1 of 48
1
Letter to an Atheist by Michael Patrick Leahy
Posted: 11 April 2007 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

Sam,

I've just written another response to Letter to a Christian Nation.

In it, I document your intellectual dishonesty, starting with the following big lie you keep telling:

“ Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old.”

The evidence suggests that, at a maximum, only 18% of Americans, not 50% as Harris recklessly claims, might arguably be said to believe the universe is only 6,000 years old. And even that 18% might not completely agree with the 6,000 year figure. ...

For the entire article which demonstrates how you completely misrepresent the Gallup Polling information, as well as the percentage of Americans who are "young creationists" , you can go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/biglie.html

For the entire book you may go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com

I hereby challenge you to a debate. When and where ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 02:42 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  734
Joined  2007-03-10

Mr. Leahy:

Congrats on the new book.  You must be proud.  Are we to assume you have your own forum?  Perhaps it could involve more than you and Sam.  Or maybe some of us could come to your board.  Who knows. 

Run your claims within this board first.  I don’t think it will take Sam himself to challenge your book.  Feel free to participate.  I’m sure you would be welcomed.  Wouldn’t want you to run back to your followers proclaiming that you threw down the gauntlet on Sam’s place and no one was willing to take you on.  I will bet that your arguments in your book are not as good as some of the Christian apologists on this site’s regular posts.  I wouldn’t know because you have no excerpts on your site.

Why exactly did you challenge an established author before your book even hits the shelves? 

We are all here and waiting.

M. D. Beach

By the way, citing to your own article is amusing.  It is nothing more than your own personal blog.  Way to avoid the fact that regardless of actual percentages, there is a large amount of Christians who believe the world is 6,000 years old.  Funny how you only critique Sam’s statistics, but not his arguments.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 02:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

Mr. Beach:

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my post.

To read an excerpt of my book, please go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/excerpt.html

With regards to my forum, I would sincerely be very pleased if you would consider being the voice of atheists for the purpose of an ongoing dialogue with me on the blog I have established specifically for that purpose. Just go to http://lettertoanatheist.blogspot.com

As a starting dialogue, here’s a question for you:

Doesn’t it matter to you that Sam has knowingly made a significant factual misrepresentation of the percentage of Americans who believe the universe is only 6,000 years old ? He falsely claims it is 50 %, but it’s actually less than 18 %. (Check out the supporting studies on my web site: http://www.lettertonanatheist.com ).

Sam’s trying to portray all Christians as scientifically stupid, and it’s simply not true.

Young Earth Creationism is not science, and the majority of Christians are not Young Earth Creationists.

This is a fact, and it matters that it not be misrepresented.

Would you not agree ?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1763
Joined  2006-08-20

[quote author=“Michael Patrick Leahy”]Mr. Beach:

Thank you very much for taking the time to read my post.

To read an excerpt of my book, please go to http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/excerpt.html

With regards to my forum, I would sincerely be very pleased if you would consider being the voice of atheists for the purpose of an ongoing dialogue with me on the blog I have established specifically for that purpose. Just go to http://lettertoanatheist.blogspot.com

As a starting dialogue, here’s a question for you:

Doesn’t it matter to you that Sam has knowingly made a significant factual misrepresentation of the percentage of Americans who believe the universe is only 6,000 years old ? He falsely claims it is 50 %, but it’s actually less than 18 %. (Check out the supporting studies on my web site: http://www.lettertonanatheist.com ).

Sam’s trying to portray all Christians as scientifically stupid, and it’s simply not true.

Young Earth Creationism is not science, and the majority of Christians are not Young Earth Creationists.

This is a fact, and it matters that it not be misrepresented.

Would you not agree ?

My response to you is that we can only hope that you are right and Sam is wrong. My own experience is….I’m not so sure, there are an awful lot of really nutty people out there. The extremes are flat out anti-ntellectual. A lot of people are attracted to the extremes who, by virtue of their common “beliefs” take comfort under the tent of the “moderates”.
Anyway, hopefully Sam is wrong and rational thinking is taking hold in the “modern” world.

 Signature 

The ants are my friends, they’re blowing in the wind, the ants are blowing in the wind.

Dog is my co-pilot

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1568
Joined  2006-03-02

I fail to see how the fact that Sam might be wrong with one statistic matters one iota.  It does not.  We here are not so idiotic that we take anything that Sam Harris says on faith.  Those of us who admire him do so not because of his beliefs but because of the strength of his arguments and his courage. If you wish to challenge the intellectual integrity of atheism, by all means do so.  But don’t think that you are going to impress anyone with your pathetic attack on Sam’s integrity.

Nobody here has any stake in defending Sam’s integrity. He is more than capable of defending himself.  But you will find sharp minds willing to confront any anti-atheistic arguments you might be willing to put forth.

 Signature 

What do I care for a hell for oppressors? What good can hell do, since those children have already been tortured? And what becomes of harmony, if there is hell? I want to forgive. I want to embrace. I don’t want more suffering. And if the sufferings of children go to swell the sum of sufferings which was necessary to pay for truth, then I protest that the truth is not worth such a price.
-Ivan Karamazov

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 07:16 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1453
Joined  2005-01-22

Here’s a quote from conservapedia.com about young earth creationist beliefs

“Roughly 47% of the United States population believes man was created by God pretty much in his present form less than 10,000 years ago (which is one tenet of Young Earth Creationism) and this number has stayed roughly constant for the last 20 years.”

The poll quoted here is from 1993 Gallup.  Now if you are correct that at present some 18% or less now (14 years later) believe in the earth being 6,000 years old, there has been an incredible change over the last ten years. The percentage of Americans who accept the theory of evolution is still very low, certainly not even close to 50%, so how is it possible that some 82% (according to your stats MP Leahy) actually accept that the earth is billions of years old.  If this is your best challenge to Sam Harris, your book is destined to be a dud.

Bob

 Signature 

It’s definitely a moon! . . . and now it’s become a sunflower!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 07:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

Bob,

Thank you for taking the time to read my post.

It would be helpful in getting at the truth of this argument if you also read my detailed article, which demonstrates why only 18 % at most of Americans actually believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, not the 50% Mr. Harris so recklessly claims.

In 2004, Sociologists Otis Dudley Duncan of UC Santa Barbara and Claudia Geist of Indiana State University undertook a research project to learn more about creationists.Here’s what they concluded:

“Hence we estimate that only one third of adult Americans are creationists in the strict sense of “evolution denial” whereas the Gallup question yields an estimate of 46% who implicitly rely solely on Genesis.”

Examining 25 years of Gallup polling data, in addition to 1993, 1994, and 2000 data from the General Social Survey, Duncan and Geist concluded that among these 33% of Americans who are creationists:

“We see that 18% are both literalists and creationists, 14% are creationists who take a more liberal view of the Bible, and 1% are creationists who are outright biblical skeptics. Thus, even though biblical literalism and creationism are clearly associated, only a little more than half of all creationists (18/33 = 55%) are literalists.”

The 14% of the population who are creationists that take a more liberal view of the Bible are much more likely to be Old Earth Creationists than Young Earth Creationists. And yet, even these 18% who are both literalists and creationists currently believe that the 7 days of Genesis may have occurred anywhere from 20,000 to 6,000 years ago.

It’s important to note the distinction, which you failed to make in arguments about the age of the earth and the age of man.

For instance, some creationists believe that man in his present form has been around for only 10,000 years, but that the earth has been around for 4.5 billion.

Please examine the facts and you will conclude that my argument is sound.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 07:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

Waltercat,

Thanks for taking the time to look at my post. You say that you “fail to see how the fact that Sam might be wrong with one statistic matters one iota.”

First, there is no “might be wrong” about it. Sam Harris is completely wrong when he states that half the US population believes that the universe is only 6,000 years old. As I demonstrate in detail in my article on Sam’s Big Lie ( http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/biglie.html ), at most 18% of Americans hold such a belief.

It matters a great deal that Sam has gotten this fact wrong. It’s wrong by an order of magnitude, and it’s part of Sam’s campaign to falsely portray Christians as stupid and anti-intellectual.

It’s only one mistake you might say. What’s the big deal ?

The big deal is that it’s not just one mistake. It’s many many mistakes. In fact, the slim 91 pages of Letter to a Christian Nation contains 20 such factual errors.

Want to see the proof for yourself ?

Go to my website at http://www.lettertonanatheist.com/twentyerrors.html

I prove clearly that Sam makes an additional 19 equally grievous misrepresentations.

I challenge you to look at these 20 errors made by Sam and defend him.

You can’t do it.

I challenge Sam to correct these 20 errors.

Sam, are you listening ?

And what about that debate, Sam ?

Here’s the topic:

Sam Harris is intellectually dishonest

I’ll argue in the affirmative.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 08:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  775
Joined  2006-12-04

So,

20 errors for Sam…20 million errors for Christianity.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 08:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1585
Joined  2006-10-20

Mr. Leahy,

You are welcome to click the “Contact” button above to contact Sam Harris’s lecture agent so that Sam may take your challenge directly.

However, I did read your argument against Sam’s use of poll data, and frankly, your argument made no sense to me, and within the argument was a bit of data I’d like you to clear up for me since it seems to contradict your assertion of 18%:

Statement 3: 2005 only
God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.

53 % of the respondents to the 2005 Gallup Poll agreed with Statement 3.

You go on to split Christian hairs without giving us definitions of the splits, thus muddying the water:

Among these 53% were proponents of intelligent design, Old Earth creationists, Young Earth creationists, and respondents who considered it “closest to their views” but were not full fledged creationists. Harris blithely lumped all 53% into the “Young Earth creationist” camp, when clearly, as Dudley and Geist’s 2004 study showed, only a maximum of 1/3 of these respondents – the 18% cited by Dudley and Geist as both “literalists” and “creationists” could arguably be said to belong there. Even among this 18%, there is not universal agreement to the 6,000 year figure.

As I see it, the Gallup poll seems to speak for itself, while you’ve claimed the number doesn’t separate the Christians into their proper camps.  So is the Gallup poll incorrect or is it not properly interpreted?

 Signature 

“All extremists should be killed!” - neighbor’s bumper sticker

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 April 2007 10:17 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]  
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2168
Joined  2005-11-15

I’ll leave off discussion of the interpretation of poll results, since Skipshot and CanZen have raised the pertinent questions. . .  but there were other statements made on your site that I’d like to comment on, take it or leave it.


In your critique of Sam’s discussions of slavery, you apologize for the OT as being representative of a time when slavery was simply the norm, everybody was doing it, and therefore the poor idiots were just going with the flow of the times. You further state that “anyone who reads the Golden Rule can come to but one conclusion: The Bible condemns slavery”,. . . and that “the central theme of the New Testament on slavery” is covered by Jesus when he says, “Love thy neighbor as thyself.”

Slaves are not one’s neighbors, Michael. Rather, slaves are one’s property. Unless I missed a verse, Jesus does not urge us to “Love thy property as thyself.” Neither God nor God-as-Jesus ever condemns slavery in the NT. Besides, it’s impossible to deny that God condones and encourages enslavement, since a good one-third of the commandments revolve around his obsession with our worship of him, whose name, according to him, is ‘Jealous’.

You also say:

[quote author=“Michael”]”Christians believe that the words of the Bible were inspired by God, but that it was written in the language of the day by fallible human beings, who recorded God’s word through the lens and understanding of their own day and time.”

Do you speak for all Christians there? Be honest, Michael. Most of you believe the Bible is the perfect and inerrant word of God (however strange the content), else you would lose the entire foundation of your faith claims. To suggest that even one word is wrong or contradictory is to bring it all crumbling down, since Revelation demands that not one word be added or taken away.


I can certainly tell you we’ve yet to meet a Christian on this forum that admitted to errors or contradictions in the Bible. Instead, they blame it on human interpretation error. Humans are just too stupid and sinful to grasp the deep meaning, apparently. When we think it’s peculiar that God condones slavery, or the bashing of babies against rocks, or the collection of virgins as sex slaves, or the gang rape and chopping up of one’s mistress, it’s considered our  failure to understand the beauty in those stories, our  failure to accurately read between the lines of the fallible men, to the shining and perfect word of God that lies buried somewhere beneath. When I find it wacky that King Solomon (a total slut of a man who had 700 wives and 300 concubines) is put forward as someone I ought to take a lesson on marital love from, I’m told that it was just the way things were back then, and that God obviously didn’t have a problem with Sol’s slimy ways, so why should I? When I’m asked to buy that Lot remained unconscious while two nights in a row he managed to have successful sexual intercourse with his own two daughters, thus impregnating them, I’m supposed to chuckle at their inventiveness in getting daddy so drunk that he didn’t even take note of two orgasms?


But fine, you’re saying it was just written by a bunch of fallible people who probably made all variety of goofs in their writing—so, that’s great! Glad to know you recognize this, but while you may be wise enough to realize that the Bible is just one tribe’s haphazard stab at imagining God’s will, as seen “through the lens and understanding of their own day”, then I have to ask. . .  just what the heck guides you in your cherry-picking? Do you actually buy into the idea that many saints rose from their tombs along with Jesus, and that this was witnessed by many? If so, isn’t it because you wholeheartedly believe the words of those fallible men? Don’t you wonder why at least one  of these many saints didn’t go on to write or dictate his own account of this unfathomable miracle? Where are the Gospels of the Risen? Personally, I’d be selling my story left and right to the founding fathers of the church. But I guess they must have been too busy living their second lifetimes to become members of Jesus’ own original church, eh?


Good luck getting Sam to debate you, seriously. I’d definitely tune in.


.

 Signature 


Welcome to Planet Earth, where Belief masquerades as Knowledge!

This way to the Unasked Questions—->
<—- This way to the Unquestioned Answers

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 02:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

Skipshot,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply to my post on Sam Harris’ Big Lie. And thank you for your suggestion that I challenge Sam to a debate directly through his lecture agent. I will do just that and report back here whether or not Sam has the courage to accept my challenge.

I will address your question on my proof that Sam is intellectually dishonest – by an order of magnitude—when he makes this statement:

“ Half of the American population believes that the universe is 6,000 years old.”

Sam makes this assertion and claims it to be a fact. It’s a rather bold assertion, and one worthy of investigation, wouldn’t you say ? Upon what evidence does he make this claim ?

You, like Sam, look at the 2005 Gallup Poll on the topic of creation and evolution. You conclude that because 53% of the respondents agree with the following statement, all 53% agree with the statement that the universe is only 6,000 years old.

“God created human beings in their present form exactly the way the Bible describes it.”

In answer to the question at the end of your reply, you are incorrectly interpreting this data by a long shot if you blithely assume that all 53% of these respondents also believe that the universe is 6,000 years old.

Put aside your atheist world view for a moment, and I will put aside my Christian world view.

As intellectually honest investigators seeking the truth, let’s simply answer this question.

Can we demonstrate that what Sam says here is true ?

The answer is that we most definitely cannot.

First, as I point out in my article on Sam Harris’ Big Lie ( http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/biglie.html ) Gallup has conducted this poll on creation and evolution eight times between 1982 and 2006. The question was phrased differently in seven of these polls from the 2005 poll you reference. In these seven polls, between 44 and 47% of Americans agreed with the following statement:

“God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so”

Note that this question makes no reference to the age of other species of animals, the age of the earth, the solar system, or the universe. It refers to the creation of human beings “in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.”

Even the noted scholar and secular humanist Otis Dudley Duncan, in his 2004 study conducted with Claudia Geist when he examined 25 years of Gallup polling data, in addition to 1993, 1994, and 2000 data from the General Social Survey,  concluded that

“only one third of adult Americans are creationists in the strict sense of “evolution denial” whereas the Gallup question yields an estimate of 46% who implicitly rely solely on Genesis.”

Part of your confusion here stems from the way Gallup asks their questions. If you look at all of the questions asked by Gallup during these 25 years of polling on the topic, you will see that many respondents appear to answer in a way that suggests some internal inconsistencies in their thinking. ( The details are found on my website at http://www.lettertoanatheist.com )

So as investigators into the veracity of Sam’s claim that half of all Americans believe that the universe is 6,000 years old, we’ve discovered that:

The 53 % cited by you and Sam who agree with a more “Biblical” view of the creation of man came from only one out of eight polls on the topic conducted by Gallup between 1982 and 2006, and that poll asked the question differently from any of the other seven polls. Gallup apparently felt the “new” way of asking the question in 2005 compromised the conclusions of the poll, and reverted to the “original” way of asking that question in 2006. All seven of these polls which asked the “Biblical” view of creation poll the same way consistently showed that 44% to 47 % of the respondents agreed with the “Biblical” view statement.

Note that this is slightly less than the “half of Americans” claimed by Sam.

We’ve further demonstrated that the leading sociologists who have studied views on creation have concluded that the true number of Americans who could be considered creationists in the sense of rejecting evolution is only 33%, not the 44% to 47% (they state 46%) who agree with the “Biblical view” of creation statement.

Note that 33 % is significantly less than the “half of Americans” claimed by Sam.

Finally, among these creationists, the Duncan and Geist study concludes:

“ We see that 18% are both literalists and creationists, 14% are creationists who take a more liberal view of the Bible, and 1% are creationists who are outright biblical skeptics. Thus, even though biblical literalism and creationism are clearly associated, only a little more than half of all creationists (18/33 = 55%) are literalists.”

The 14% of the population who are creationists that take a more liberal view of the Bible are much more likely to be Old Earth Creationists than Young Earth Creationists. And yet, even these 18% who are both literalists and creationists currently believe that the 7 days of Genesis may have occurred anywhere from 20,000 to 6,000 years ago.

Note that 18% is an order of magnitude less than the “half of Americans” claimed by Sam

It would be nice if Gallup asked this specific question:

Which of the following statements comes closest to your view of the age of the earth and universe:

1. I agree with the scientific consensus that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and the universe is older.
2. I believe the earth, man, and the universe are only 6,000 years old.
3. I believe the earth, man, and the universe are between 6,000 years and 4.5 billion years old
4. I don’t know

We could simply look at the number of respondents who agreed with Statement #2, and that would be the fact upon which we all agree. If such a question were to be asked, my sense is that slightly less than 18 % of respondents (as the Duncan and Geist study suggest) would agree with Statement 2.

But that’s not how Gallup has asked the question, and we have no data other than the Duncan and Geist study that addresses that issue.

Sam’s the one who made the false assertion that half of all Americans believe the universe is 6,000 years old, and the burden of proof lies with him. And he has provided absolutely no evidence whatsover to support his outrageous claim. All the evidence flatly contradicts his assertion.

Looking at this information, and being an intellectually honest person, will you not concede that Sam Harris has not provided evidence to back up his outlandish claim here ?

I await your response.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 03:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]  
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  496
Joined  2005-02-22

too silly, too silly

I think a whole lot of people in America would say that they believe in the Bible and however old the Bible say the world is, even if they disagree or don’t have an opinion about how old the Bible says it is.

I think that was the larger point.

If you’re going to start here, you have a long road ahead.

 Signature 

Delude responsibly.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 03:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  216
Joined  2007-02-25

Surprisingly I have to agree with Waltercat on this one.  If you want to debate Sam Harris on his book showing errors in his statistics is going to do nothing in bringing Atheist to question their presuppositions.  I did not read your ‘book’ or anything from you, however you can begin to state your arguments here, there are a number of intellectual people here for a lively discussion.  I am interested in hearing some of your arguments for why Theism is a justified and why Atheism is not.  Start on this forum….all ears.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 04:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  154
Joined  2007-04-11

I want to thank all of you with an atheist worldview who have taken the time to reply to my post on the intellectual dishonesty of Sam Harris.

Many of you seem to be making the incorrect assumption that my purpose is to convert you from Atheism to Christianity. I have never made that claim, have not attempted to do so in my book, Letter to an Atheist, nor am I trying to do so here.

My argument is about Sam’s intellectual dishonesty, not Theism vs. Atheism.

Fletch says I am trying to show why “Theism is justified and why Atheism is not.”

Fletch, that may be what you in your mind are responding to, but it’s not my argument at all. Not in my book Letter to an Atheist.

I am simply pointing out, in irrefutable detail, that Sam Harris, a leader in the new “militant atheism” or “atheistic evangelical” movement is intellectually dishonest in his failed attempt to, as he says “demolish the intellectual and moral pretensions of Christianity in its most committed forms.”

I am saying that Sam’s attack on Christianity is intellectually dishonest.

Not a single atheist who has replied to my post has been able to prove that Sam is justified in a single one of the twenty factual errors he makes in Letter to a Christian Nation. (see my website at http://www.lettertoanatheist.com/twentyerrors.html ).

Sam started this fight, not me.

It’s clear that neither he nor anyone who agrees with him can finish it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 April 2007 04:26 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]  
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2817
Joined  2005-04-29

[quote author=“Michael Patrick Leahy”]. . .
It would be helpful in getting at the truth of this argument if you also read my detailed article, which demonstrates why only 18 % at most of Americans actually believe the universe is only 6,000 years old, not the 50% Mr. Harris so recklessly claims.

To echo Nhoj Morley above, I hope you realize, Michael, that relatively few Americans are actually able or willing to hold a validly-argued opinion about much of anything in ancient history. Americans in particular tend to answer questions about their faith in extremely unreliable ways, depending on how the questions are asked. Skilled poll takers are able to get pretty much whatever results they are after in these kinds of questions. Sam Harris makes other mistakes in his first book that completely overshadow the one this thread focuses on. So what? Have you ever read any other 300+-page polemic that was completely free of mistakes?

In a different thread, SkepticX recently pointed out:

Genuine belief is involuntary—the result of evidence and reason founded on sound epistemology truly overwhelming healthy doubt, and it’s at least in theory, tentative, open to revision based upon further sound evidence and reasoning. Most of the time, however (at least regarding religion), “belief” is used in place of presumption or pretense. Believers in the religious sense are really “presumers” or “pretenders.” If you really believe something you don’t need to go to a narcissistic weekly ego-stroking affirmation session to maintain it.

Byron


For a short discussion of concept representation as it applies to the religious:
http://www.samharris.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=417

 Signature 

Philosophy may in no way interfere with the actual use of language; it can in the end only describe it. For it cannot give it any foundations either. It leaves everything as it is.
Ludwig Wittgenstein

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 48
1
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed