And the final audio is here, with the text below:
Good morning,
Over the last couple days I have been considering famous scientists and examining how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. I want to finish this series by looking at a contemporary scientist, the American Francis Collins, who led the international project to sequence the human genome and has recently been appointed by President Obama to one of the most powerful scientific posts in the US, head of the multi-billion dollar national institute for health.
Along with being a stellar scientist Francis Collins is an out spoken Christian and author of a book called "The Language of God" where he argues that science is one of the ways that God speaks to man. He is also founder of the "BioLogos" foundation who's mission is to 'promote the search for truth in both the natural and spiritual realms, seeking harmony between these different perspectives.'
About a year ago I met Francis Collins at a conference and was struck by his enthusiasm and his drive to both understand and better use the discoveries of science. When I asked him what his motivation was for being so energetic and enthusiastic he answered that it was specifically his Christian faith, and that he saw science as an opportunity to worship God.
Francis Collins is one of 40% of American scientists who believe in God, and who find that the more they discover about the natural world the more they are forced to ask why the natural world is the way it is. Like Galileo and Newton before him, Collins does not see a conflict between science and faith, rather his motivation for being a scientist is his faith in God. Far from the stereotype of an atheist scientist, Collins is therefore proof that science is both compatible with, and a source of encouragement for, people who put their faith in God.
Friday, 27 November 2009
Day 3 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith
The audio is here, and the text was:
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. Today I want to consider Darwin himself.
Although originally trained as a clergyman, it is well known that Darwin's theory of evolution, through natural selection, led him to doubt whether God existed. However, far from being an atheist, Darwin's writings reveal the struggles of a brilliant and thoughtful man trying to understand his place in the world. His insights into biology produced in him a deep humility as he realised how insignificant any individual is when viewed in the grand scheme of natural history.
Darwin's uncertainty is often viewed as a weakness, especially from the perspective of our 21st century knowledge driven society where everyone is a professional or expert in some area. Indeed Darwin's uncertainty is often used as an example of what happens when you try to mix different ways of understanding the world - "if only Darwin had stuck to science he would not have been so confused" some argue.
But this attitude seems to miss an important point. Darwin brilliantly formulated an answer to the question of origins, however in exploring this answer he discovered a whole range of new questions that went beyond just Biology. Questions of morality, purpose and meaning can certainly be illuminated by science, however science can never give the full picture. Darwin's theory was a great stride forward for human knowledge, however he recognised that an understanding of how we came about cannot really answer questions about why we are here. Although theories such as evolution are great for explaining the how questions, we need to look elsewhere for understanding the why questions.
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith. Today I want to consider Darwin himself.
Although originally trained as a clergyman, it is well known that Darwin's theory of evolution, through natural selection, led him to doubt whether God existed. However, far from being an atheist, Darwin's writings reveal the struggles of a brilliant and thoughtful man trying to understand his place in the world. His insights into biology produced in him a deep humility as he realised how insignificant any individual is when viewed in the grand scheme of natural history.
Darwin's uncertainty is often viewed as a weakness, especially from the perspective of our 21st century knowledge driven society where everyone is a professional or expert in some area. Indeed Darwin's uncertainty is often used as an example of what happens when you try to mix different ways of understanding the world - "if only Darwin had stuck to science he would not have been so confused" some argue.
But this attitude seems to miss an important point. Darwin brilliantly formulated an answer to the question of origins, however in exploring this answer he discovered a whole range of new questions that went beyond just Biology. Questions of morality, purpose and meaning can certainly be illuminated by science, however science can never give the full picture. Darwin's theory was a great stride forward for human knowledge, however he recognised that an understanding of how we came about cannot really answer questions about why we are here. Although theories such as evolution are great for explaining the how questions, we need to look elsewhere for understanding the why questions.
Day 2 of 4 BBC radio solent science and faith
The day 2 audio can be heard here. The text is:
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.
In a Royal Society survey in 2005 Sir Isaac Newton was voted the most influential scientist ever to have lived. In 1687 he published a book referred to as the "Principia" which provided the mathematical foundation for classical mechanics through his description of the laws of gravity and motion. As if this was not enough he went on to show how white light could be split into the many colours of the rainbow, co-developed the branch of mathematics called calculus, oversaw the royal mint, was president of the Royal Society, and also a member of Parliament.
However, along with these great achievements, Newton spent more time studying and writing about religion than any other topic. He recognised, through his mathematical and scientific studies, that the world was a rational place governed by the predictable laws of nature. But this made him want to ask why? Why is it possible that humans are able to understand the world? Why does mathematics even work?
His conclusion was that a great creator lies behind the universe, however far from being the fickle god of superstition this was a craftsman God who designed along rational and universal principles. "Gravity", he wrote, "explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
As a great scientist Newton recognised the importance of science, but also recognised that we need more than just science to understand the world around us. By contemplating the complexities of science and the grandeur of nature, Newton was drawn to a deeper belief in the creator of this magnificent world.
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I am looking at four famous scientists and asking how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.
In a Royal Society survey in 2005 Sir Isaac Newton was voted the most influential scientist ever to have lived. In 1687 he published a book referred to as the "Principia" which provided the mathematical foundation for classical mechanics through his description of the laws of gravity and motion. As if this was not enough he went on to show how white light could be split into the many colours of the rainbow, co-developed the branch of mathematics called calculus, oversaw the royal mint, was president of the Royal Society, and also a member of Parliament.
However, along with these great achievements, Newton spent more time studying and writing about religion than any other topic. He recognised, through his mathematical and scientific studies, that the world was a rational place governed by the predictable laws of nature. But this made him want to ask why? Why is it possible that humans are able to understand the world? Why does mathematics even work?
His conclusion was that a great creator lies behind the universe, however far from being the fickle god of superstition this was a craftsman God who designed along rational and universal principles. "Gravity", he wrote, "explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."
As a great scientist Newton recognised the importance of science, but also recognised that we need more than just science to understand the world around us. By contemplating the complexities of science and the grandeur of nature, Newton was drawn to a deeper belief in the creator of this magnificent world.
More daily thoughts on BBC radio solent
As this week is the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin's Origins, BBC radio solent asked me to give four thoughts relating science and faith. I chose to look at four famous scientists and ask how their science impacted their faith.
The day1 audio can be listened to here and the text is below:
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I plan to look at four famous scientists and ask how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.
First off is Galileo Galilei, the 17th century physicist and astronomer famous for being one of the first to point a telescope at the stars, and also for discovering the principles of gravity by supposedly dropping objects off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. However, perhaps even more memorable than his scientific discoveries, was Galileo's trial before the Roman inquisition, the guilty verdict and his subsequent sentencing to a lifetime of house arrest. This was because he taught that the earth orbited the Sun, contradicting the churches teaching that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe.
Some say that the way Galileo was treated is typical of what happens when “evidence based” science meets “faith based” religion. Indeed some contemporary authors argue that religion is an old fashioned way of looking at the world, and scientists like Galileo are the heroes responsible for bringing about a new, less superstitious scientific age. However this was not how Galileo himself understood the matter.
In a long letter explaining how he understood the relationship between science and faith, Galileo argued that it was a serious mistake to view the bible as if it were a scientific textbook because it was written not to teach physics or biology, but rather to convey truths about people and their relationship with God. He wrote "The bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heaven's go."
400 years later we would do well remembering these words of Galileo. Although science shows us how the world around us works, it is, and cannot, ever be an excuse for not living a life of faith.
The day1 audio can be listened to here and the text is below:
Good morning,
In this “Darwin anniversary” week I plan to look at four famous scientists and ask how their discoveries influenced their life and faith.
First off is Galileo Galilei, the 17th century physicist and astronomer famous for being one of the first to point a telescope at the stars, and also for discovering the principles of gravity by supposedly dropping objects off the top of the leaning tower of Pisa. However, perhaps even more memorable than his scientific discoveries, was Galileo's trial before the Roman inquisition, the guilty verdict and his subsequent sentencing to a lifetime of house arrest. This was because he taught that the earth orbited the Sun, contradicting the churches teaching that the earth was the stationary centre of the universe.
Some say that the way Galileo was treated is typical of what happens when “evidence based” science meets “faith based” religion. Indeed some contemporary authors argue that religion is an old fashioned way of looking at the world, and scientists like Galileo are the heroes responsible for bringing about a new, less superstitious scientific age. However this was not how Galileo himself understood the matter.
In a long letter explaining how he understood the relationship between science and faith, Galileo argued that it was a serious mistake to view the bible as if it were a scientific textbook because it was written not to teach physics or biology, but rather to convey truths about people and their relationship with God. He wrote "The bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heaven's go."
400 years later we would do well remembering these words of Galileo. Although science shows us how the world around us works, it is, and cannot, ever be an excuse for not living a life of faith.
Saturday, 26 September 2009
Creationist debate/panel discussion
Had an enjoyable discussion with David Rosevear (6-day creationist) and Michael Reiss (eminent education professor and Anglican priest) in front of an audience of about 80 at the SEARCH museum in Portsmouth as part of their Darwin celebrations the other night. As each speaker only had five minutes I decided to just make the point that science and religion/faith are two different ways of looking at the same thing so anyone who uses science to argue against a faith position is missing the point. I figured this was a good critique of both scientific atheism and young earth (6-day) creationism. I also decided to leave any more detailed discussion to the audience questions.
The audience were less partisan than I feared although did contain a couple vocal (and slightly unstable) extremists from both the atheist and the young earth camps. As usual the extremist views were relatively easy to answer. I generally disagreed with David Rosevear on all points and agreed with Michael Reiss although felt that Michael was being a bit more generous than I was comfortable with.
I made a point of arguing robustly for a view of science that stayed accurate to the research (ie I argued that creationism had no place in science classes in school) but at the same time respected the world-views of people (ie saying that the discussion of atheism vs Christianity/other faiths is important in RE/philosophy). I also repeatedly pointed out the incompatibility of 6-day creationism with the two forms of ID which I think surprised a number of people who tried to challenge from a creationist position. There were the usual questions on probability, mind-brain, mutations, status of scripture etc.
Although it is always hard to judge the results of such events, I went away feeling extremely positive because it seemed that many (if not most) of the audience understood the point that both atheism and young earth creationism are extremist views and thus sensible dialogue needs to sit somewhere in between. I was also surprised by quite how weak David Rosevear's arguments were and felt that most of the audience recognised this.
The audience were less partisan than I feared although did contain a couple vocal (and slightly unstable) extremists from both the atheist and the young earth camps. As usual the extremist views were relatively easy to answer. I generally disagreed with David Rosevear on all points and agreed with Michael Reiss although felt that Michael was being a bit more generous than I was comfortable with.
I made a point of arguing robustly for a view of science that stayed accurate to the research (ie I argued that creationism had no place in science classes in school) but at the same time respected the world-views of people (ie saying that the discussion of atheism vs Christianity/other faiths is important in RE/philosophy). I also repeatedly pointed out the incompatibility of 6-day creationism with the two forms of ID which I think surprised a number of people who tried to challenge from a creationist position. There were the usual questions on probability, mind-brain, mutations, status of scripture etc.
Although it is always hard to judge the results of such events, I went away feeling extremely positive because it seemed that many (if not most) of the audience understood the point that both atheism and young earth creationism are extremist views and thus sensible dialogue needs to sit somewhere in between. I was also surprised by quite how weak David Rosevear's arguments were and felt that most of the audience recognised this.
Friday, 5 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #4
This thought was broadcast at 5:25 this morning but also at 6:50 yesterday as they cancelled my second slot on Friday due to the D-day memorials. I decided to move this thought forward to Thursday for the 6:50 slot as I think it was the most important one of the week.
Day 4: Using our tools – science and faith
This year sees a number of celebrations marking Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his greatest work On the Origin of Species through natural selection. From a Christian perspective, many of the Darwin media reports and programs contain a worryingly anti-faith message as they contrast supposed rational science with the irrational faith of believers. But, we must remember that in Darwin’s time the majority of scientist’s were Christians, and it was these scientists who recognized and accepted Darwin’s important ideas. Similarly today the majority of Christian’s who are professional scientists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. So why do so many people think that science and faith are in conflict?
Unfortunately, as in many areas, it is the extremists who tend to make the headlines. Both atheists and religious fundamentalists are so excitable and vocal that it is easy to get the impression that science and faith are an either, or thing. This damages the reputation of both science and faith. Many people intuitively realize that life encompasses important elements of both, so are unsure of what to make of the supposed experts who say that the scientific and the spiritual cannot be held at one time. Quite often the response is to simply not think about the issue.
But not thinking about this issue impoverishes our view of the world as it throws away the two most important tools we have for understanding our lives. Yes of course it is easier not to think about the problem, and just immerse ourselves in our own busyness, but sooner or later we will find ourselves needing to deal with deeper issues or problems. To do this we need to learn how to use the tool of science and the tool of faith. We need to learn how to be comfortable being spiritual people in a scientific world.
Day 4: Using our tools – science and faith
This year sees a number of celebrations marking Darwin’s 200th birthday and the 150th anniversary of the publication of his greatest work On the Origin of Species through natural selection. From a Christian perspective, many of the Darwin media reports and programs contain a worryingly anti-faith message as they contrast supposed rational science with the irrational faith of believers. But, we must remember that in Darwin’s time the majority of scientist’s were Christians, and it was these scientists who recognized and accepted Darwin’s important ideas. Similarly today the majority of Christian’s who are professional scientists see no conflict between the theory of evolution and their faith. So why do so many people think that science and faith are in conflict?
Unfortunately, as in many areas, it is the extremists who tend to make the headlines. Both atheists and religious fundamentalists are so excitable and vocal that it is easy to get the impression that science and faith are an either, or thing. This damages the reputation of both science and faith. Many people intuitively realize that life encompasses important elements of both, so are unsure of what to make of the supposed experts who say that the scientific and the spiritual cannot be held at one time. Quite often the response is to simply not think about the issue.
But not thinking about this issue impoverishes our view of the world as it throws away the two most important tools we have for understanding our lives. Yes of course it is easier not to think about the problem, and just immerse ourselves in our own busyness, but sooner or later we will find ourselves needing to deal with deeper issues or problems. To do this we need to learn how to use the tool of science and the tool of faith. We need to learn how to be comfortable being spiritual people in a scientific world.
Thursday, 4 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #3
Here is the 5:25am version - I quite liked Tiggy Walkers slip of the tongue at the end!
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Day 3: Science and Faith
The American philosopher, Thomas Nagel, wrote a famous paper entitled “what is it like to be a bat?” Bats are intriguing creatures because many species use echo-location in the same way as we use sight. Instead of detecting light bouncing off objects, these bats emit high-pitch clicks and then listen for the echos in order to form an idea of their surroundings. Interestingly they use the same part of their brain for echo-location as we do for sight. They literally “see” with sound.
Nagels question was whether we could understand what it would be like to see with sound. His answer was no. Even if the brain activity involved with echo location and visual sight is identical, we have only experienced, and thus can only “know” what it is like to see using light. It may be possible to define or “objectify” all the elements of sensing our surroundings, however at the end of the day a description of how the system works is not going to replace the experience of either seeing, or indeed echo location. There is thus an important distinction between the description of an event, and the experience of that same event.
Science is certainly an important tool that many of us owe our lives to, however we must be careful not to mistake the success of science in one area as an indication that science provides answers in all areas. Science is the description of life, but spirituality, often expressed in religious terms, is the experience of life. In many ways spirituality is our relationship with the world around us. How interesting then that Christianity is based not upon scientific knowledge, but upon a relationship with God. Such a relationship can never be contradicted by science, because as Nagel has shown with his bat analogy, science can never explain “what it’s like” to truly know God.
Wednesday, 3 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #2
A bit less banter today. Click here to listen.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Day 2: Nothing buttery
“They know what you are thinking” read a title in the Sunday Times the other week, reporting on how neuroscientists are able to use various types of scanning equipment to apparently “read our thoughts”. Such stories are still more science fiction than practical technology, brain scanning is not quite as advanced as some in the popular media make out, however new techniques are giving us exciting insights into how our brains work and what is happening on a physical level as we think. Such advances hold a great potential in understanding and treating some of the terrible neuro-degenerative disorders that inflict so many as they age.
But we need to be careful to understand what such technology is actually telling us. There was great excitement a couple of years ago about the discovery of the “God spot”; an area in the brain that showed more electrical activity when people had spiritual experiences. There were even some attempts to try and see if people with religious beliefs had bigger or more developed “God-spots” than atheists or agnostics.
Although such research is certainly interesting, being able to provide a physical or scientific explanation for an experience should not be seen as explaining experiences away. Some philosophers refer to such arguments as “nothing buttery” arguments: Our thoughts are “nothing but” electrical impulses in the brain. The spiritual is “nothing but” brain activity. Love is “nothing but” excitable neurones.
However, knowing about the mechanics of our brain is very different from being a thinking, feeling person. Nothing buttery may work well in text books, but it helps us very little in the real world. Thoughts and experiences may be accompanied by certain brain activity, but what we actually experience is far more than “nothing but” excited brain cells.
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Thought for the day - BBC radio solent #1
Dave Adcock, the BBC radio solent "thought for the day" producer asked me to give four thoughts between June 2nd and June 5th 2009 live on local radio. You can listen to number 1 here and the text is below:
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Day 1: both… and
Good morning,
Earlier this year my three week old son was rushed into Southampton general hospital with a serious undiagnosed heart condition. Thanks to the skill and dedication of the staff in the paediatric intensive care and cardiac units his life was saved and he has made a full recovery with no anticipated future problems.
All parents find such an experience highly traumatic, and my wife and I were no exception. However, as a medical scientist, someone who is used to using sophisticated technology to explore the workings of the human body, a part of me found the whole experience extremely interesting. I was able to watch the stats on the monitors as various drugs took affect and his body responded in a complex, yet predictable way, to the expert medical treatment.
But this was no experiment; this was my son. Although the scientific part of me could view the situation fairly dispassionately, the human side of me was crying out for him to just get better. Although I could understand much of what was going on, and see the reason for the various treatments and their effects, having all the knowledge in the world was not going to change how I experienced the situation.
Understanding science and technology is certainly important to our lives, and central to human wellbeing, but viewing life through this dispassionate lens is not all there is. Truth is as much about human experience as it is knowing the facts. Scientific knowledge will enrich our lives but only up to a certain point. It is a tool, not an end in itself - life is far more than just atoms and molecules.
Wednesday, 1 April 2009
How to invest in my Child Trust Fund
1. Shares should give a better return over 18 years.
2. Large providers are less likely to go bust.
3. My wife doesn't trust my investing abilities so a stakeholder CTF is the way to go.
4. If my wife doesn't trust me, I don't trust individual fund managers, so a index tracker is the best shares option.
5. We want to save the planet so tracking an ethical index seems like the best idea, although these don't seem to perform as well as some of the other indexes.
6. Family Investments just moved their ethical CTF from an actively managed fund to one that tracks the FTSE4good index (good idea considering the huge loss this fund has made over the last couple years!). Although other providers (e.g, CIS/Children's Mutual) provide a similar option, the size of Family Investments reassures me.
7. All the stakeholder funds seem to charge the maximum 1.5% and also seem to allow transfers out so this doesn't seem to be a worry.
8. If any well informed investor stumbles across my blog and can advise me why my reasoning is bad please tell me so that I can transfer to a better option!!
2. Large providers are less likely to go bust.
3. My wife doesn't trust my investing abilities so a stakeholder CTF is the way to go.
4. If my wife doesn't trust me, I don't trust individual fund managers, so a index tracker is the best shares option.
5. We want to save the planet so tracking an ethical index seems like the best idea, although these don't seem to perform as well as some of the other indexes.
6. Family Investments just moved their ethical CTF from an actively managed fund to one that tracks the FTSE4good index (good idea considering the huge loss this fund has made over the last couple years!). Although other providers (e.g, CIS/Children's Mutual) provide a similar option, the size of Family Investments reassures me.
7. All the stakeholder funds seem to charge the maximum 1.5% and also seem to allow transfers out so this doesn't seem to be a worry.
8. If any well informed investor stumbles across my blog and can advise me why my reasoning is bad please tell me so that I can transfer to a better option!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)