The Problem
The problem of pain is a simple one. We know it intuitively. In straight-forward terms it is the question of how terrible suffering can exist if there is a loving God. The more philosophical-sounding way of stating it is this:
1. God is omniscient (knows everything)
2. God is omnipotent (can do anything)
3. God is omnibenevolent (is completely loving)
4. There is gratuitous suffering (suffering without any good reason)
All of the above cannot possibly be true. If people and animals suffer without any good reason, then either God does not know about it, or he is powerless to stop it, or he does not love us, or he does not exist. Those are the only options. (It is taken for granted that a being who loves another will not wish his/her beloved to endure gratuitous suffering.)
Clearly, this presents a huge problem for people who believe in God. No one can deny that there is a lot of suffering in the world. No one can deny that this suffering often appears to have no positive effect, or at least, to have far more negative effects than positive. So what do you do? If you're dead set on believing in God (or if you find the arguments for God's existence so convincing that they overwhelm any counterarguments) you basically have two options. You can say that all suffering, no matter how terrible and senseless it may appear, has a sufficient purpose, or you can say that God is not aware of this suffering, or can do nothing to prevent it, or simply doesn't care.
The first option is certainly more appealing, if you're fond of the omni-everything concept of God. Some have tried to explain how all pain has a purpose, or at least, how it is conceivable that all pain may have a purpose. Failing that, most theists will want to put some limit on God's omnipotence by explaining how God cannot break certain laws (for example, human free will) and is thus powerless to prevent suffering. Few will wish to say that God is not aware of our suffering, because this makes him very weak and uninvolved. A few might challenge God's omnibenevolence, saying that perhaps God is so repulsed by our sinfulness that he pours out his well-deserved wrath upon us in the form of suffering. And if all of this fails, there is always Atheism. Also, it should be noted that this problem can be solved by positing two or more Gods, one of whom is malevolent or sadistic.
One final response is worth mentioning. Many people (in fact, I think the majority) say they simply are not capable of finding the solution to this problem, but they cope better with suffering by believing in a loving God, and they will therefore choose to have faith that the existence of a loving God is not inconsistent with the immense suffering, though they cannot imagine how. This is certainly a respectable position. Indeed, if we conclude that we are unfit (because of lack of evidence or insufficient intelligence) to render a verdict on this matter, it may be the most responsible position. But I'm getting ahead of myself.
This post is intended merely to introduce the problem and list the main types of responses to it. I intend to expand on and critique most or all of these responses in subsequent posts. I appreciate the reading suggestions my readers have offered, but I doubt I'll have time to read many of them. However, I believe that I'm familiar with most of the arguments presented in these books, though perhaps not in exactly the same form, and I fully intend to address each of them. I trust that my readers will alert me if they feel I have overlooked, misrepresented, or too quickly dismissed an important position.
Post a Comment
24 comments:
Jacob;
I have two points I would like to raise, one important, and the other about logic.
First, is the God of the Bible the God you are discussing in your preamble? Does the God of the Bible know everything? Is the God of the Bible all-powerful? Is the God of the Bible omnibenevolent? (And what does that even mean?) I don't think you want to make the claim that the Omni-God of your preamble is the same as the God of the Bible... (you are, after all, a theographer) but if you are not making that claim, why am I interested? Why would I care if a God I don't believe in doesn't exist?
I feel a little guilty for raising my second point, but if you will permit me a brief moment to pontificate about logic...
Intuitively, you are right: at least one of the premises on your list has to be false. Many contemporary logicians, however, argue for "paraconsistent logics" that allow (in one way or another) for contradictions to exist within a given set. As a result, even the derivation of a paradox from an abstract theory does not prove that the theory is inadequate.
I'll tell you the truth: I am in way over my head at this point. I'm not qualified to discuss paraconsistent logic in any meaningful way. In sum, an appeal to paraconsistent logic is a 'wink wink, nudge nudge' solution -- it doesn't add anything to the discussion at all. But it does mean that you can't pretend that an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God is logically irreconcilable with gratuitous suffering. That is not accurate. Such a God and gratuitous suffering are irreconcilable according to classical logic, but classical logic is not the only game in town.
I had a hunch my degree in philosophy might come in handy.
~jonas
Good point, Jonas. I'm really not sure if the Omni-God I've described is the same God as presented in the Bible. The Bible, as we both know, is not a theology text, and it presents a rather vague and (dare I say) inconsistent concept of God. Determining precisely what theology is most consistent with scripture is a job for a Bible scholar (which I am not) so I've taken a different approach.
I guess I never said this explicitly, but my strategy is this: I've started with the premise that there is suffering in creation, and will attempt to find a concept of God (and the world, etc.) that is consistent with this. Clearly, the omni-God is not. (According to any sort of logic that makes a shred of sense to me.) So I move on to other Gods.
This is the first I've heard of paraconsistent logic. It sounds like bullshit to me, but doubtless this is because it's all just way over my puny mortal head. But I'm reminded that what I'm really doing here is looking for someting I can believe, not something that everyone must believe.
Paraconsistent logics are not merely Philosophers engaging in bullshit but rather are a result of trying to work out ways to understand how the world seems to work and how we think. Or synthesizing the empirical with logic. Again, I'm in over my head here too, but physics, I hear, gets pretty crazy.
But I'm not really interested in paraconsistent logics. Here is a question on which the current "logical" process pivots: Is there gratuitous suffering?
The way you are proceeding is putting the burden of proof on those who want to suggest that there is a purpose to all suffering, and if they want to conclusively prove the possibility of God existing, then that is their burden.
However, if you want proof of the IMPOSSIBILITY of the omni-god existing, then the mere lack of proof for the purpose of suffering is not enough. You have to prove that there is gratuitous suffering; you have to show that there is suffering for which there can be no good purpose.
Oh Jacob, Jonas, this could be fun! Where is everyone else? We aren't too boring are we?
Ya, I guess if you wanted to prove (like, really prove) that the omni-god doesn't exist, you'd have to prove that there some of the suffering we experience is gratuitous, which would probably be impossible.
But if God is truely omnipotent, he should be able to accomplish anything he wants through a huge variety of means, or even directly, mearly by willing it. So any arguement that makes suffering the means to something else should dissolve. The only thing you could argue to maintain consistency is that suffering is an intrinsic good. Which seems absurd.
Thus I think we can say that the omni-god, while not strictly impossible, defies all (classical) logic. Which is good enough for me.
Depends on what you mean by Omnipotent. There is a debate about whether omnipotent means "can do anything" or means "can do anything that is logically possible."
I guess you can take whichever one you want, but the first seems kind of stupid if you want to show whether a certain kind of God exists using logic. If you want to subject the existence of God to logic, then you must be assuming that his existence is somehow subsumed under logical rules, that he is subject to logical laws or that his/her being is mutually constituted and consistent with laws of logic.
So, if omnipotence means, "can do anything that is logically possible" then you don't know whether at least the possibility of suffering (that is a little hint about where I am coming from) might be a necessary for accomplishing the greatest good.
This is not bullshit Jacob. Can God exist and not exist? Can he make a stone so big he can't lift it? Or mountains without peaks and valleys? The "omni" god is logically inconsistent if in your definition of omnipotent means a-logical.
If you want your "logical" analysis about God to mean anything then the answer to those questions should be no, and you might have to really think about the logical consequences that even God's actions must have.
Think about it.
Yes, I suppose I should have defined omnipotent. I meant it in the sense of being able to do anything logically possible. But it seems to me that if a being is capable of doing anything that isn't logically impossible, this should include creating and sustaining a world with way less suffering in it. (If some suffering really is necessary for the greatest good to be accomplished.)
For example, why not create a world in which there are no carnivors? Or no diseases? Or just no HIV? Or in which Hitler died before rising to power? All of these things would seem to be possible for an even moderately powerful God. Granted, there are likely to be unforseen consequences to each of these actions. (Unforseen for an un-omniscient being such as myself.) But surely an omnipotent God could figure out something better than what we have now.
I guess the simple way of saying it is that if the omni-god exists, it seems to me that we must live in the best of all possible worlds. And I find that extremely difficult to believe.
But you're right that I know nothing about the metaphysical relationship between suffering and hidden goods. Perhaps all of this is necessary. But I can't imagine why.
I'd like to hear where you're coming from, wrt the possibility of suffering. I'm actually writing a final on this very topic at 9 tomorrow.
Well, admittedly this does not explain all suffering, but my first explanation follows in line with Alvin Plantinga's "Free Will Defence," though many have claimed to have defeated his argument based on some silly semantic ambiguities, but which I think can be rebolstered.
I believe free will, and the fact of multiple beings existing is a very significant situation. God's omnipotence is "limited" in so far as it is impossible for God to be have control over everything and for beings other than him to exist. God chose the existence of other beings over his own omnipotence.
With all the criticisms of the church's facist dogmatism you would think they would take a lesson from "their" god.
I would also suggest that the view of suffering as an inherent evil is also an assumption. One of the good papers I read in my philosophy of Religion class, and was in my testbook which it is too bad you don't have time to read, presented God as the father/teacher figure.
While again I do not propose to explain all suffering under this heading, but my empirical study has shown that some suffering has proved to strengthen and shape men and women into incredible people.
If I lost my leg, would it necessarily be Evil? Or could it make me into a "better" person (someone who loves)? Or if I lost my mother could I find myself weakened in such a way so as to help me realize the beauty and value of people? I mean I don't know, but it could be.
That is one difficulty about this problem, one fact of pain is that you can never know someone elses pain, it is a subjective reality. This means that we can never speak with certainty to anothers suffering so I cannot suppose to explain the "purpose" or "value" of their suffering.
I am only saying that there might be one. There might.
Well Im back Jacob... I get pretty caught up in school for awhile there but break is aproaching and due to other things Im going to have alot more time on my hands, at least for the moment. This post reminded me instantly of an anology I heard once (not mine and I take no credit for it.) Im sure you're familiar with the 'good shepard' anology as it appears and is quoted from often. Well the creator of this analogy came to thinking of that story in the bible while she (I think it was a she...) was traveling past a herd of sheep. Off to the side was a few sheep dogs watching over the sheep. This person got to thinking how the sheep dogs would fit into the 'good shepard' analogy and came up with this: The sheep dogs are suffering. Jesus is the good shepard, we are the sheep, and the sheep dogs are suffering. The shepard knows whats best for the flock even though the flock might not (or isnt intelligent to know better). And in a flock of sheep, when they begin to stray away, the sheep dogs push them back to the shepard, normally by nipping and barking at the sheep. This is unpleasant to say the least for the sheep, but is necessary for the own good of the sheep. I liked the analogy because it specified that God doesn't use the suffering, but he allows it to exist because it brings people closer to Him. (Again this isn't mine and I don't take credit for it.)
Also, Jacob, if you honestly think about it, suffering is in human nature. My thought on this is that no matter how good life is for somone, they continue to have suffering. NO ONE has ever lived a life complete without suffering. Ghandi suffered, Jesus suffered, Bhuda (sp?) suffered, your next door neighbor has suffered from something. And no matter how good you have it, you still have suffering at some point in you life. Utterly poor people suffer, just as the filthy rich suffer. And I don't believe God will do anything about it because of the reason above and because a good part of suffering is caused by humans, and God would have to mess with free will to fix that. Im starting to ramble so im gonna stop, but im interested to see how you pick this apart, cause you always seem to. :)
Thanks for the comment, Andrew. I agree with you to a point. Suffering can be beneficial, and can come as a reminder that that we've strayed from where we ought to be. But it often (usually?) doesn't. And I think what is problematic about pain for most of people is this other stuff - the excruciating and seemingly senseless stuff.
All people suffer sometimes, in various ways and to various degrees, though some people suffer a lot more than others. It's a matter of debate whether a perfect world (think Eden or Heaven) would contain suffering, and to what degree, but I think we can all agree that some suffering gives every appearance of being unnecessary or gratuitous. There are a lot of partial explanations for suffering, such as human free will (if you believe that having unbridled free will is worth the immense suffering it causes). And there's a lot of suffering that can easily be explained. But then there's other suffering that's far more difficult to account for, and this suffering is the real problem.
So there, did I pick it apart to your satisfaction? :)
If we can ignore the fact that the cliched sounding sheepdog analogy is so ugly that it can never do justice to suffering, it can be rebolstered.
God does not desire merely sheep, he desires mature, strong, powerful people of love. And so the sheep need to not merely be kept from moving away, but actually taken somewhere, taken along a path from sheepness to divinity.
This means that maybe the sheepdog actually has to nip at our heals to get us moving.
I think that the majority of suffering is as a result of human free will, and I think that it might be an interesting discussion about whether free will is worth the suffering, and what it a "bridaled" free will might look like, though again, the discussion loses it deductive quality, which I know is less satisfying.
Again, another interesting thing to think about, and that I think might be related to what Andrew was saying about suffering being inherent in human life, is how much our own will affects our own suffering, and how our attitude towards it changes the nature of suffering.
People with seemingly great lives can bitch more then those who deal with apparent, and apparently difficult problems. Some who suffer the most can call it a blessing, and some can be destroyed by it. What do we say about our own role in the essence of suffering?
I don't know if I should do some of my own analysis, or leave it here for now. I guess it's Jacob's blog. Back to you Duder
I'll be home for Christmas soon, let's hang out.
Yakov;
I don't have the interweb at home, so I don't have the ability to just post like a mad banshee at any time of the day or night. I am not suggesting that you are a mad banshee. I am suggesting that you are LIKE a mad banshee. 'S different.
I was a little bit disappointed with your reply to my careful (and self-deprecating) post about paraconsistent logic. I understand that you have a lot of people to satisfy, but you should realize that I am most important, most important of all. You’ll find no more evidence of false modesty here.
Ironically, you say that paraconsistent logic is a) bullshit and b) something that you don’t really understand. It makes me angry that you would say this. Here’s what you should do: read about paraconsistent logic, and then tell me if you still think it is bullshit. Despite being utterly insane, paraconsistent logic is pretty straightforward stuff, really. Let’s take a Cook’s tour…
First, the reason that inconsistency is so bad is that, according to classical logic, a contradiction implies anything.
1. A ∧ ~A (premise)
2. A (If A and ~A are both true, then A is true)
3. A ∨ P (If A is true, then at least one of A or P is true)
4. ~A (If A and ~A are both true, then ~A is true)
∴ P (If at least one of A or P is true, and it isn’t A, then P is true)
This is called ex falso quodlibet. This is the reason that a contradiction is so venomous – it implies that anything whatever is true, and that is a disaster. If a contradiction is true, then any proposition is also true.
Here’s where things start to shake down. The Beggarman is right: physics is pretty complicated. In fact, it is so complicated that we are often faced with non-trivial and inconsistent theories. The famous pursuit of a unified field theory is an effort to correct the major flaw in modern physics – specifically; relativity and quantum mechanics should work in agreement to model the Big Bang. In short, they don’t. The math breaks down. Relativity doesn’t work with subatomic particles, or rather; subatomic particles don’t follow the rules prescribed by relativistic physics. However, relativity is integral to the formation of Quantum Mechanics, and modern physicists use relativity theory to model the macro-world, and Q.M. to model subatomic stuff. That means every physicist since Heisenberg has held an inconsistent set of beliefs at the very heart of what they believe, and yet somehow they avoid the mistake of inferring anything whatever about the behaviour of electrons. And that’s supposed to be the point. Ex falso quodlibet – from a contradiction, everything. If we are able to hold a contradiction, then what is the point of freaking out over the ‘fact’ (and this fact is much less certain than the fact of the inconsistency between relativity and Q.M.) that God and evil co-exist? If it is true that theists are inconsistent in their beliefs, at least they are in good company. Essentially, we’re in the same boat with everybody else.
And so here’s the point: if you a) prove that the God of the Bible is the God of the Omnis and b) prove that there is gratuitous suffering, then you have a contradiction. But what does a contradiction show? Does that matter? It doesn’t seem to matter to modern physicists, why should it matter to theologians? You are telling me that you want a God that you can believe in, but unless I am catastrophically misled, you already hold a belief set riddled, absolutely riddled with inconsistency. So why would you get rid of God on the basis of one little contradiction? It’s not for intellectual honesty: if it were, you would read something about paraconsistent logic. It must be something else.
You said that you were looking for a concept of God that was consistent with suffering in the world. There are an infinite number of gods that could satisfy this requirement. In fact, you have only proved that one God is impossible, and that only if there is gratuitous suffering, which will not be an easy thing to prove. And my question remains: why are you so fired up about consistency? Sure, in an ideal world, we would have consistent belief-sets, but we are not living in an ideal world. And there are other epistemic virtues… why are you so fixated on consistency? Tell me whatever you want, but don’t tell it is because of logic.
jonas
Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes. ~ Walt Whitman
ps – In answer to your question, Beggar, I reluctantly admit to being (kind of) boring…
Begger:
As I said above, It's true that some suffering produces beneficial effects, and thus it is possible that God uses suffering to "get us moving" (for example in the case of Jonah or numerous other Bible stories) but I don't think this explains why suffering must exist in the first place (why not just say "hey Jacob, get moving") or why it happens to people who have done no wrong.
It is probably true that a large amount - if not the majority - of suffering is to some degree dependent on human free will. And to the extent that it is applicable, I personally find the free will arguement to be very convincing. But it is far from sufficient to account for all suffering.
It is also true that our attitudes towards hardships greatly effect our degree of suffering, and to the extent that we control our attitudes and our attitudes control our suffering, we are capable of overcoming suffering, which may well be beneficial.
But again, I think this does not apply to the worst and most troublesome forms of suffering, such as animal suffering, natural disasters and insanity, to name a few.
I'm very much up for hanging out. After Friday.
Jonas:
I most emphatically did not say that paraconsistent logic is both bullshit and something that I don’t understand. (You would be right to be angry with me if I had.) What I said was that it sounded like bullshit to me, but that this is undoubtably because it's over my head. (It would have been more accurate to say "because I have heard virtually nothing about it, although even if I did, I suspect it would be over my head.") I appreciate your effort to lessen my ignorence.
I am aware of the existence of apparent contradictions in physics (though I don't know much about relativity or QM themselves). To my high school science-educated mind, this would seem to suggest that one or both of the inconsistent theories are wrong or incomplete, not that the two inconsistent theories are both correct. Both theories may be simultaniously be held to be useful (that is, to have predictive value) at the same time, but both cannot be held to be true, according to my understanding of logic.
I see that it is possible to use contradictiory theories without EFQing (if you will) to any and every conclusion. Doubtless, it is also possible to genuinely and consciously believe a contradiction without believing anything else you want, simply by choosing not to believe these further contardictions. But the problem I see is that if you allow the possibility of A & ~A being true, then presumably you must also allow the possibility of B & ~B. If this is the case, it seems to me that you'd have a hell of a time knowing anything, since most logical conclusions rest on the exposure of contradictions, which I think is called reductio ad absurdum. So the greatest problem that I have with holding a contradiction to be true is that it sets a precedent for any other contradiction. Which would put us in the bad company of lunatics, in addition to our good company.
Intellectual honesty, based on my understanding of logic (which at present does not include paraconsistent logic) requires that I avoid inconsistency wherever possible, and where holding inconsistent theories is necessary for pracitical purposes, that I understand that in reality, at most one of these theories is correct. I do not claim to have achieved ful consistency in my beliefs, but I do try to address and overcome inconsistencies when they come to my attention.
I am fully aware that I have only proved one God to be impossible (and that only if there is gratuitious suffering). As I said in my previous post, "Next Up", I intend to write several posts on the problem of pain, of which this is only the first. My subsequent posts will address other theodicies and other concepts of God, though I may not get to all of the infinite possibilities.
As I think (and hope) I have stated, my goal in this endeavor is not to discover the unassailable truth about the existence and attributes of God. My goal is simply to find a set of beliefs about God that seem consistent (there's that word again) and make sense to me. I am not so naive that I hope to find a position impervious to all doubt and disagreement. I'm just looking for one with which I can be intellectually comfortable.
Why am I so fixated on consistency? Nobody's ever asked me that before. Consistency seems like a big deal to me. It seems to me (as one who still does not understand/accept paraconsistent logic) that to blithely accept contradictions would be insane, or at best, intellectually dishonest. Do you disagree?
(So yes, I am telling you it's because of logic. I don't understand why you find this unbelievable.)
Yes, impressive as always Jacob. But I'm not totally satisfied, actually I'm a bit confused. What kind of suffering are you talking about (examples?)
Examples of suffering that is not beneficial? The most clear and difinitive, I think, is animal suffering, be it caused by disease, carnivors, disasters, or the inhospitality of nature. It is difficult to imagine how an antilope being eaten alive by lions deep in the wilderness of Africa has any positive effect on anyone (except the lions, I suppose). But it certainly causes excruciating pain, and it is easy to imagine a world in which animals did not eat each other.
Human examples of gratuitous suffering tend to be less clean-cut, because any occurence in the human world tends to be influenced by human actions, and have many possible effects that are difficult to see. (For this reason, it is not possible to say difinitively that a child dying of cancer is an instance of gratuitious suffering, because so many possible goods could come out of it, in addition to much suffering.) But I think there are examples of human suffering so great that we cannot imagine the positive effects that might warrant them. (Though some may disagree.) A few examples might be AIDS and other such pandemics, various genocides, famines, insanity, great natural disasters, and excruciating diseases that effect small children, such as epidermolysis bullosa. It is very difficult to imagine a reason for a powerful and loving God to allow these sorts of evil to exist. (Though even if we can think of no possible reason to tolerate or inflict these evils, we cannot say with certainty that an omniscient God could not have one.)
Yeah, about the lions...
Many biologists believe that the attack of a large predator (such as a lion) actually causes a state of shock in it's victim, so that little pain is actually felt. I have read many stories of people attacked by lions, bears sharks etc and many of them say more or less the same thing- "It was tearing me apart and I never felt any pain."
This doesn't much prove anything about the problem of pain, or suffering, or anything for that matter (unless you get attacked by a lion, I suppose). It's just a cool idea.
You talk about animals suffering... but do they have souls...? I mean humans suffering, like you said, is hard to pin-point simple pointless suffering. And the animal example is a bit of a stretch because 1. You have no idea how the animal feels and 2. Arn't animals here for our use. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure thats what the old testament says. I guess what im trying to say is that the animal example is wrong because animals are more like objects then spiritual beings...
I can see where you're coming from, but I don't think having a soul (whatever that might mean) or consciousness is neccessary in order to experience pain. I have no idea what any other being feels subjectively, but I trust that similar visible, physical experiences correspond to similar subjective (mental) ones.
The Bible says people rule over animals, or something like that, but not in the sense that we can do whatever we wish to them. Intuitively and Biblically it seems that torture/cruelty towards animals is wrong. And if this is the case, it seems logical that any animal suffering is wrong, or undesirable, in the same sense that human suffering is wrong. But I will address the subject of animal suffering further in my next post.
The theory that being eaten tends to induce a state of shock in animals (previous comment) is news to me. Although if this does not occur universally, or in the case of other pain-inducing events, I don't think it could solve this problem.
Oh, the mindless conversations...
Jacob, you write as though you serve (supposedly) a God who lives on the same level as you. You write as if you are worthy. You write as if there is no such thing as the grace of God. Man, we should be dead because of our lifestyles! But leave it to man to find something to complain about.
That's all I have to say. Focus on the grace of God - not your lack of understanding. Satisfaction will never be met. Christ has loved you with an everlasting love. Please don't forget that.
Well, anonymous, I don't think of what I'm doing here as complaining. If my writing sounds arrogant or belittling of God, that is an error on my part. But I'm not here to judge God or demand that he conform to my human understanding. I'm simply trying to decide whether I believe in his existence. I have not forgotten what the Bible says about God's grace, but I don't see how that's relevent to the topic at hand.
That last comment is my fave. You're wicked dude. To tuckered out to get into this right now though...
I couldn't make it through all of the comments, I did pretty well though. Have you considered the possibility that our suffering belongs to us? There was a post awhile back on another blog mentioning the sacrifice of Christ and that no rational being would send thier child to death. I argued from the point of historical examples that such has been the case for millenia.
I argue from the same point here. If suffering is *ours* meaning that it is a result of our own doing then why is God to blame? Why does his existance or nature hinge on my lack of suffering? An example. If my son or daughter chooses to self amputate a limb what can I do? If I had the power to re-attach the limb I would be interfering with her free-will. If I take the pain away I would be negating her power to choose. If I aleviated the suffering I would be removing the consequence of action.
If I say that man has free will then God must not interfere with this free will or else it is no longer free. This would also mean that, if suffering is an effect of our own cause then God is being just in His decision to stay out of it.
In many ways it is the only right thing to do.
One last point. Then if we take the angle of "God's intervention" which is the reverse of the same argument. We can only assume that God was invited into that situation on some level and thus His help was rendered.
Some of our suffering is our doing; some is not. It is the latter type that's a problem to me.
Post a Comment