Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME FORUMS BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Thu Jul 31, 2014 12:35 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 
Ch. 3 - Realms of the spirit 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Owner
Diamond Contributor 3

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 13861
Location: Florida
Thanks: 1880
Thanked: 720 times in 572 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)
Highscores: 10

Post Ch. 3 - Realms of the spirit
This thread is for discussing Ch. 3 - Realms of the spirit. ::75




Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:02 pm
Profile Email YIM WWW
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Ch. 3 - Realms of the spirit
Author's note

This chapter attacks all forms of dualism and defends the scientific process and rationality in general as our best tool for comprehending life, the universe and everything. Along the way I speculate about the origins of ideas about the supernatural and some of the dangers of magical thinking. The claim here is not that rationality is about absolute or certain knowledge but that it is our chief tool of survival and offers the best means of learning what can be learned.

George

http://www.godlessinamerica.com

"Godlessness is not about denying the existence of nonsensical beings. It is the starting point for living life without them."

Godless in America by George A. Ricker




Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:01 am
Profile WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post Chapter Three: Realms of the Spirit
1. I disagree that it's "not difficult to understand how human beings first came up with the idea" of a spirit associated with living creatures. Our familiarity with the concept tends to mask just how novel and radical an idea it must have been. Why would ancient people have decided that the seat of the personality was something that escaped from the body at regular intervals? Moreover, what surprises us about many primitive societies is not the naivite of their thought, but its sophistication. And the elements that strike us as naive seem more often than not to have developed alongside of, if not after, the developments that startle us with their sophistication. Thus, religious conceptions associated with iron, meteors and the crucible do not seem to have preceded the development of metallurgy. I'd say it's entirely unlikely that the idea of the spirit was the result of any form of crude evidentiary method -- in other words, our ancestors likely did not conceive of the spirit because they didn't understand the phenomenon they witnessed, but because their familiarity with those phenomenon made them useful as symbols for something else.

2. As a matter of historical clarification, it was the philosophers and scientists responsible for developing modern scientific method who deliminated it such that "the realms of the spirit" were off-limits to its method. They did so, in fact, in order to keep religious speculation out of scientific inquiry, and to circumvent any attempts to explain natural phenomenon by reference to a divine order. Hume, for one, was instrumental in demarcating the territory of science; Descartes, as well. I'm not sure that Voltaire actually added anything substantive to scientific method, but his work also contributed to the formation of a methodology that set aside a priori any non-material claim. A lot of modern scientific critics of religion (again: Dennett, for instance) seem to demand the benefits of that demarcation without accepting the limitations it implies. But those limitations are the direct logical consequence of the very deliberately developed nature of scientific method.

3. While we're at it, the natural/supernatural dichotomy is also, as best as I can tell, a fairly recent concept, an adaptation of neo-Platonic ideas forwarded by Enlightenment rationalists who wanted to compartmentalize religious thought enough to make it possible to ignore altogether. The adoption of that dichotomy among religious groups seems to have been a more gradual process and, from their perspective, an unfortunate one. Any time one group adopts a term intended by another group to polemicize a topic, they open themselves to all sorts of criticisms that wouldn't have been available otherwise. And the more they buy into the terminology of that polemic, they more likely that are to restructure their own thought in ways that make them even more susceptible to criticism. It seems entirely likely that, prior to the Enlightenment, most Christians conceived of the universe as an Aristotelian unity, wherein the divine pantheon was part of the natural order. There was no supernatural realm to speak of, and with that conception, it was still possible for orthodox Christians to cognize science as a legitimate tool mandated by God for understanding the natural world. There's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that this was the case. What seems to have happened in the meantime is that the natural/supernatural dichotomy has set the stage for a social schism over the value of science in relation to religious belief, whereas, without that dichotomy, modern Christianity might have made a more earnest attempt to reconcile scientific inquiry with religious doctrine, and vice-versa.

4. Incidentally, all the talk of bamboozling and "the perfect con" -- you seem to be drifting even further from you stated goal of talking about religion and atheism "in a way that is neither patronizing nor elitist."

5. And on the subject of reason and the irrational, I can understand your bewilderment. The debate between the rational and irrational impulse is one that seems odd outside of its historical context, and our society has largely lost sight of that context, despite the fact that some of the best statements of the problem were made within memory of many still living. (I'm thinking specifically of T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" and George Steiner's "In Bluebeard's Castle".) As late as the 17th century, Reason was still a concept dear to the Christian heart. But at some point during the Enlightenment, reason became something of a polemical term, a way of compelling agreement and cooperation by asserting the your position was more objectively valid. Once reason was established as the sort of problem-solving that should be possible for any normally functioning person, it became equally possible to argue that, so long as your solution was rational, there was no impediment to imposing it on others because, after all, given all the facts, they'd have come to the same conclusion.

A fair starting point is the prominant place given to reason in the French Revolution -- you can take that language literally, since during the Revolution a ceremony was held in which a woman dressed as Reason personified was feted and crowned in Notre Dame cathedral. (Carl Becker, "The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth Century Philosophes") But the Revolution was violent, disruptive affair, and its results have not been entirely well-regarded, even by those who were its putative benefactors. Another major stage was the rise of the industrial revolution, and the rise of the industrial factory system was accompanied with a great deal of propaganga to the effect that even the pisspoor living conditions of the workers in factory towns was a commendable application of Reason to the problems of economics and social control, and that the inevitable result was Progress (Dickens' "Hard Times" is vivid illustration of that theme). In terms of Western intellectual development, the culmination and breaking point for this dialectic of reason came with the first World War, the much vaunted "war to end all wars". What it ended was the optimism and faith of all the intelligensia unfortunate enough to get involved, and the body of literature produced by veterans like Robert Graves, Sigfried Sassoon and the much anthologized poets of WWI England did much to forward a criticism of modernity. (Paul Fussell, "The Great War and Modern Memory") The calculations of the second World War intensified that scrutiny -- whereas the rational application of science had previously produced the machine gun and the tank, it now produced the gas chamber, Nazi human experimentation, and atomic warfare. All of these were initially presented as solutions arrived at by the judicious application of reason to the problems of modern warfare, and the voices of those opposed were still largely by those in authority by an appeal to reason.

Naturally, reason on its own doesn't produce those things, but then, understood in its proper context, the criticism of Reason is not a criticism of the faculty itself. It is, at base, a criticism of the polemics that attend it, of the assertion that, because a given policy or technology represents the deliberate application of reason to a specific problem, any debate on the matter is patently absurd, counter-productive, anti-social, etc. There is in such debate an attempt to remind those with influence and in authority of the dangers of abstractly applying reason to a problem without bearing in mind that the solutions will effect actual humans, whose well-being and happiness is often contingent on factors not dictated by or included in rational consideration. It serves as a reminder that our moral objections are not always obviously as rational as the policy that concerns us, and that, ultimately, morality is built on premises that are not entirely reducible to logical argument. It's also a reminder of the severe limitations placed on our ability to encompass enough information to make truly informed policy. And in some ways, it's merely an objection to the use of the phrase "be reasonable" as a discussion-stopper.



Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:56 pm
Profile
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Stupendously Brilliant


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 716
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post 
Just a quick few comments:

Quote:
How many times have you heard someone quote the biblical passage "the poor you have with you always" as justification for the persistent poverty that continues to exist in a nation as wealthy as the United States? How many times have you heard heard preachers declare that physical and mental illness, poverty, addiction, homelessness and a host of other societal problems are simply the product of sinful human nature and can only be resolved when people "get right with God?" How many times have you heard Christians proclaim that prosperity is their god's way of rewarding the faithful? If you have not heard such claims being made, then you have not not been paying attention.


Well, it appears that I have not being paying attention. Either that or perhaps what you're describing is a localised problem that results from a particular socio-historic context, in which case, it's use as an example of the pernicious nature of Theism is ill advised.

One of the problems I have with the book is that you fail to make a distinction between secularism and atheism. You can be a True Believer and still believe that government should be secular, and indeed you can be an atheist and believe that your government should impose your morality on everybody else.

In the case of many of the problems you describe, the problem is not so much the presence of religion or theism, but the absence of secularism in certain sections of American society. Atheism - in itself - offers no solution.



Sun Sep 23, 2007 11:58 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Niall: I think you may have misunderstood the point of the material you quoted. It not intended as "an example of the pernicious nature of Theism," but as an illustration of the mindset of some theists, i.e. those for whom religion provides a pretext for doing nothing.

As to your more general point, I assume the difference between the secular and atheism is understood by my readers. It becomes more important in the chapter devoted to separation between government and religion (that's Chapter Seven: Fundamental errors). It's certainly true that one can be a theist and advocate secular government, as well as other secular causes that may have little or nothing to do with religion. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this chapter though.

Since I view atheism as the absense of god-belief, I really don't think atheism suggests a morality at all. However, it's certainly true that an atheist might seek to have the government impose his or her moral principles, whatever they might be, on others. I just don't think that would have anything in particular to do with atheism qua atheism.

I don't think I suggest that atheism, in and of itself, offers solutions to any problems. I do think it offers a starting point from which one might seek to find solutions.

Mad: What I'm suggesting is that early humans might have thought the final breath, the death rattle, whatever you want to call it, was the spirit or soul departing the body. And if you combine that notion with speculation about other naturally occurring phenomena like shadows and dreams, it might account for the creation of the idea of a supernatural realm. Obviously this is highly speculative, but I find the idea more plausible than you apparently do.

I think we agree the emergence of the modern scientific perspective coincided with and was, in large part, responsible for the naturalism/supernaturalism dichotomy.

I've always thought the creation of a "Goddess of Reason" a supremely irrational action, but then many of the actions of the French Revolution weren't particularly rational anyway. As an interesting footnote, Tom Paine, the firebrand of the American Revolution, was in France as a delegate to the assembly creating a constitution for the new republic and came into conflict with the leaders because, among other things, he opposed the executions under way. He had just completed part one of The Age of Reason when he was arrested--on Dec. 27, 1793--and taken to prison. Paine persuaded the guards who arrested him to make a stop on the way so that he could turn the manuscript over to his friend, Joel Barlow, which the guards agreed to do after glancing at the first few pages and dismissing the work as a theological treatise.

I think any appeal to reason has to recognize both the human nature of the faculty and the human consequences of any rational approach to solving a problem. A large part of the argument against reason that invokes the horrors of war and so on is itself a polemic to attack reason as a means to solving problems.

But this chapter is not advocating reason uber alles. It is more a warning that we abandon reason at our peril and that nonreason holds many dangers of its own.

George


_________________
George Ricker

"Nothing about atheism prevents me from thinking about any idea. It is the very epitome of freethought. Atheism imposes no dogma and seeks no power over others."

[i][b]mere atheism: no gods


Mon Sep 24, 2007 2:04 pm
Profile WWW
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
The Pope of Literature


Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2553
Location: decentralized
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post
Gender: None specified

Post 
garicker wrote:
I assume the difference between the secular and atheism is understood by my readers.


Your book seems to assume that at least some of its readers already have some serious misconceptions about what it means to be atheist. It stands to reason, then, that they might also have some peculiar ideas about what constitutes secularity and the relationship between the two.

Quote:
It's certainly true that one can be a theist and advocate secular government, as well as other secular causes that may have little or nothing to do with religion. I'm not sure how that's relevant to this chapter though.


If nothing else, it might help clarify for some readers that calls for a more secular government are not necessarily attempts to mitigate religion altogether.

Quote:
What I'm suggesting is that early humans might have thought the final breath, the death rattle, whatever you want to call it, was the spirit or soul departing the body. And if you combine that notion with speculation about other naturally occurring phenomena like shadows and dreams, it might account for the creation of the idea of a supernatural realm. Obviously this is highly speculative, but I find the idea more plausible than you apparently do.


I recognize what you're suggesting. What isn't so clear is why you're suggesting it. What is the pertinence of such speculation to the rest of the chapter? How does it fit with the paragraphs that come before and after? If I interpret it in part as an attempt to discredit certain religious ideas by giving them a history rooted in mistaken speculation, it's in part because no other explanation for its appearance in the context of the chapter seems as probable.

Quote:
A large part of the argument against reason that invokes the horrors of war and so on is itself a polemic to attack reason as a means to solving problems.


I think you're mistaking the argument as one that originated among fundamentalists. So far as I know, it didn't. Rather, it was advanced by European intelligensia who were horrified to see the end to which reason was so often being put. Camus, Nietzsche, Steiner, etc. -- these are the men responsible for developing and popularizing the suspicion of capital R Reason. And these men were by no means opposed to reason as a means of solving problems; they simply saw some of the consequences and being thinking about the deficiencies that led to them. The argument may have since been taken up by fundamentalists, but some familiarity with the actual historical development of the argument will quickly betray how little the understand the slogans they've naively adopted.

Quote:
But this chapter is not advocating reason uber alles. It is more a warning that we abandon reason at our peril and that nonreason holds many dangers of its own.


I understand that, but throughout the book I've seen comments and arguments that approximate, even if they're not intended to evoke, the sort of appeal to Reason that is precisely the subject of the philosophical critique. Which isn't to say that you endorse that brand of thinking, merely that you may not always be aware when your arguments have been influenced or merely fit that tradition.



Tue Sep 25, 2007 8:56 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Junior

Gold Contributor

Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 311
Thanks: 0
Thanked: 3 times in 3 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post 
Mad: I recognize what you're suggesting. What isn't so clear is why you're suggesting it. What is the pertinence of such speculation to the rest of the chapter? How does it fit with the paragraphs that come before and after? If I interpret it in part as an attempt to discredit certain religious ideas by giving them a history rooted in mistaken speculation, it's in part because no other explanation for its appearance in the context of the chapter seems as probable.

Let's see, I begin by talking about "realms of the spirit." Then I describe the scenario that I think may, in part, account for the origination of the idea of spiritual realms. Then I go on to describe some applications of the idea of the spiritual. That seems fairly straightforward to me.

Since the thrust of the entire chapter is that I reject all notions of the supernatural, including those of a religious nature, then I certainly think you could interpret it as an attempt to discredit certain religious ideas. But I don't present the scenario as anything more than speculation about how the notion of spirits and spiritual realms might have come about.

George


_________________
George Ricker

"Nothing about atheism prevents me from thinking about any idea. It is the very epitome of freethought. Atheism imposes no dogma and seeks no power over others."

[i][b]mere atheism: no gods


Wed Oct 03, 2007 1:00 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average. 



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:


A Nation Under Judgment by Richard Capriola


BookTalk.org Links 
Forum Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Info for Authors & Publishers
Featured Book Suggestions
Author Interview Transcripts
Be a Book Discussion Leader!
    

Love to talk about books but don't have time for our book discussion forums? For casual book talk join us on Facebook.

Featured Books






BookTalk.org is a free book discussion group or online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a group. We host live author chats where booktalk members can interact with and interview authors. We give away free books to our members in book giveaway contests. Our booktalks are open to everybody who enjoys talking about books. Our book forums include book reviews, author interviews and book resources for readers and book lovers. Discussing books is our passion. We're a literature forum, or reading forum. Register a free book club account today! Suggest nonfiction and fiction books. Authors and publishers are welcome to advertise their books or ask for an author chat or author interview.


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSBOOKSTRANSCRIPTSOLD FORUMSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICY

BOOK FORUMS FOR ALL BOOKS WE HAVE DISCUSSED
Frankenstein - by Mary ShelleyThe Big Questions - by Simon BlackburnScience Was Born of Christianity - by Stacy TrasancosThe Happiness Hypothesis - by Jonathan HaidtA Game of Thrones - by George R. R. MartinTempesta's Dream - by Vincent LoCocoWhy Nations Fail - by Daron Acemoglu and James RobinsonThe Drowning Girl - Caitlin R. KiernanThe Consolations of the Forest - by Sylvain TessonThe Complete Heretic's Guide to Western Religion: The Mormons - by David FitzgeraldA Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man - by James JoyceThe Divine Comedy - by Dante AlighieriThe Magic of Reality - by Richard DawkinsDubliners - by James JoyceMy Name Is Red - by Orhan PamukThe World Until Yesterday - by Jared DiamondThe Man Who Was Thursday - by by G. K. ChestertonThe Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven PinkerLord Jim by Joseph ConradThe Hobbit by J. R. R. TolkienThe Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas AdamsAtlas Shrugged by Ayn RandThinking, Fast and Slow - by Daniel KahnemanThe Righteous Mind - by Jonathan HaidtWorld War Z: An Oral History of the Zombie War by Max BrooksMoby Dick: or, the Whale by Herman MelvilleA Visit from the Goon Squad by Jennifer EganLost Memory of Skin: A Novel by Russell BanksThe Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. KuhnHobbes: Leviathan by Thomas HobbesThe House of the Spirits - by Isabel AllendeArguably: Essays by Christopher HitchensThe Falls: A Novel (P.S.) by Joyce Carol OatesChrist in Egypt by D.M. MurdockThe Glass Bead Game: A Novel by Hermann HesseA Devil's Chaplain by Richard DawkinsThe Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph CampbellThe Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor DostoyevskyThe Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark TwainThe Moral Landscape by Sam HarrisThe Decameron by Giovanni BoccaccioThe Road by Cormac McCarthyThe Grand Design by Stephen HawkingThe Evolution of God by Robert WrightThe Tin Drum by Gunter GrassGood Omens by Neil GaimanPredictably Irrational by Dan ArielyThe Wind-Up Bird Chronicle: A Novel by Haruki MurakamiALONE: Orphaned on the Ocean by Richard Logan & Tere Duperrault FassbenderDon Quixote by Miguel De CervantesMusicophilia by Oliver SacksDiary of a Madman and Other Stories by Nikolai GogolThe Passion of the Western Mind by Richard TarnasThe Left Hand of Darkness by Ursula K. Le GuinThe Genius of the Beast by Howard BloomAlice's Adventures in Wonderland by Lewis Carroll Empire of Illusion by Chris HedgesThe Sound and the Fury by William Faulkner The Extended Phenotype by Richard DawkinsSmoke and Mirrors by Neil GaimanThe Selfish Gene by Richard DawkinsWhen Good Thinking Goes Bad by Todd C. RinioloHouse of Leaves by Mark Z. DanielewskiAmerican Gods: A Novel by Neil GaimanPrimates and Philosophers by Frans de WaalThe Enormous Room by E.E. CummingsThe Picture of Dorian Gray by Oscar WildeGod Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher HitchensThe Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco Dreams From My Father by Barack Obama Paradise Lost by John Milton Bad Money by Kevin PhillipsThe Secret Garden by Frances Hodgson BurnettGodless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists by Dan BarkerThe Things They Carried by Tim O'BrienThe Limits of Power by Andrew BacevichLolita by Vladimir NabokovOrlando by Virginia Woolf On Being Certain by Robert A. Burton50 reasons people give for believing in a god by Guy P. HarrisonWalden: Or, Life in the Woods by Henry David ThoreauExile and the Kingdom by Albert CamusOur Inner Ape by Frans de WaalYour Inner Fish by Neil ShubinNo Country for Old Men by Cormac McCarthyThe Age of American Unreason by Susan JacobyTen Theories of Human Nature by Leslie Stevenson & David HabermanHeart of Darkness by Joseph ConradThe Stuff of Thought by Stephen PinkerA Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled HosseiniThe Lucifer Effect by Philip ZimbardoResponsibility and Judgment by Hannah ArendtInterventions by Noam ChomskyGodless in America by George A. RickerReligious Expression and the American Constitution by Franklyn S. HaimanDeep Economy by Phil McKibbenThe God Delusion by Richard DawkinsThe Third Chimpanzee by Jared DiamondThe Woman in the Dunes by Abe KoboEvolution vs. Creationism by Eugenie C. ScottThe Omnivore's Dilemma by Michael PollanI, Claudius by Robert GravesBreaking The Spell by Daniel C. DennettA Peace to End All Peace by David FromkinThe Time Traveler's Wife by Audrey NiffeneggerThe End of Faith by Sam HarrisEnder's Game by Orson Scott CardThe Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark HaddonValue and Virtue in a Godless Universe by Erik J. WielenbergThe March by E. L DoctorowThe Ethical Brain by Michael GazzanigaFreethinkers: A History of American Secularism by Susan JacobyCollapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed by Jared DiamondThe Battle for God by Karen ArmstrongThe Future of Life by Edward O. WilsonWhat is Good? by A. C. GraylingCivilization and Its Enemies by Lee HarrisPale Blue Dot by Carl SaganHow We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God by Michael ShermerLooking for Spinoza by Antonio DamasioLies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al FrankenThe Red Queen by Matt RidleyThe Blank Slate by Stephen PinkerUnweaving the Rainbow by Richard DawkinsAtheism: A Reader edited by S.T. JoshiGlobal Brain by Howard BloomThe Lucifer Principle by Howard BloomGuns, Germs and Steel by Jared DiamondThe Demon-Haunted World by Carl SaganBury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee BrownFuture Shock by Alvin Toffler

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOur Amazon.com SalesMassimo Pigliucci Rationally SpeakingOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism BooksFACTS Book Selections

cron
Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2011. All rights reserved.
Website developed by MidnightCoder.ca
Display Pagerank