (in the hypothetical case of the Hindu scientist) that the Hindu life-view led to the cure for cancer. Atheism is to prayer what Hinduism is to the scientific method.

    With regard to the other theists, and everyone else, we have to evaluate their creation beliefs separately given what we know about the universe from modern science. This is true of the variety of Christian creation beliefs as well.

    As for Lewis, I will give you that he does fall prey to dichotomy reasoning, especially in the case of the "Lord, Liar, Lunatic" argument. I believe that the quote about the importance of Christianity relates not to Christianity as a public issue, i.e. how Islam is important because of recent events, but its importance in relation to one's personal existential life. If Christianity is false then there is no point in worrying about it personally, since it literally doesn't matter.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ron, I have always been intrigued with Karen Armstrong’s notion of balance between logos and mythos. I understand the concern of over-emphasis on either to the exclusion of the other. (Not that this means I am good at balancing the two. Not at all.)

    I have no objection to your three eyes principle. The question (as I posted in my recent blog entry) is how we determine which is the reality.

    For example, using observation and logic, we can develop the scientific method by which we determine the arguments that the earth revolves around the sun are more compelling than that the sun revolves around the earth. The perpetual problem with that third eye is to determine any such method of verification.

    And there is a bit of cross-over. If one person makes a claim to have made a prophesy that was fulfilled, for example, we use our observation and logic to review when they made the prophesy, how specific it was, and in what manner it was fulfilled.

    A bit like people making up statements out of Nostradamus to claim he predicted 9/11. He didn’t. But we used our first two eyes to eliminate the possibility of the mythos of the third eye. (Which raises the perpetual question of which, if any, trumps the other? If I have faith in something that you observe to not be true, does my third eye trump your first eye or vice versa? Tough questions.)

    Again, I thank you for your comment, and the thoughtful way in which you presented it.

    Oh, and as to Lewis talking about personally not worrying about Christianity, I would agree. But what if your spouse is a Christian? Your family is a Christian? What if a large segment of the country in which you live is Christian? Does that rise to the level of “important” enough to talk about it? It does to me. But I have to admit, if my wife, family and country wasn’t—I probably would have abandoned the topic long ago.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Dagood wrote it was obvious that a neutral party would never find in favor of Christianity

    Very true. That's why Adam and Eve's neutrality led them into immediate disobedience. That was the lesson anyway.

    The trial scenario doesn't work for me because it's like having a trial on whether trials exist. The universe, being an effect, must have a cause which was not an effect. This is impossible in nature, but yet we are here. If there is a trial that can rule beyond a reasonable doubt that there is at least one natural exception to the theory of causality that explains our universe, then the verdict is in. Good luck with that.:-)

    Ron's mention of the third eye is very meaningful to this discussion. Conversion journeys are very similar to deconversion journeys in that you become more and more certain of your beliefs through experience and insight. The third eye is usually the last to sharpen its sight.

    When William James wrote his Varieties of Religious Experience he quickly discarded the "hypocritical church people" element from his sample. It was all too obvious from a scientific point of view that little or no external force had truly been applied to these people. That is the way that I see Christians who, as Dagood put it, "act very very much like the humans that they are" and, I could add, not becoming like the humans they should be. They have not been changed. No effect equals no cause.

    Regards and, as always, well- written post.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Jim Jordan,

    It’s fine if you don’t like the use of my methodology. But then we are stuck with the same, continual problem—what methodology do you propose? Or do we completely abandon all methods entirely and reduce ourselves to “I think that…” with no attempt to relate whether what that person thinks is in tune with reality?

    And, as I stated in my latest blog entry, does this methodology provide a means whereby a person will recognize being wrong and change their belief? Or is it just whatever each person chooses to believe?

    As to the universe, regardless of how it got here, whether it is an effect or cause or neither, it IS here, and we are relating to it. The question is whether what a person says directly conforms to the reality.

    If I tell you that Elvis Presley was a President of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Constitution, you are able to research and investigate (through your own methodology) and come up with the conclusion that I am correct or not. Regardless of whether the universe is a cause or effect or neither.

    Why is it that claiming Jesus was born during Herod the Great (Matthew) is contradictory to staying Jesus was born when Quirinius was Governor (Luke) and the same methodology that determines Elvis was not President is tossed out the window?

    THAT is what I am talking about when it comes to neutrality. Not moral decisions—but rather decisions to determine “what happened?” Any other occasion, a Christian would call it a contradiction, but when it comes to what they perceive as a Holy Writing, they lose neutrality and become biased. Not biased morally, but biased toward a belief that it conforms to reality.

    I don’t use “beyond a reasonable doubt” in my methodology. I use preponderance of the evidence, or “more likely than not.”

    ReplyDelete
  16. jennypo wrote:
    "Paul,
    Sorry if I came across as belittling what you and others have been through."

    Jennypo,
    You didn't come across that way at all. My response was really matter of fact. I find you much easier to listen to than "Jesus" because I can reasonably ascertain that you exist and that we are actually having a conversation. :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi dagood
    I use preponderance of the evidence, or “more likely than not.”

    So this is a 51/49 trial. That's fine. Now, is it "more likely than not" that proteins organized themselves into complex, living nanofactories or is it more likely that an external, intelligent force organized it? The fact is, if there is no intelligent force behind the universe, then it could not exist. That's why I said, "a trial to determine whether trials exist". Until you can find a way that matter can come from nothing, and life from dead matter, the existence of God fits our knowledge of reality best.

    Regarding Jesus Christ, the evidence is less convincing by our standards. It's not impossible that that was intentional BTW. You've remarked before how much of what Jesus said is rational while the few things you pointed out, like Mark 4:11-12 over at society's blog had to do with God's sovereignty.

    But a sovereign God is necessary to make reason reasonable, to make right right and wrong wrong. I look to God not just as the author of our spirituality, but the author of our rationality also.

    Last, your Elvis analogy has one small problem. Elvis lived between January 8, 1935 and August 16, 1977. No president named Elvis Presley served during those years. While the reconciliation of governor Quirinius' census and Herod the Great's lifespan has many problems, the current governor of Syria from 4 - 1 BC is a guy named "Uncertain". Was he a Democrat or Republican? The problem: First century data still has a way to go before we get the complete picture. The Quirinius/Herod trial is a "beyond a reasonable doubt" trial, no?

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Jim Jordan: Now, is it "more likely than not" that proteins organized themselves into complex, living nanofactories or is it more likely that an external, intelligent force organized it?

    To determine what is “more likely” we would need the odds of a God creating life. (Since that is what this is comparing—the odds of natural abiogenesis vs. the odds of supernatural abiogenesis.) Jim Jordan, humans cannot even tell me the odds of what God ate for breakfast (or if she even eats breakfast!) let alone what the odds are for a God creating.

    Jim Jordan: While the reconciliation of governor Quirinius' census and Herod the Great's lifespan has many problems, the current governor of Syria from 4 - 1 BC is a guy named "Uncertain". Was he a Democrat or Republican? The problem: First century data still has a way to go before we get the complete picture. The Quirinius/Herod trial is a "beyond a reasonable doubt" trial, no?

    No. There are numerous problems that would have to be resolved.

    First—we know who was governor. Publius Quinctilius Varus. Governor from approximately 6 BCE to some time after the death of Herod the Great. If you follow the link in your wikipedia article immediately above “Uncertain” you will read how Varus was Governor of Syria until AFTER Herod’s death. How do we know this? Because he quashed a revolt in Judea after Herod’s death.

    How do we fit in Quirinius at some time in 4 BCE while Herod was alive? We can’t.

    Second—we know where Quirinius was. A Duumvirate in Pisidian Antioch is as commander of the forces he led against the Homanadenses. He was busy fighting a war, not governing Syria.

    Third—we know of a census at the time Quirinius took, which matches perfectly with Luke’s description, but in 6 CE.

    Fourth—Rome would NEVER take a census of a tributary state. Too much work for no gain. During the period of Herod the Great, Judea paid a tribute to Rome, as a client-state. Rome did not care whether Judea had one or one million citizens—it had to pay its tribute. After Herod Archelaus (Herod the Great’s son) made a complete screw-up of Judea, Rome took over Judea as a Roman province.

    At that point Judea would typically switch from a tributary state to a direct tax state. And the reason for a census? Taxing! The most natural thing for the new governor (Quirinius) to do, in order to do direct tax is to do a census. We would normally expect a census to occur. (Just like it did in the Iudaea.) And it did.

    Sixth—the gospel of Luke was written by a human. Humans are known to make mistakes.

    Are you SURE you are staying consistent with your methodology by saying that this is not “more likely” that Luke made a mistake here?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Publius Quinctilius Varus

    Are you certain? Fine. I'll write him onto my calendar. You might want to write him in over at Wikipedia...


    the gospel of Luke was written by a human. Humans are known to make mistakes.

    True. Luke was a meticulous researcher and if he was mistaken about which census it is surprising. Would Scripture still be God-breathed in that case? I think so. God's focus would be to bring us in communion with Him.

    And this Jim Jordan, humans cannot even tell me the odds of what God ate for breakfast (or if she even eats breakfast!) let alone what the odds are for a God creating.

    Sounds like you're making yourself dizzy here. The question was simply "did life organize itself from dead matter or was it organized by an intelligent power"?

    Its not about the odds "for a God creating". What do you think the "intelligent designer" would be, a mouse? God is what we call the so-and-so who must be responsible for all this.

    Thanks for the history lesson. Talk to you soon.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I notice this thread ended a while ago, but I’ve gotta get in here.

    Jim, I find it telling that you insist there is only one possible “intelligent designer,” yet your fellow Christians fighting for “teaching the controversy” make no such stance. Well, at least we can say you’re honest.

    There are at least 22 “major” religions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_world_religions), and approximately 33.06% of the world population is Christian.

    You believe the question is “either the Christian God did it or not” because you are Christian. However, you are forgetting that 66.94% of the world has a different idea in mind when they talk about God. You cannot lump people into “either-or” categories. Things are never that simple.

    It is more likely than not life developed organically. Currently, there are several promising theories of the origins of life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life). Even if all of these are eventually disproved doesn’t mean “God did it” is the only answer remaining. We don’t yet have a complete picture of the beginning of life, but that doesn’t mean we never will.

    ReplyDelete