Why%20I%20Am%20Not%20a%20Naturalist

1
Bob Stewart, NOBTS
2
You can get this PPT file by emailing me
atdrbobstewart_at_yahoo.com orrstewart_at_nobts.edu
3
Introducing the New Atheism
4
Their Core Beliefs

• Science and Religion are mutually exclusive ways
  of looking at life. In short, Religion and
  Science are at war.

5
Richard Dawkins

• An atheist before Darwin could have said,
  following Hume I have no explanation for
  complex biological design. All I know is that God
  isnt a good explanation, so we must wait and
  hope that somebody comes up with a better one. I
  can't help feeling that such a position,

6
Richard Dawkins

• though logically sound, would have left one
  feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although
  atheism might have been logically tenable before
  Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an
  intellectually fulfilled atheist.
• The Blind Watchmaker, 6

7
Daniel Dennett

• Almost no one is indifferent to Darwin, and no
  one should be. The Darwinian theory is a
  scientific theory, and a great one, but that is
  not all it is. The creationists who oppose it so
  bitterly are right about one thing Darwins
  dangerous idea cuts much deeper into the fabric
  of our most fundamental beliefs than many of its
  sophisticated apologists have yet admitted, even
  to themselves.
• Darwins Dangerous Idea, 18

8
Atheistic Shrillness

• It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet
  somebody who claims not to believe in evolution,
  that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or
  wicked, but Id rather not consider that).
• Review of Blueprints Solving the Mystery of
  Evolution, Maitland A. Edey and Donald C.
  Johanson, New York Times Review of Books 9 April
  1989, 35

9
Their Core Beliefs

• Science and religion are mutually exclusive ways
  of looking at life. In short, Religion and
  Science are at war.
• Faith is a superstitious blind leap based on
  the denial of evidence.

10
Faith as Superstition

• Faith is the great cop-out, the great excuse to
  evade the need to think and evaluate evidence.
  Faith is belief in spite of, even perhaps because
  of, the lack of evidence.

11
Sam Harris

• Some propositions are so dangerous that it may
  even be ethical to kill people for believing
  them.
• The End of Faith Religion, Terror, and the
  Future of Reason, 52-53.

12
Their Core Beliefs

• Science and religion are mutually exclusive ways
  of looking at life. In short, Religion and
  Science are at war.
• Faith is a superstitious blind leap based on
  the denial of evidence.
• Religion is inherently evil.

13
Nobel Prize Winner Steven Weinberg

• With or without religion, you would have good
  people doing good things and evil people doing
  evil things. But for good people to do evil
  things, that takes religion.
• The New York Times, April 20, 1999

14
Christopher Hitchens

• Organized religion is violent, irrational,
  intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and
  bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to
  free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive
  toward children.
• God is Not Great, 56

15
Richard Dawkins

• Revealed faith is not harmless nonsense, it can
  be lethally dangerous nonsense. Dangerous because
  it gives people unshakeable confidence in their
  own righteousness. Dangerous because it gives
  them false courage to kill themselves, which
  automatically removes normal barriers to killing

16
Richard Dawkins

• others. . . . And dangerous because we have all
  bought into a weird respect, which uniquely
  protects religion from normal criticism. Lets
  now stop being so damned respectful.
• Has the World Changed?Part Two, The
  Guardian, October 11, 2001

17
Their Characteristic Practices

• They have a superficial knowledge of the Bible

18
Their Characteristic Practices

• They have a superficial knowledge of the Bible
• They are theological novices

19
Terry Eagleton

• Dawkins speaks scoffingly of a personal God, as
  though it were entirely obvious exactly what this
  might mean. He seems to imagine God, if not
  exactly with a white beard, then at least as some
  kind of chap, however supersized. He asks how
  this chap can speak to billions of people
  simultaneously, which is rather like wondering
  why, if Tony

20
Terry Eagleton

• Blair is an octopus, he has only two arms. For
  Judeo-Christianity, God is not a person in the
  sense that Al Gore arguably is. Nor is he a
  principle, an entity, or existent in one sense
  of that word it would be perfectly coherent for
  religious types to claim that God does not in
  fact exist. He is, rather, the condition of
  possibility of any

21
Terry Eagleton

• entity whatsoever, including ourselves. He is
  the answer to why there is something rather than
  nothing. God and the universe do not add up to
  two, any more than my envy and my left foot
  constitute a pair of objects.
• Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching London
  Review of Books, http//www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/eagl
  01_.html

22
Terry Eagleton

• All I can claim in this respect, alas, is that
  I think I may know just about enough theology to
  be able to spot when someone like Richard Dawkins
  or Christopher Hitchensa couplet I shall
  henceforth reduce for convenience to the solitary
  signifier Ditchkinsis talking out of the back of
  his neck.
• 2008 Yale University Terry Lecture

23
Their Characteristic Practices

• They have a superficial knowledge of the Bible
• They are theological novices
• They are primarily anti-Christian and anti-Muslim

24
Their Characteristic Practices

• They have a superficial knowledge of the Bible
• They are theological novices
• They are primarily anti-Christian and anti-Muslim
• They are materialists

25
Naturalism, Atheism, Materialism

• Naturalists can affirm the reality of abstract
  entities such as numbers or minds but these
  things exist naturally, not supernaturally
• Materialists can affirm the existence of God
  (Mormons are materialists)

26
Naturalism, Atheism, Materialism

• Atheists can be religious (most forms of Buddhism
  are atheistic)
• The New Atheists are all threenaturalists,
  materialists, and atheists

27
Does Science(or Darwin)Disprove God?
28
Believing Scientists

• Nicholas Copernicus, Heliocentric Solar System
• Galileo, Observational Astronomy, Kinematics
• Johannes Kepler, Laws of Planetary Motion
• Isaac Newton, Laws of Motion
• Joseph Lister, Antiseptic surgery
• Louis Pasteur, Bacteriology
• Robert Boyle, Chemistry and Gas Dynamics
• Georges Cuvier, Comparative Anatomy
• Charles Babbage, Computer Science
• Lord Rayleigh, Dimensional Analysis
• John Ambrose Fleming, Electronics
• James Clerk Maxwell, Electrodynamics
• Michael Faraday, Electromagnetics and Field
  Theory
• Lord Kelvin, Energetics
• Henri Fabre, Entomology of Living Insects
• George Stokes, Fluid Mechanics
• Sir William Herschel, Galactic Astronomy
• Gregor Mendel, Genetics
• Matthew Maury, Oceanography

29
Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould

• To say it for all my colleagues and for the
  umpteenth millionth time . . . science simply
  cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the
  issue of Gods possible superintendence of
  nature. We neither affirm nor deny it we simply
  cant comment on it as scientists. . . .
• . . . Either half my colleagues are
  enormously stupid, or else

30
Agnostic Stephen Jay Gould

• the science of Darwinism is fully compatible
  with conventional religious beliefsand equally
  compatible with atheism, thus proving that the
  two great realms of natures factuality and the
  source of human morality do not strongly
  overlap.
• Impeaching a Self-Appointed Judge Book
• Review of Darwin on Trial by Phillip
  E.
• Johnson Scientific American 267. 1 July
  1992, 119.

31
Francis Collins

• For quite a while in my twenties I was a pretty
  obnoxious atheist. At the age of 27, after a
  good deal of intellectual debating with myself
  about the plausibility of faith, and particularly
  with strong influence from C. S. Lewis, I became
  convinced that this was a decision I wanted to
  make, and I became by choice a Christian, a
  serious Christian, who believes that faith is not
  something that you just do on Sunday, but if it
  makes any sense at all, it is part of your whole
  life. Its the most important organizing
  principle in my life.

32
Does Religion Poison Everything?
33
Friedrich Nietzsche

• Another Christian concept, no less crazy, has
  passed even more deeply into the tissue of
  modernity the concept of the equality of souls
  before God. This concept furnishes the prototype
  of all theories of equal rights mankind was
  first taught to stammer the proposition of
  equality in a religious context, and only later
  was it made into morality.
• Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power,
  Aphorism 765

34
Keith Ward

• But consider a parallel case politics could
  also be said to be one of the most destructive
  forces in human life. In Russia and Cambodia,
  millions of people have been killed in the name
  of socialist political ideologies. In Latin
  America, millions of people disappeared in
  ruthless campaigns of violence propagated by
  right-wing politicians. Deception, hypocrisy and
  misrepresentation are commonplace in political
  life. Might we not be better off in a world
  without politics too?

35
Keith Ward

• Even science, often thought of as an
  uninterested search for truth, produces
  terrifying weapons of mass destruction, and the
  most advanced technology is used to destroy human
  lives in ever more effective and brutal ways.
  Would we be better off without science as well?
• Keith Ward, Is Religion Dangerous?,
• 179-80

36
Thomas Crean

• Still, one point is worth making in answer to
  the authors claim . . . that religion causes
  people to do evil things. Insofar as this is
  true, it has no tendency to show that religion is
  itself a bad thing, or that its message is false.
  Love causes people to do evil things so does
  patriotism. The love of a man and a woman can
  lead to unfaithfulness, to the

37
Thomas Crean

• destruction of families and even to murder.
  Patriotism can lead to hatred and to the
  indiscriminate bombing of cities. None of this
  means that either love or patriotism is a bad
  thing. It simply means that the weakness of
  human nature is such that any great object or
  cause may stir our emotions as to lead us to act
  against our better judgment. If religion
  occasions evil as well

38
Thomas Crean

• as good, this is no sign of its falsity, but
  simply of its power of attraction over human
  nature. That in the name of religion good men
  may do bad things is no argument against
  religion, unless crimes of passion are arguments
  against human love.
• Thomas Crean,
• God is No Delusion, 118-19

39
So Why Am INot a Naturalist (an Atheist)?
40
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.

41
Naturalism.org

• Naturalism as a worldview is based on the
  premise that knowledge about what exists and
  about how things work is best achieved through
  the sciences, not personal revelation or
  religious tradition. . . Scientific empiricism
  has the necessary consequence of unifying our
  knowledge of the world, of placing all objects of
  understanding within an overarching causal
  context. Under naturalism, there is a single,
  natural world in which phenomena arise.
  http//www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

42
Naturalism as Self-Refuting

• One reason that I am not a naturalist is that
  naturalism cannot be proved according to its own
  methodology, i.e., the scientific method. What
  sort of scientific experiment could possibly be
  constructed to test such a hypothesis? The
  answer is none. This would not be a problem if
  the scientific method were not viewed as the only
  meaningful test for truth, but given that it is
  this becomes a deal-killer.

43
Dawkins Contradicting Dawkins

• As an academic scientist, I am a passionate
  Darwinian, believing that natural selection is,
  if not the only driving force in evolution,
  certainly the only known force capable of
  producing the illusion of purpose which so
  strikes all who contemplate nature. But at the
  same time as I support Darwinism as a scientist,
  I am a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to
  politics and how we should conduct our human
  affairs.
• A Devils Chaplain Reflections on Hope,
  Lies, Science, and Love, 10-11.

44
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
• Because Naturalism undermines human rationality.

45
Naturalism and Reason

• Naturalism undermines reason by insisting that
  reason is the result of an organ produced by a
  random process. Why should we believe that
  reason is a reliable guide to truth if naturalism
  is correct? Why should we believe that any
  theory produced by an organism that is itself
  produced by random processes is true?

46
J. B. S. Haldane

• If my mental processes are determined wholly by
  the motions of atoms within my brain, I have no
  reason to suppose that my beliefs are true . . .
  and hence I have no reason to believe that my
  brain is composed of atoms.
• When I am Dead, in Possible Worlds ed.
  Carl A. Price (New Brunswick Transaction, 2002),
  209.

47
Patricia Churchland

• Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system
  enables the organism to succeed in the four F's
  feeding, fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The
  principle chore of nervous systems is to get the
  body parts where they should be in order that the
  organism may survive . . . Improvements in
  sensorimotor control confer an evolutionary

48
Patricia Churchland

• advantage a fancier style of representing is
  advantageous
• so long as it is geared to the organism's way of
  life and enhances the organism's chances of
  survival. Truth, whatever that is, definitely
  takes the hindmost.
• Patricia Smith Churchland, Epistemology
• in the Age of Neuroscience Journal of
• Philosophy, 84 (October 1987), 548.

49
Richard Rorty

• The idea that one species of organism is,
  unlike all the others, oriented not just toward
  its own uncreated prosperity but toward Truth, is
  as un-Darwinian as the idea that every human
  being has a built-in moral compassa conscience
  that swings free of both social history and
  individual luck.
• Untruth and Consequences,
• The New Republic, 31 July 1995, 32-36.

50
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
• Because Naturalism undermines human rationality.
• Because Naturalism undermines human free will.

51
Naturalism.org

• From a naturalistic perspective, there are no
  causally privileged agents, nothing that causes
  without being caused in turn.  Human beings act
  the way they do because of the various influences
  that shape them, whether these be biological or
  social, genetic or environmental. We do not have
  the capacity to act outside the causal
  connections that link us in every respect to the
  rest of the world. This means we do not have what
  many people think of as free will, being able to
  cause our behavior without our being fully caused
  in turn.
• http//www.naturalism.org/
  tenetsof.htm

52
Naturalism and Freedom

• One way that naturalists will try to show that
  we are physically determined is to show that we
  can track certain types of reactions in the brain
  scientifically. This shows only that our thoughts
  are processed by the brain and that certain brain
  states can tracked under the right conditions.
  But what cannot be observed without some
  reference to the world beyond ones brain is the
  specific content of that mental activity. A
  scientist might be able to

53
Naturalism and Freedom

• identify the part of the brain that is involved
  in meditation or prayer but he cannot discern
  what an individual is praying foror to whom.
  This is because the content of thought is not
  found in the brain but in the mind. You can look
  in my laptop and find the data that translates to
  the words of this presentation but you will not
  find the thoughts behind the words in my computer
  because those thoughts are in my mind, not the
  instrument that I use to communicate those
  thoughts.

54
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
• Because Naturalism undermines human rationality.
• Because Naturalism undermines human free will.
• Because Naturalism undermines morality.

55
Atheists Michael Ruse and E. O. Wilson

• Human beings function better if they are
  deceived by their genes into thinking that there
  is a disinterested objective morality binding
  upon them, which all should obey. We help others
  because it is right to help them and because we
  know that they are inwardly compelled to
  reciprocate in equal measure. What Darwinian
  evolutionary theory shows is that this sense of
  right and the corresponding sense of wrong,
  feelings we take to be above individual desire
  and in some fashion outside biology, are in fact
  brought about by ultimate biological processes.

Moral Philosophy as Applied Science,
Philosophy, 61 (1986) 179.
56
Naturalism.org

• From a naturalistic perspective, behavior arises
  out of the interaction between individuals and
  their environment, not from a freely willing self
  that produces behavior independently of causal
  connections . . . Therefore individuals dont
  bear ultimate originative responsibility for
  their actions, in the sense of being their first
  cause. Given the circumstances both inside and
  outside the body, they couldnt have done other
  than what they did. Nevertheless, we must

57
Naturalism.org

• still hold individuals responsible, in the sense
  of applying rewards and sanctions, so that their
  behavior stays more or less within the range of
  what we deem acceptable. This is, partially, how
  people learn to act ethically. Naturalism doesnt
  undermine the need or possibility of
  responsibility and morality, but it places them
  within the world as understood by science.
• http//www.naturalism.org/tenetsof.htm

58
Naturalism and Morality

• How do we hold people responsible who arent
  responsible? If we arent free, then why do we
  call Francis of Assisi a Saint and Jeffrey Dahmer
  a monster? If we arent free (or rational), then
  why do atheists even write books? It would seem
  that we are all just determined to do what we do
  and there can be no such thing as persuasion.

59
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism is Self-Refuting.
• Because Naturalism undermines human rationality.
• Because Naturalism undermines human freedom and
  free will.
• Because Naturalism undermines morality.
• Because Naturalism undermines human relationality.

60
Naturalism and Relationships

• If our actions are the result of physical
  causes, then what of love? Why does your husband
  or wife, boyfriend or girlfriend, love you? Why
  do you love your significant other? Does he/she
  do so freely? Do you? Not in a naturalist
  world. Love is simply a byproduct of biology
  its in our glands, or some other physical
  source. In a very real sense, then, in a
  naturalist world we can say that love is in our
  genesbut so is psychosis. On a material level,
  it seems, then, that love and mental illness are
  roughly the same.

61
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism cannot explain human
  consciousness.

62
Richard Dawkins on Consciousness

• Neither Steven Pinker nor I can explain human
  subjective consciousnesswhat philosophers call
  qualia. In How the Mind Works Steven elegantly
  sets out the problem of subjective consciousness,
  and asks where it comes from and whats the
  explanation. Then hes honest enough to say,
  Beats the heck out of me. That is an honest
  thing to say, and I echo it. We dont know. We
  dont understand it.
• Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker, Is Science
  Killing The Soul? http//www.edge.org/3rd_culture
  /dawkins_pinker/debate_p4.html

63
Ned Block on Consciousness

• We have no conception of our physical or
  functional nature that allows us to understand
  how it could explain our subjective experience. .
  . . In the case of consciousness we have
  nothingzilchworthy of being called a research
  programme, nor are there any substantive
  proposals about how to go about starting one. . .
  . Researchers are stumped.
• Consciousness, in A
  Companion to Philosophy of Mind, 210-12.

64
John Searle

• Physical events can have only physical
  explanations, and consciousness is not physical,
  so consciousness plays no explanatory role
  whatsoever. If, for example, you think you ate
  because you were consciously hungry, or got
  married because you were consciously in love with
  your prospective spouse, or

65
John Searle

• withdrew your hand from the flame because you
  consciously felt a pain, or spoke up at a meeting
  because you consciously disagreed with the main
  speaker, you are mistaken in every case. In each
  case the effect was a physical event and
  therefore must have an entirely physical
  explanation.
• The Mystery of Consciousness, 154.

66
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism cannot explain human
  consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality
  of the self.

67
Naturalism.org

• As strictly physical beings, we dont exist as
  immaterial selves, either mental or spiritual,
  that control behavior. Thought, desires,
  intentions, feelings, and actions all arise on
  their own without the benefit of a supervisory
  self, and they are all the products of a physical
  system, the brain and the body. The self is
  constituted by more or less consistent sets of
  personal characteristics, beliefs, and actions
  it doesnt exist apart from those complex
  physical processes that make up the individual.
  It may strongly seem as if there is a self
  sitting behind experience, witnessing it, and
  behind behavior, controlling it, but this
  impression

68
Naturalism.org

• is strongly disconfirmed by a scientific
  understanding of human behavior.
• Tenets of Naturalism http//www.naturalism.org/ten
  etsof.htm

69
Naturalism.org

• We are the evolved products of natural
  selection, which operates without intention,
  foresight or purpose. Nothing about us escapes
  being included in the physical universe, or
  escapes being shaped by the various
  processesphysical, biological, psychological,
  and socialthat science describes. On a
  scientific understanding of ourselves, theres no
  evidence for immaterial souls, spirits, mental
  essences, or disembodied selves which stand apart
  from the physical world.
• Tenets of Naturalism http//www.naturalism.org/ten
  etsof.htm

70
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism cannot explain human
  consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality
  of the self.
• Because even if Darwinism is true, it doesnt
  necessarily lead to Naturalism.

71
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism cannot explain human
  consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality
  of the self.
• Because even if Darwinism is true, it doesnt
  necessarily lead to Naturalism.
• Because Naturalism has no answer to the problem
  of evil.

72
Why I Am Not a Naturalist

• Because Naturalism cannot explain human
  consciousness.
• Because Naturalism denies the substantial reality
  of the self.
• Because even if Darwinism is true, it doesnt
  necessarily lead to Naturalism.
• Because Naturalism has no answer to the problem
  of evil.
• Because Naturalism often appeals to ad hoc
  solutions, such as Memes.

73
Richard Dawkins on Memes

• We need a name for the new replicator, a noun
  that conveys the idea of a unit of cultural
  transmission, or a unit of imitation. Mimeme
  comes from a suitable Greek root, but I want a
  monosyllable that sounds a bit like gene. I
  hope my classicist friends will forgive me if I
  abbreviate mimeme to meme. If it is any
  consolation, it could alternatively be thought of
  as being related to memory, or to the French
  word même. It should be pronounced to rhyme with
  cream.
• The Selfish Gene, 11

74
Simon Conway Morris on Memes

• Memes are trivial, to be banished by simple
  mental exercises. In any wider context, they are
  hopelessly, if not hilariously, simplistic.
• Lifes Solution Inevitable Humans in a Lonely
  Universe, 324

75
Practical Strategies for talking to Atheists
76
General Strategies

• Use their authorities.
• DO NOT ARGUE EVOLUTION. This is like trying to
  get to Baton Rouge by going through Australia.
• Dont argue the age of the earth.
• Focus on Physics and Cosmology rather than
  Biology.
• Use questions.

77
Strategy 1

• Ask them if they think they freely dont believe
  in God.
• Ask them if they think they are rational and can
  reason their way to the truth on important
  issues.
• Ask how certain they are.
• Ask them how this can be the case if naturalism,
  i.e., materialism is true.

78
Strategy 1

• Ask them which they are more certain
  aboutmaterialism or their own freedom and
  rationality.

79
Strategy 2

• Ask them if they believe in investigation and
  research.
• Ask them how they have investigated the question
  of God.
• Ask them how important this issue is.
• Ask them if the intensity of their investigation
  has been proportional to the importance of the
  issue.

80
Strategy 3

• Ask them how old the universe is.
• They will generally say that the universe is more
  than 13 billion years old (because thats what
  standard big bang cosmology indicates). They
  often assume that all Christians believe in a
  young universe.

81
Strategy 3

• Point out to them that if something has an age,
  it has a beginning.
• Point out that if something has a beginning, it
  has a causeand that they have already agreed
  that the universe has a beginning. Therefore the
  universe has a cause.

82
Strategy 3

• Note We have not proved God, and certainly not
  the Christian God, but this cause is consistent
  with the Christian view of God.
• Note The age of the universe is NOT an issue
  with this approach. The key is getting them to
  admit that the universe has an age!

83
Strategy 3

• When you ask them how old the universe is, they
  may say that the universe is eternal.
• Ask them why it is that every part of the
  universe that we know of shows signs of age, thus
  indicating that each and every part of the
  universe is temporal, i.e., not eternal.

84
Strategy 3

• Note I am NOT suggesting that we argue from the
  fact that every part of the universe is temporal
  to the universe itself being temporal. To do so
  would be to commit (or as least appear to commit)
  the fallacy of composition. Asking questions is
  not making arguments.

85
Strategy 3

• Also ask why it is that they dont accept the
  standard big bang cosmology. In other words, why
  they are going against the scientific consensus
  on this point.
• They may say that they believe in either an
  oscillating universe or a universe ensemble
  (multiverse).

86
Strategy 3

• Point out to them that there is no evidence of
  either (though each is logically possible).
• Ask them how either is a scientific hypothesis,
  given that neither is falsifiable (or
  observable).
• Ask them how either is simpler than the standard
  big bang cosmology.

87
Q A
88
www.defendthefaith.net
Defend the Faith is a five-day, five-night
conference in Christian Apologetics training that
includes outstanding worship. Its held on the
NOBTS main campus January 5-10, 2014, and
features speakers such as Gary Habermas, Greg
Koukl, Nancy Pearcey, Douglas Groothuis, Sean
McDowell, Mary Jo Sharp, James Walker, Robert
Bowman, Brett Kunkle, Bob Stewart, and many
others.
89
You can get this PPT file by emailing me
atdrbobstewart_at_yahoo.com orrstewart_at_nobts.edu
90
Im on Facebook as Bob Stewart. If you want to
friend me, please send me a message saying where
you heard me speak and Ill confirm you.Thanks
and God bless you.
91
(No Transcript)