The Pale Blue Dot

As you can see in this photo, the pale blue dot is earth: the planet we call home.

Here’s a great video (via Pharyngula) with further humbling and inspiring thoughts from the famous astronomer/cosmologist Carl Sagan on the implications of our infinitesimal place in the universe:

Advertisements

6 comments on “The Pale Blue Dot

  1. JT
    July 13, 2010 at 4:41 am #

    Alright, Lou – so I’m never going to be any kind of a match for Carl Sagan… but I’ll enter the arena nonetheless! I will state right up front that I believe naturalism and existentialism have valid and reasonable arguments in their favor. This video, however, does not seem to deal with the merits of naturalism as much as with the perceived flaws of theism. That being said, my hope will be to raise questions on the logic and coherence of a few of the arguments in the video.

    My primary question for Sagan and those who hold to a similar philosophy is this: How do any of the things mentioned (or any other finding of science for that matter) preclude the existence of God? Given the modern day reality of globalization and the enormous variety of points of view with respect to religion, politics, and philosophy, I would propose that decisions about theism/atheism ought to be talked about in terms of plausibility, rather than in terms of objectivity. To claim objectivity is now seen most often as a power-play, whether one makes it for their faith (or non-faith), economic system, political convictions, etc. For a list of sources dealing with the flaws of objectivism, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

    Early on in the narration we’re told that our ancestors described origins in terms of their own experiences. Based on the flaws in objectivism, how are Sagan’s ideas to be viewed any differently? We’re also told that “science came along and taught us that we are not the measure of all things.” On what basis? According to Sagan, because there are “wonders unimagined” and the universe is not obliged to conform to what is comfortable or plausible to us. I wholeheartedly agree that science allows us to see/experience/understand the cosmos far more deeply than our ancestors could, but how does that teach us that we are not the measure of all things (by which Sagan seems to mean theism via extrapolation, i.e. humans invented God/gods to give themselves purpose). No religion that I’m aware of has ever postured itself as anti-“wonders unimagined.” Quite the opposite seems to be the case as religions frequently remind their adherents that they are members of a greater Whole, comprising all the wonders of the universe, whether imagined or not. Sagan admits at one point that religious people are always products of their time (as he himself was a late-modernist, seemingly with existentialist leanings), so how does their resistance to scientific progress somehow undermine theism at large? Aren’t they simply behaving as people do – resisting the subversion of their worldview? A distinction needs to be made at this point that while science has undermined people’s ideas about God (i.e. God made the sun go around the earth), it has not at any point undermined the idea of God’s existence. To say so is to assume one’s conclusion since it is not possible to conclude the existence or non-existence of something outside the natural realm based on the natural realm itself. Trying to do so is like trying to prove to Truman that Christof does or doesn’t exist. The only way Truman can know for sure one way or the other is by breaking out of the world in which he has been contained, or by Christof breaking in. Until that point, Truman has only clues, impressions, feelings, and the testimony of others. Likewise, for Sagan to claim the non-existence of God based on cosmological phenomena is inherently illogical (as are theists’ attempts to do the opposite). In an irony that I find somewhat humorous, Sagan ends up making the same kind of ill-conceived argument as the modernist theists he was arguing against, with both groups ending up irrelevant in the globalized world.

    Moreover, in what I see as another inconsistency, Sagan claims “science has taught us that because we have a talent for deceiving ourselves, subjectivity may not freely reign.” However, subjectivity is exactly what he seems to be aiming for in the conclusion when he derides us for looking for meaning and purpose in our lives, and challenges us to “find ourselves a worthy goal,” since “we are the custodians of life’s meaning.” How much more subjective can one be? I believe in Sagan’s mind there is a distinction to be made between objective knowledge of the cosmos and subjective morality, but the very decision to make such a distinction is, in the end, subjective. If the cosmos cannot provide us with purpose, then how can Sagan trumpet all the “good” science has brought us, such as curing disease, improving agriculture and so forth? Why are such things “good” at all and on what basis? Furthermore, what within the cosmos determines the crimes we all recognize? Why is the Holocaust “evil”? Why is rape “bad”? I believe a philosophy for understanding the cosmos that judiciously incorporates all of life’s facets is far more plausible than one in which major areas of human and cosmological interest are ignored or dismissed entirely. Sagan’s view of the world leaves out far too much to be significantly credible, especially in a globalized world filled with sweat shops, warring drug cartels, gushing oil wells, nuclear weapons, and AIDS.

    Sagan says defending theism today represents a willful disregard of the evidence and a flight from self-knowledge. I really couldn’t disagree more. There is no evidence from science that precludes theism, just as by definition there is no evidence that universally establishes it. Theism and religion are matters of plausibility because they are premises of what is beyond or behind the cosmos. The premises of faith/non-faith can be explored and debated based upon how well they align with the cosmos that is, namely, the cosmos we experience. I, for one, would find myself abandoning self-knowledge if I were to ignore the super-natural experiences I believe I have had. What possible grounds could Sagan have to tell me otherwise?

    Finally, I was disappointed by the portion of the video in which a mockery is made of the story of the garden Eden. The mockery itself is not all that offensive (I am happy for everyone to take up and defend their own positions), but Sagan does not properly tell his opponent’s story. He claims that the story of Eden is one of a prohibition of knowledge itself, and that the ideal being lost in Eden is one of ignorance. This is fundamentally false and does not represent any informed theist’s position whatsoever. The story of Eden is the story of gaining the knowledge of evil. The ideal being lost is not ignorance but innocence. The tree Sagan refers to is fully titled “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil,” not “The Tree of Knowledge.” Christian theists have always embraced a pursuit of knowledge of the cosmos as a means to a deeper understanding of the God who created it, just as one might study a work of art to learn more about the artist. As Anselm (c. 1033-1109) described it, the task for the theist is fides quaerens intellectum – faith seeking understanding. I don’t think Sagan has any qualms about this dishonesty toward Christian and Jewish theists’ story, since moral standards do not exist in his system. Some may find that kind of power-play acceptable and reasonable. Most of us do not.

    For all of his emphasis on objectivity and reason, I find Sagan’s closing summary to be little more than a subjective rant that isn’t intellectually honest enough to properly describe his opponents’ views. This isn’t helpful for anyone and only contributes to the shouting match that persists between people of all faiths, philosophies, and political persuasions. I believe we should aspire to more.

    • Louis
      July 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm #

      JT,

      I see we continue our tradition of being the lone commenters on each other’s blogs. Rock on!

      I would agree with your general observation that this piece is lacking in arguments. It really is just excerpts from one chapter in Sagan’s book, edited by a YouTube user. By no means should it be viewed as Sagan’s cumulative argument for atheism or against theism. I would view it more of a scientific/naturalistic narrative. I probably should have clarified this in my preface. I should also note that I haven’t read any of Sagan’s books in their totality, so I want to be careful not to try to assume how he would respond to your questions. That said, I do feel you make some valid points that are worthy of a response.

      When Sagan uses the term “objectivity,” I don’t believe he’s doing so in an absolutist sense. Rather, I surmise that his point would be that science clearly provides the most objective means of gathering knowledge about the universe by virtue of it’s undeniable track record. Firstly, there’s very little consensus among the world’s religions (even within individual religions!). Science doesn’t achieve perfect consensus, but it comes pretty darn close, certainly much closer than theology. Secondly, what does theology add to our understanding of the facts of the universe? When has theology proven science wrong about the facts of our cosmos? To the contrary, the opposite has been taking place for centuries. This isn’t a power play; it’s fact. Science has undermined the existence of God to the extent that the concept of a god has become more and more superfluous: it doesn’t add anything to our understanding of the cosmos or our place in it. When Sagan says that “subjectivity may not freely rein,” he’s not saying that the purpose or meaning we find in life may not be subjective, quite the opposite. He means that since we can’t rely on theology and religion to provide us with objective knowledge about the universe, we can’t rely on them to provide meaning. Meaning and purpose must originate from ourselves.

      You say:

      If the cosmos cannot provide us with purpose, then how can Sagan trumpet all the “good” science has brought us, such as curing disease, improving agriculture and so forth? Why are such things “good” at all and on what basis? Furthermore, what within the cosmos determines the crimes we all recognize? Why is the Holocaust “evil”? Why is rape “bad”?

      If one doesn’t know that genocide and rape are wrong, they certainly won’t learn as much by reading the entire Bible. Morality evolves just as culture does. We are all, theists and atheists alike, on equal ground here.

  2. JT
    July 13, 2010 at 11:22 pm #

    It’s too true. Maybe we should just have one blog between the two of us?!? Regarding Sagan’s views on objectivity, I would suspect that our attempting to define how how objective he is or isn’t would really be futile, and even the fact that it could be a discussion point undermines the whole notion of objectivity in the first place. My feeling is that you place far too heavy a load on the structure of science. To say science is the most objective means of gathering knowledge of the universe is all well and good. Religion is not intending, for the most part, to explain the “how” of the universe. The mechanisms and laws of the cosmos can explain much of the “how.” Any thoughtful theist would gladly embrace the contribution science makes in our knowledge and understanding of the cosmos. However, despite Sagan’s assertion to the contrary, the information gleaned from science cannot answer the question, “Why?” (or in Sagan’s case, “Why not?”). Sagan claims scientific knowledge demonstrating that God is not necessary to explain the mechanisms of the universe means there is no God. That conclusion does not follow from the premises and is logically incoherent. His argument would look something like this:

    Premise 1: Most people have used theism to explain the mechanisms of the universe.
    Premise 2: Science has shown the mechanisms of the universe to be self-sustaining and autonomous.
    Conclusion: Therefore, God does not exist.
    This is non-sensical. The proper conclusion would be: Therefore, theists are wrong to ascribe the mechanics of the universe to God.
    You say there is very little consensus among world religions. However, your assertion reflects your subjective bias in choosing which topics to focus on. As a case in point, all religions universally agree on the existence moral laws, on the existence of divine beings, and on the existence of an afterlife. This is significant consensus from my point of view, particularly since theology is primarily trying to answer the question “Why?” before moving on to “How?” Regardless of whether or not you disagree with me over how much consensus religious people share in their beliefs, the reality is that when it comes to the “How?” of the universe, you and I will never disagree on the basis of our beliefs/non-beliefs about God. In fact, we are virtually in total agreement regarding how the universe works, how it has evolved, etc., with neither one of us sacrificing his convictions regarding God. The scientific method deals with what exists in the physical/natural world. It cannot possibly confirm or deny the existence of phenomena outside of our cosmos, which is precisely the area theology deals with. Science and theology are no more competitors than the Bulls are rivals of the White Sox. They play different games, inhabit different spheres, and seek to answer very different questions. This is the flaw in Sagan’s position: he turns science into theology. He does the very thing the Church did to Galileo when it turned theology into science. This must be recognized and admitted by all who would find theological answers (i.e. “Does God exist?”) in the realm of science, and vice versa. You ask what theology has contributed to our understanding of the universe, and has it every proven science wrong. These are the wrong questions to ask, since theology is not primarily seeking to answer “How?” By subjectively choosing to invent and utilize the scientific method as it currently stands, we have by definition eliminated its ability to determine anything beyond the physical world.

    The Wikipedia article I cited summarizes what I’m trying to get at in its introductory paragraph, which I quote in full:

    Some people regard science as objective in this [philosophical] sense and this objectivity in science is often attributed with the property of scientific measurement that can be tested independent from the individual scientist (the subject) who proposes them. It is thus intimately related to the aim of testability and reproducibility. To be properly considered objective, the results of measurement must be communicated from person to person, and then demonstrated for third parties, as an advance in understanding of the objective world. Such demonstrable knowledge would ordinarily confer demonstrable powers of prediction or technological construction. However, this traditional view about objectivity ignores several things. First, the selection of the specific object to measure is typically a subjective decision and it often involves reductionism. Second, and potentially much more problematic, is the selection of instruments (tools) and the selection of the measurement methodology. Some features or qualities of the object under study will be ignored in the measurement process and the limitations of the chosen instruments will cause data to be left out of consideration. In addition to these absolute limits of objectivity surrounding the measurement process, any given community of researchers often shares certain “subjective views” and this subjectivity is therefore built in to the conceptual systems; and it can even be built in to the design of the tools used for measurement. Total objectivity is arguably not even possible in some—or maybe all—situations.

    I believe the shortcoming in your position is that you are ascribing a purpose to theology and religion that is at best secondary and at worst irrelevant. If I understand you correctly, you seem to think religion exists to tell people how the universe works. This clearly comes out in the Sagan video via the discussion on creation myths, where storms come from, etc. However, the flaw in your reasoning is in thinking that people concluded God. Theism says they premise him. That is what must be answered if naturalism (the proper name for Sagan’s philosophical position) is to fairly and genuinely engage theism.

    Just to spell it out logically, here is a theist’s position:
    Premise 1: We occasionally experience God/gods breaking into the physical world.
    Premise 2: This God/gods reveals to us the meaning of life (the “Why?”) and the best way to live in harmony with the rest of the world (morals/ethics).
    Conclusion 1: We do not view the cosmos as the limit of all that exists.
    Conclusion 2: Life has purpose.
    Conclusion 3: There is a moral/ethical code by which we are measured/judged.
    As I said, God is in the premise.

    Conversely, here is what I believe would be an atheist’s view of theists:
    Premise 1: People experience phenomena of which they can not always provide an explanation.
    Premise 2: People tend to categorize things based on their past experiences in the world.
    Conclusion: People invented God/gods to provide explanations for phenomena they could not otherwise categorize.

    The argument that people invented God in order to explain their world is well and good, but it is not on any firmer footing than a theist’s argument that God exists. The premises of the atheist in the instance are interpretations – subjective! – of the actions and beliefs of others.

    I conclude by returning once again to Truman. If Truman decided to invent and practice the scientific method to learn more about his world, he would no doubt have learned a great deal. However, if a light never falls from the sky, Truman never encounters the Reality beyond his bubble. For Sagan to suggest that the scientific method can somehow tell us whether or not Christof exists is incoherent. Truman does not have the tools to make such a determination because he is limited by the world in which he has been placed. The only way Truman learns the truth is if Christof’s world breaks into Truman’s. Of course, the twist of the movie is that Truman slams his boat into the outer wall of his “universe,” thereby liberating himself. However, as Steven Hawking has shown us, there is no way out of our universe and into something else. It is all we have and it is as far as we can go. Therefore, we have no way of positively knowing with any sort of objectivity what may or may not lie beyond the cosmos, and thus we are limited to plausibility and experience when asking “Why?”

  3. Louis
    July 15, 2010 at 2:41 am #

    I actually think Sagan’s argument might look more like this:

    Premise 1: People throughout history have ascribed supernatural causes to what actually was, unbeknownst to them at the time, natural phenomena.
    Premise 2: Science has demonstrated the natural causes of all the phenomena once thought to be supernatural.
    Conclusion: There is now no reason to believe in anything supernatural.

    As to the issue of consensus, I stand firm in my conclusion that there is little to none when it comes to religion. Saying that consensus exists in religion because all religions believe in some form of morality, some type of divine being, and an afterlife is like saying there is consensus in politics because all politicians believe in the existence of some form of society, which should be governed in some way, by some type of governing body.

    I don’t agree with your “how/why” distinction between science and theology. Science addresses “why” questions all the time:

    -“Why does it rain?”
    -“Why is there such diversity of species of life on earth?”
    -“Why are we experiencing a drought causing the death of our life-sustaining crops?”
    -“Why should a leg be amputated when the risk of a life-threatening infection spreading to the rest of the body is high?” (By the way, this is an ‘ought’ as well. The surgeon clearly ought to amputate the leg in this situation.)

    The notion that science and theology occupy distinct and irrelevant territories is, I believe, not only unfounded, but also self-defeating for the theist. If science and theology are non-overlapping, why are there still huge numbers of Americans (53%!) who believe that “God created man exactly how the Bible describes it.” See this gallup poll. And why have liberal Christians adjusted their Creation theologies to be consistent with the findings of science? Moreover, Christians themselves use empirical (scientific) evidence as justification for their faith! Many believe that the empirical evidence for the physical death and bodily resurrection of Christ justifies their entire Christian faith. Likewise, if scientific evidence surfaced supporting the virgin birth, would Christians ignore it as irrelevant?

    The bottom line is: if there is no good reason to believe in the supernatural anymore, why continue to believe? That, in my opinion, is Sagan’s point.

  4. JT
    July 17, 2010 at 5:06 am #

    Alright, so you’ve already moved on and blogged about fruit at this point, so I think it’s probably time to wrap this discussion up! I’ll just weigh in once more and then let you have the last word. 🙂

    Even with the way you re-work Sagan’s conclusion, it still doesn’t follow logically from the premises. All that you can conclude from the premises as stated is that the supernatural does not impact/affect premise 1’s virtually undefined “natural phenomena.” Concluding that God doesn’t impact natural phenomena the way ancient people thought he did does not logically mean God does not exist/doesn’t warrant our belief. People did not believe in God because of the natural phenomena they thought he was affecting, but because they believed he revealed himself to them. You’re welcome to make the leap that God does not exist, but I really don’t see how it logically follows, given the premises you’re stating. Also, along with that, I don’t feel you’ve really dealt with my argument that theism puts God in the premise, not in the conclusion, as Sagan’s argument requires.

    Of course, you’re also welcome to disagree with my definition of “consensus,” but we are left at an impasse because of our subjectivity. I believe this further reinforces my point that while science claims objectivity, it is only objective once its parameters have been subjectively established. You are defining “consensus” according to one set of parameters, while I am using another, and we are both fully convinced of our positions. So, who is objectively “right”? You’re absolutely right to use politics as an example. The gridlock we experience in America is because there are vastly different parameters being applied by the two parties as to what the role of government is. And yet, we do have consensus because both parties agree to compete for votes in elections in order to determine who has the authority to rule. I believe you mistake science’s ability to be objective about the supernatural with the fact that most if not all of the scientists you are listening to hold to the same worldview as yourself and are as a group dictating the same parameters as a subjective starting point. The reason it appears the scientific community has “consensus” about metaphysics/the supernatural is because they all believe in the same premises, not because they have managed to become altogether “objective.” Anyone who disagrees with their conclusions is then labeled away and not engaged with because they aren’t “scientific,” when really what is meant is that they are not “naturalistic.” A great case-in-point is Francis Collins, director of the human genome project.

    I’m not exactly sure what to say about the how/why distinction… For a scientist to ask “Why does it rain?” is really the same question as “How does it rain?” For the scientist, the answer lies in the water-cycle, whether the question is “How?” or “Why?” That is not the same question a philosopher/theologian is asking when they ask “Why does it rain?” They are asking something like, “Is it because God is pleased with people that it is raining today?” The categories are completely different, which is why I am convinced the spheres are separate. I’m not sure if I said the spheres are irrelevant to each other – if so I would nuance that significantly. However, the statistics you cite show that there is an ability within the human mind/soul to recognize the fact of the laws of nature, while still believing the natural world is not all there is. You’re right that there are some conservative Christians who try to prove objectively the resurrection of Jesus as a means of justifying faith in him. However, they are primarily late modernists, such as Josh McDowell, who are simply products of their time and culture, using the tools they had at-hand to defend themselves.

    Your question about the virgin birth brings me back to my primary point in this whole discussion, which is that faith in the supernatural ought to be viewed in terms of plausibility, rather than objectivity. Proving the virgin birth would perhaps provide more plausibility to the deity of Jesus, similar to how the claims about the resurrection do currently. Historical evidence can increase the plausibility of Christianity, but it cannot truly establish it objectively, since there will always be an alternative explanation to the data (i.e., “Was it a hoax?”). Conversely, historical evidence could easily undermine and decimate Christian faith, simply by producing data contrary to its core beliefs. For instance, unearthing a tomb with a body still interred, marked as being that of Jesus of Nazareth and dating to the first half of the first century would annihilate the plausibility of Christianity. Producing such a body and tomb would have silenced the first century Christians in the face of the persecution they faced, which leads into the actual data surrounding the resurrection. As I think I’ve mentioned to you before, I do not feel this data gets properly dealt with by those who would dismiss Christianity outright. However, that discussion is most certainly beyond the scope of this exchange.

    I can understand Sagan’s bottom line, that if there is no good reason to believe in the supernatural anymore, why continue to believe? However, who gets to define “no good reason”? Christian theism has never claimed that God is constantly interfering with the mechanisms and rhythms of the cosmos. It only claims that he breaks into the universe and acts on it occasionally, or even rarely. For one to argue that 99.99% of the time the universe behaves thus, therefore the other .01% of the time it must do so as well is to ignore the details of the claims being made by theists. Christians only claim that the resurrection of Jesus happened one time in all of history – an absolute and utter anomaly in the laws of nature. I cannot see the value in dismissing such a claim out of hand simply because it conflicts with the naturalists’ claim to having objectively discovered the laws of the universe. The whole point of the claim is that something bizarre happened in contradiction to the way things always go!

    Skepticism and doubt I can easily and gladly embrace, but it does bother me to hear Sagan’s claim to objectively “know” there is no supernatural. Honestly, such a claim to “knowledge” is derived from his own subjective convictions about reality and/or science. I can recall you saying once that you find it helpful to “withhold judgment” on supernatural claims. If you have moved from that position, then fair enough, but I really don’t think Sagan is one who models that sort of intellectual humility. Using the category of plausibility, people are free to withhold judgment on matters beyond the scope of their scientific tools. In like manner, I hope to be one who engages honestly and fully with both atheists’ and other theists’ positions regarding what the heck’s going on here on this pale blue dot.

    Finish it up, Lou!

    • Louis
      July 18, 2010 at 3:32 am #

      Okay, I’m back from my fruit digression. 🙂

      I don’t wish this response to necessarily be the end of our comment thread. I think we’re hitting on some key, fundamental issues that we should continue to discuss.

      I want to adopt a couple terms that I like from your last comment with respect to grounds and justifications for belief: plausibility and warrant. (I actually prefer the term probability to plausibility in this context because it entails a continuum or scale that I think reflects how we properly evaluate truth claims.) These terms are important because they are central to Sagan’s argument. His narrative isn’t an attempt to logically disprove the existence of God; rather, it’s merely a statement on the improbability of the existence of the supernatural given our current knowledge of the universe. At one point in history, says Sagan, belief in gods (the supernatural) was warranted based on our limited understanding of the cosmos at the time, but that is no longer the case. According to our modern, scientific understanding of the cosmos there is no reason to believe anything exists beyond what is physical (space, time, energy and matter); thus, belief in the supernatural is no longer epistemologically warranted. I believe that naturalism offers the most probable and thus warranted position. Richard Carrier states it well here:

      The cause of lightning was once thought to be God’s wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it’s all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God’s wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. A horse that runs a million races and never loses is about to run yet another race with a horse that has lost every single one of the million races it has run. Which horse should we bet on? The answer is obvious.

      So I would ask you in the interest of further discussion: what makes belief in the supernatural more probable than a naturalistic view of the universe? What warrants your belief that something exists besides space, time, energy and matter? Those are the questions that must be answered to defeat Sagan’s argument.

      Speaking of which, I vehemently disagree with your opinion that Sagan (or any naturalist for that matter) is arrogant in his disbelief of the supernatural. Recall that the title of the video was “A Universe Not Made For Us” (emphasis mine). Contrast that with the religious believer’s notions of their place in the universe, which is much more like “A Universe Made For Us”. I can’t say I disagree with Sam Harris when he states in Letter to a Christian Nation:

      One of the monumental ironies of religious discourse can be appreciated in the frequency with which people of faith praise themselves for their humility, while condemning scientists and other non-believers for their intellectual arrogance. There is, in fact, no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell…An average Christian, in an average church, listening to an average Sunday sermon has achieved a level of arrogance simply unimaginable in scientific discourse–and there have been some extraordinarily arrogant scientists.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: