Podcast #48: Drunk Ex-Philosophers

62 June 14, 2015 by

49_finalIn this episode, the DXPs sound less like former pastors and more like philosophers, waxing profound as we address such topics as the nature of certitude and the role of evidence in achieving it, what the ramifications of artificial intelligence may be, whether aliens exist, and how we know we weren’t just created five minutes ago and pre-programmed with a bunch of false memories we mistakenly believe to be true. And orgies. We also mention those. We then tackle the issue of marriage and divorce, wondering whether ideals can just be good or whether they also have to be true. Christian’s bieber has to do with the clap, while Jason is biebered by being told what to do.

Also, is it better to succeed at something easy or suck at something awesome?

Links from this episode:

62 Comments (click here to leave a comment)

  1. RE: Atheist Morality

    From a 100% secular perspective, it could be argued that humans are social animals. Following social norms are instinctual and serve to benefit the whole of society. It is in an individual’s best interest to reinforce the basic tenants of kindness, charity, and non-aggression because we all benefit when others follow those tenants as well. We see this in other social animals as well (e.g., dogs do not tolerate theft, Elephants care for others’ babies, etc.), so why should humans be any different? Where one person may see God-mandated law, secularists can rest comfortably knowing that the actions that “feel right” are the same that enable our species to thrive.

  3. Bieber:

    Ties in soccer. Why would anyone design a global tournament with ties? Every time the American team (men or women) walk off the field in a tie, I can’t help but feel ashamed. How badass would it be if they stood on the field and challenged their opponents to keep playing until someone wins? Once the clock runs out, play a series of 10 minute periods with (five minute breaks) until one team scores and actually wins the game.

  4. Oh man, I hear this a lot. It’s only the first stage or a tournament where ties are allowed, and this is because there is a point system. 3 for a win, 1 for a tie, and 0 for a loss. It’s usually 4 teams vying for the top two spots. Having three possible outcomes creates more drama in the group stage. Once the group stage is over, ties are no longer allowed. They go into overtime and then a shootout. So while you may tie in the group stage, you cannot in the quarter finals and beyond.

  5. Fair enough. I’d still prefer the drama of two exhausted teams fighting it out in sudden death overtime.

    Even if the the game officially is a tie, I’d still like the Americans to stay on the field and offer to keep playing.

  6. Great podcast again.

    Random thoughts:

    Being married to a redhead and having a beautiful left-handed daughter, I’d like to express my personal outrage that you would equate either of those traits with genetic diseases. I’ll be forming my own protest group and demanding that your sponsors drop their support.

    Or you know… I’ll just get on with my life.

    Also, I’d like to protest the use of the word ‘pervert’ as if it were a bad thing.

    I probably shouldn’t have typed that last sentence. Oh well.

    Pascal’s wager is awesome if you assume that God is an idiot who doesn’t know you’re only sucking up to him to get out of hell… which… would probably apply to most conversions made at altar calls too. Whoops.

    Unless we can find a way to mimic Earth’s gravity, living on Mars will be impossible. While gravity there is stronger than it is on our moon, it is still only approximately 40% of Earth’s. (And that’s not counting the 3-4 years it would take travelling in a zero gravity environment of a spaceship to get there.) Whether you say that our bodies were created for an Earth environment or evolved over the course of 3.5 billion years, without the gravity they’re used to, they would start to break down.

    There doesn’t need to be a mention of aliens in the bible, because if the bible is true, it is the story of humanity and its relationship to God, not the story of aliens.

    If you’re not watching Person of Interest, I’d recommend it as its storyline has evolved from a superhero vigilante tale to a story of two AIs warring with one another, one that has learned empathy and the value of human life and sees itself as a protector and one that has no empathy and views itself as a new god and humanity as lesser disposable beings.

    The corporate rules being nonsensical and enforced regardless of its effect on human happiness and people reminds me a great deal of how many, many Christians approach the bible.

  9. I hate to be one of “those” people but football soccer players are already having to run in the neighbourhood of 11 to 15 km per 90 minute match. And unlike other sports where players can be subbed in and out, you’re on the pitch for the entire duration. What’s more preferable, a tie or a bunch of people who can’t move around anymore lying on the field?

    As Christian mentions above, the points system adds variability to group stage matches.

    That said, there are probably better ways to get around ties than going to penalties, like golden goal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_goal)

  10. I’m a former atheist, and from what I can see, trying to look to other social animals for an analogous morality of humans only works within very limited parameters. Dogs don’t tolerate theft? I grew up in a family that loved dogs, and I love them too. However, I have witnessed dogs stealing from each other, and/or trying to do so, many times. Some animals protect their young; other animals sometimes eat their young. For that matter, in some *human* cultures, people love their neighbors, or, at least, they are encouraged to do so. In other human cultures, people sometimes *eat* their neighbors. In these cultures, cannibalism apparently “feels right.” So much for the thriving of our species! Even within American human culture, for some people, the abortion of an unborn human life “feels right” as a personal choice, while to others, it is a horror and an atrocity. From the 100% secular perspective, who or what can finally settle such questions?

  11. Great Podcast!

    I liked the way Jason talked about ideals. Just because I fail to meet the standard does not mean that the problem is with the standard. I believe these ideals are objective standards that most of the time we fall short of sometimes with mitigating subjective reasons and sometimes for blatantly culpable reasons (God knows the difference). Just because there might be subjective mitigating circumstances, doesn’t change the fact that the standard is objective. The fallen world is a messy place.

    One of the first arguments for theism that caught my attention as an adult were ones based on our sense of morals. It IS interesting that we seem to be aware of many of these ideals to one degree or another, yet fail to follow them. I sometimes really really want to follow them, but don’t. This is pretty peculiar. If I’m the product of millions of years of adaptation to evolutionary forces why do I have awareness of standards of morals that I either can’t or don’t want to follow? Where do these standards come from? If my mind is formed by this world, why does it desire things that aren’t in it?

    As for the caller’s comment about ineffable experiences while thinking about consciousness, I know exactly what he is talking about, I think. I remember the first time I had what I believe to be a similar experience. I was 5 years old and I remember looking at the TV and thinking: “that show isn’t real. Those people don’t exist. What if we don’t exist? What if we are a dream? Why am I here? Why is anything here? Could there had been nothing. Really nothing… nothing…” And my mind seemed to go numb and reality seemed to slow down and blur, and my mind felt as if it stretch away from body. I looked into the void. This happened to me many times as a grew older whenever I allowed myself to engage in similar lines of thought. If I were to ever stop being a theist, I would have a hard time not being a nihilist.

    What would cause me to stop believing? I don’t know. If atheism is true, then I’m just a deterministic bundle of molecular interactions and what caused me to stop believing isn’t really meaningful. 😉 Ha! But seriously… To stop being Catholic, I would have to be convinced that the Church has promulgated error about faith to the universal Church, such as blantly contradicting itself by it’s own standards. To stop being Christian, I would have to be convinced that Jesus didn’t rise from the dead. To stop being a Theist, I don’t know. I’m VERY convinced that there is a God. Philosophically, anything short of Deism seems absurd to me. And even then, I have a hard time believing a god would even bother creating anything at all unless it was a personal god.

  12. I’m biebered that spell checks aren’t good enough to know when I misspell a word as another word that isn’t misspelled. (such as misspelling “stripes” as “strips”)

  13. @christiankingery:disqus, if there is an ideal divorce that involves children, from what you have shared of yours, it must be close to it. I mean seriously, not only are you still friends with your ex, you still live with her and the children! Well done sir.

  14. Two things not related to this particular episode, but to which I have been introduced by listening to your podcast.

    1. Fireball- How did I not know about this elixir of the gods? I am pretty sure when Jesus turned the water into wine, it was actually Fireball.

    2. Soccer- As a good southern boy, I’ve always dismissed soccer as ridiculous and likely a tool of the terrorists, but because of your endorsement of the sport (the opinions of billions of other citizens of Earth are meaningless) I found myself watching the Women’s World Cup and I am hooked.

    Thank you for improving my quality of life. The thoughtful discussions of politics, religion, and culture are good to, but mostly the Fireball and the soccer.

  15. Women’s soccer is very slow and uneventful compared to men’s soccer, especially the english Premier League, La Liga or the World Cup. You should try those too.

  16. The US Men’s National Team is playing in Nashville, which is less than a hour from me next month. I’m so there.

  19. Certainly do go check out the USMNT but historically speaking, USWNT has been better than the men’s.

  20. Morals from a secular perspective….

    If I were an atheist I would argue for moral values as being “necessary” not needing any explanation. Just as numbers exist by their own necessity. I would say that moral values and duties are the same in every possible world.

    If that explanation got shutdown, I would be happy to admit that moral truths are only propositional truths. *if* you want to be happy and *if* you think it’s good for humans to thrive *then* you ought to be moral. If you disagree with those propositions… well, we would put you in jail or kill you.

    None of that is as satisfying as morals coming from a law giver…. but I think I could live with either answer.

  21. @christian,

    I think that you and Jason might actually share the appeal to authority as a method of knowing what is true. Quantum mechanics doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t understand how particles don’t exist unless we are watching. Yet, because most all physics professors insist that this is in fact the case, I just accept that it’s a legitimate field of study.

    I’m sure if you thought about it you could think of things that “don’t really make much sense” that you accept on authority in a similar way. Yet non believers do not accept religious authority. Christians don’t accept muslim authority. Muslims don’t accept Mormon authority and so on and so forth. How do we determine which groups of men to trust as authorities and which not to trust?

    It’s an interesting question.

  22. @ jason,

    I’ve been mulling over a question recently and I wonder if you could help me with it. You said that you are a Christian primarily because when you test drive the worldview it makes the most sense out of the data. It’s interesting, because atheist John Loftus contributes this same thought experiment to his loss of faith. He calls it the “outsiders test of faith” ie testing a worldview as if you have never heard of it before. Consider the data that broke the back of his faith.

    1. The bible. All things considered which is more probable

    A. That the bible is the most perfect, most moral, most amazingly true book ever written

    Or

    B. That it’s a book written by barbaric, prescientific, and superstitious people in bronze aged Jerusalem?

    2. Evolution. Does this data fit better with atheism or christianity?

    3. Intense human suffering. Does our world seem like it was created by an all evil God? No. There are too many butterflies, sunflowers, and daiseys. We can all conjure up a million worse world’s that an all evil being could have made. Does our world *appear* to have been made by an all powerful and perfectly good God? No. There is an apparent gratuitous amount of suffering. Isn’t the option of indifference the best fit? A cause of the universe that is completely indifferent to our happiness or well being.

    4. Animal predation. Does the fact that animals rip each other apart limb from limb just to survive fit better with atheism or an all powerful all good God?

    I think that all of these four fit better with the skeptical view. Which do you think fit better with theism outside of moral values?

  23. Regarding the Bible, I would prefer a both/and rather than an either/or when it comes to its divine and human origins (much like with the written Word, the eternal Word never makes us choose between his humanity and divinity). In fact, I am really drawn to the more human parts of it.

    On evolution, I don’t think a belief in biological evolution needs to mitigate against Christianity at all, but I know that many disagree with me on this. I am not as afraid of science as conservatives appear to be (to me anyway).

    On suffering, God sends his rain on the just and the unjust. I find much more truth in that than in the “not a sparrow falls” idea, although I know that’s true as well.

    I don’t see animals fighting as reinforcing or harming either side, personally.

  24. Kenneth,

    The outsider test is interesting. It seems to be a systemization of the genetic fallacy. I haven’t listened to it yet, but I did see an episode of the Unbelievable podcast (not to advertise, but a really interesting podcast that pits unbelievers and varying stripes of believers together to discuss topics a wide range of topics) available a few months ago. (Googling…) Actually 2 episodes, both with John Loftus on it:

    This one with David Marshall who wrote a book called ‘How Jesus Passes the Outsider Test’.
    http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Does-Christianity-pass-the-Outsider-Test-David-Marshall-vs-John-Loftus

    And another with James Emery White (Not that other James White):
    http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-The-Outsider-Test-Pt-2-James-Emery-White-on-the-Rise-of-the-Nones

    Maybe you should check them out. They sound interesting.

  25. Kenneth,

    As for your questions,

    1. The bible. All things considered which is more probable

    A. That the bible is the most perfect, most moral, most amazingly true book
    ever written

    Or

    B. That it’s a book written by barbaric, prescientific, and superstitious people in bronze aged Jerusalem?

    Like Jason said, both. It WAS written by prescientific superstitious people in the bronze age. However, the Bible has incredible insights into human nature and the human experience. And for every supposed superficial contradiction, it has 100 amazing interconnections foreshadowing, prophesy, allegory, typology…). The more I study the Bible the more I am amazed by it.

    I have little problem with evolution, although I don’t buy some of the simple natural selection explanations driving it. I do believe something akin to evolution is happening with yet to be explained drivers. I do find it amusing that it has become for a lot atheists the vacuous “god did it” explanation for everything.

    Suffering. Suffering is a mystery. Regardless of your worldview, you will suffer in reality. Christianity and especially Catholicism give suffering meaning as part the human experience. As for explanation, at the end of the day, a man who has lost his wife, for example, doesn’t actually want a cleaver answer, he wants his wife back. So God doesn’t give you a cleaver answer, He gives you what really want. Not only that, God became man, lived, suffered, and died right alongside with us. He entered into our life so that we can enter His. Our sufferings united with Christ’s becomes redemptive, becomes meaningful.

    Now enters skeptical atheism. They aren’t some objective outsider that they like to think that they are, they too must pass, if this is a legitimate test. And I don’t see anything offered by atheism that I don’t already have, except maybe sleeping in on Sundays and an idolatrous view of science. I can have all the insights of science already, in fact I have a masters in electrical engineering. It seems to me that the atheistic worldview is incredibly reductionist to human experience. It reduces incredibly profound aspects of the human experience, things such as love; the driver of human experience, the source of art, music, poetry, society, religion, conflict, wars, virtually everything! And reduces it to mere meaningless chemical reactions located somewhere in the bundle of molecules we have arbitrarily categorized as a brain.

    Atheism offers nothing we don’t already have, but takes rich wondrous aspects of humanity and makes them boring and meaningless; quite frankly, the worldview is bankrupt. If it didn’t make people feel intellectually superior, I don’t really see why anyone would even bother.

  26. BTW, there are Christians (and especially Catholics) everywhere! The worldview has successively appealed to large groups of people in virtually every country, in every culture, of every ethnicity and race over the last 20 centuries. Atheism seems to be for the most part isolated to a couple of cultures and groups – for example white western males. The few times it has been adopted on grand scales, it was done so by incredible violence and only lasted a generation or two. So whose worldview doesn’t pass the outsider test?

  29. The worldview has successively appealed to large groups of people in virtually every country, in every culture, of every ethnicity and race over the last 20 centuries

    So has Islam. So has Buddhism. So has Hinduism. So have the ideas and mythologies of various pagan religions that were wrapped up and adopted by other faiths, such as the apocalyptic views of Zoroastrianism which influenced Judaism and then Christianity.

    The claim that Christianity is the special snowflake among world religions doesn’t hold water.

    What the widespread ideas of religion are proof of is that mankind almost universally shares the philosophical questions of “How did we come to be?” “Is this all that there is?” “Are we alone in the universe?” “What is death and what happens to me after I die?” “Why is there evil in the world?”

    And we’re all still grasping at answers trying to convince ourselves that we have them.

  30. 1. I don’t think that’s necessarily a useful question.

    The bible was written by men. It was written by people who were trying to grasp the ideas of God and fit it into their culture and understanding of the day and their own heroic mythic oral histories.

    Thus you will find both amazing spiritual insights and Bronze Age bullshit in the same book,

    Scripture is something to be wrestled with. God too. If that leads one to a deeper faith, more power to them. If it leads someone else to abandon their faith, more power to them.

  32. 2. Evolution can be both atheistic and theistic, unless you hold to a literal view of Genesis 1-3.

    3. There is no answer. People have tried to answer this question since Grok saw his good friend Thok get trampled by a woolly mammoth stampede. The book of Job is one long poetic attempt to answer the question and it ends without God ever answering Job’s question. We simply do not know. Is that enough of a reason to conclude that there is no god? Maybe. I don’t think so. It’s possible that there is a purpose and reason behind it that we don’t know that will be revealed to us after we die. But I can rather comfortably say that from the position of being a middle class white guy in America who hasn’t watched their child die of starvation or easily treatable diseases or hasn’t been forced to work 100 hours a week as a slave.

  33. So has Islam. So has Buddhism. So has Hinduism.

    That’s not completely true. But that is beside the point. The point was that Christianity passes the insider test.

    What the widespread ideas of religion are proof of is that mankind almost universally shares the philosophical questions of “How did we come to be?” “Is this all that there is?” “Are we alone in the universe?” “What is death and what happens to me after I die?” “Why is there evil in the world?”

    I will agree with this. I do believe that asking these questions is apart of what it means to be human. Atheism, or at least the forms that hold to scientism, seems to want to dismiss these questions as meaningless.

    The questions are important. The striving after the answers are important.

  34. That’s why there is so many religions. It isn’t true that they all cancel each other out necessarily, and thus none are right. It is that each religion, each tradition, has uncovered partial truths that they want to pass on to the next generation.

    I, obviously, think that Catholicism is the wellspring God’s revelation to the world. The closer you are to Catholicism, the closer you are to truth about God and man. We don’t have all the answers, but we have fullness of what has been revealed. The other religions have knowledge mixed with more or less error.

  37. Well, I am loath to be certain of things that I’m in no position to know. So I won’t claim to be sure of how old the earth is, or how evolution happened, etc. This seems to be one of those things that I’m happy to let God sort out.

    Doesn’t mean I don’t have a hunch as to the answer though. . . .

  41. JasonStellman, Have you read any of Hans Urs von Balthasar? One of the hosts of another podcast I follow Catholic Stuff You Should Know (which is also 2 guys sitting around talking and drinking… hmm…) is very into him. Balthasar seems to be quite controversial but also respected, and he comes across as ~universalist (his take on atonement is also controversial). Here is the very much main stream Fr. Robert Barron talking about him:

    http://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/remembering-hans-urs-von-balthasars-important-book/4620/

  42. Atheism, or at least the forms that hold to scientism, seems to want to dismiss these questions as meaningless.

    You’re kidding me, right? Some of those questions drive certain fields of science. Others have been debated by philosophers for thousands of years, both religious and irreligious.

  43. I am NOT kidding. Scientism, which implies logical positivism, is a narrow epistemology which holds that only emperical science can provide us knowledge. If a statement can’t be verified by experimentation, then the statement is not meaningful according to this view. However, most of the important questions of life can’t be answered with experimentation, thus my complaint.

    You will see atheist scientists such as the new atheists attack and undermine philosophy frequently. Which I find amusing, not only because they make philosophical statements all the time and then unwittingly dimiss the discipline whose job is to evaluate said statements; but also because these atheists are eating their own (atheist philosophers). Obviously, philosophers find this very irritating. Here is an example:

    http://www.newphilosopher.com/articles/philosophy-under-attack/

  44. @christian, I’d never have dreamed of watching Idiocracy but your recommendation swayed me. Dax Shepard is awesome. Good movie, even if more than a little disturbing!

  45. @Kenneth, I just finished listening to the first one with David Marshall. This shouldn’t take away from someone’s argument, but I have to say that Loftus does not come off as a very compelling personality. He seems whiny, dismissive of others, and unduly full of himself. Do you get this same impression from your interactions with him?

  47. I wanted to share a podcast I listened to recently that I was reminded of while listening to episode #48. The episode of On Being that I’ve linked below was a conversation between David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values and Jonathan Rauch, an atheist advocate for gay marriage, discussing how they’ve come together to “achieve disagreement” on the institution of marriage. Worth a listen and maybe even a discussion.

    http://onbeing.org/program/future-marriage-david-blankenhorn-and-jonathan-rauch/4883#commentform

  48. He has been perfectly courteous to me in our interactions. His book “why I became an atheist” has given me a new found respect for the atheist worldview. He is a terrible debater but his published works are quite good. Very comprehensive and he quotes extensively from secular authors that I can’t afford to read (damn academic publishing). In all, I think he is under rated due to poor communication skills

  49. He has been perfectly courteous to me in our interactions

    That’s good to hear. The only thing I knew about him be before recently was his frequent assertion that WLC was scared of him and wouldn’t debate him.

    I’ll take your word for the rest of it.

  50. He wants a debate with WLC because he was a former student of Dr Craig and it would be great for his career. However, he is not qualified in any way to debate someone like craig. It would be a total waste of time. He gets nervous and becomes very uncomfortable to watch/listen to.

  51. Lane and Jason,

    I have great respect for both von Balthasar and Fr. Barron. They’re miles and miles ahead of me, intellectually, and, I’m sure, in terms of personal holiness too (Balthasar is deceased, but you know what I mean), but their “hopeful universalism” is one area where, from all of the research that I have done, they really do seem to be in problematic waters, as far as historic Catholic teaching.

    I certainly don’t *want* there to be many people in Hell, as I hope for as many people as possible to repent of their sins before they die, and embrace at least the best understanding of God and/or moral goodness and rightness that they have, and, eventually, be with God in Heaven.

    With the above, sincerely meant, qualification, though, I do have to say that “hopeful universalism” is simply not the historic teaching of the Catholic Church. A very few Catholics have held to it in Church history, but they are very much the exceptions. This lengthy article by Bryan Cross, who writes at the Catholic/Protestant dialogue site, “Called to Communion,” lays out the historic Catholic evidence, from Scripture and Tradition, against Balthasar’s (and Fr. Barron’s) case for hopeful universalism: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YW3vXURBzs1f16275unqK_s9zwsiytKdmL5zHtZSRmU/edit?pli=1

  52. I’m probably pretty close to you Christopher on this currently, however I’m open to the idea of hopeful universalism. I haven’t had the time yet to explore this area as of yet. I do plan on reading Balthasar in near future. I will also take a look the article you linked.

  53. What ideas in “why I became an atheist” did you find he made the baest case for? Or was it more that he made a more well developed thorough case in general that you haven’t seen before?

  54. He makes some interesting observations about the way some christians interact with atheist arguments. He claims that christians demand that atheists prove that God is *impossible* before they will consider that His existence is *improbable*. He thinks that christians “appeal to the possible” far too much in the debates. For example theists will say that it’s *logically possible* that God has a good reason to justify eternal hell. Or that it’s *possible* that God has a reason for allowing all the evil in the world. Or that it’s *possible* that an all good God would bring humans into existence through the brutal, pitiless, and painful processes of natural selection over hundreds of thousands of years. He sees this constant appeal to the possible to be a weak response. He would rather admit that such evidence renders the existence of an all good God highly improbable.

    Further, he really unpacks an argument from evil that I hadn’t considered. Namely, he asks that christians consider the seemingly needless suffering of animals. He asks “why would an all good God create a world where animals must mercilessly tear each other apart just for survival? Where Bambi will get crushed in the forrest by a falling tree and suffer in agony for hours before dying…. while no one even notices. Where poisonous spiders inject other insects with poison that turns their prey into goo. Where wolves slowly shred and rip apart their prey while the poor rabbits and deer are still alive. Is it logically *possible* that there is some acceptable reason for so much cruelty? Maybe. But Loftus would have us ask “is it probable”? And that’s a whole different animal 😉

  55. Regarding aliens, there are some Christians who would be excited to have aliens come because it would nean that this drivel that they had been reading came true. http://www.exovaticana.com/ Something about alien saviour, final pope, false prophet, and of course the End Times.

  56. Haha, fair enough, Melissa! I was in Steubenville, which (if you’ve never been there) is a shell of a once-thriving mining town surrounded by frakked hills.

    But I bet Columbus or some of the other bigger cities are great.

  57. Hi Guys,

    Just finished listening. Great podcast, thank you. Just FYI the annoying Hungarian clap is called ‘vastaps’ (ironclap) and it is great honour for the performer to receive it from the audience. I never thought it was uniquely Hungarian though. 🙂

    I had just one thought when you talked about AI either wiping us all from the face of the earth or developing a pill for eternal life. If there was a pill in the future that would grant you immortality, would you take it? Would you choose immortality in this life or the eternal life promised by God beyond death? How should a Christian decide? Would it be faithlessness to chose eternal life in this life? Just a question I’ve been pondering on.

  60. Szia, Attila! Just to clarify, it wasn’t as simple as a pill. It was more along the lines of curing diseases and growing new tissue, etc.

    Anyway, as an agnostic, I’d obviously choose this life. Even as a Christian, I used to think about how cool it would have been to live as long as Methusela. Ha! However, if I knew for sure that God was real and that I would definitely be in heaven with everyone I love here, I’d obviously choose that. I do wish we lived longer here though. 80 years (if I’m lucky) doesn’t seem very long. 🙂

  61. at 9:30…”People are having a hard time telling our voices apart.” YES, OF COURSE! YOU BOTH SOUND LIKE IRA GLASS! (But I love you both. Even if I can’t tell you apart).

Related Posts