![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 27 to 51 of 79. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2002, at 6:52:54
In reply to The one and only truth, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:12:50
Fred Potter,
You wrote that "I think the one and only truth that we all recognise.....even though we may not admit it to ourselves, is that (we) do not know." And also that you state that it takes courage to aknowledge that.
Could you clarify what you mean by "we"? Are you sayiug that the "we" are:
1) all of the people in this discussion?
2) only the people that are in this discussion that agree with you?
3) all the people alive today?
4 all the people that ever lived
5) some other group of people
If you could clarify that for me, then I could better communucate with you in regards to the topic presented in this thread. For as of now, it could mean that you are including me in the "we" in your post. I (do) know from the experiance that I had that I have been writing about on this board that there is a God.
Could you also clarify what your last statement that "The faith that whatever is really true is OK ." could mean in relation to your first statement that ...the one and only truth... is that we do not know. If you could clarify what you mean by that, then I could be better able to understand what the two statements together mean and then I could better communicate with you in this thread. Are you saying that:
1) the only true faith is the faith that says that you do not know?
2) there are other faiths that are really true and they are OK
3) there is a faith that is really true, but I do not know of it
4) some other explanation
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 17, 2002, at 7:35:12
In reply to The one and only truth, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:12:50
Fred,
You wrote that the one and only truth is that we do not know. Then you wrote, "Yes it does take courage to aknowledge it."
Could you clarify what you mean by ...it takes (courage) to aknowkedge it? Are you saying that:
1)all those that beleive in God are (wrong)because there is only one truth-the truth that we can not know if there is a God or not?
2)those that say that they beleive in God are cowards because they will not admit that the only truth is that we can not know if there is a God or not?
3)those that have faith are really deluding themselves, for the only truth is that we can not know if there is a God or not and thearfore all people that believe in God are having delusions?
4) there is only one way to beleive, and that is to believe that you can not know God. and thearfore if you have an experiance that gives you faith in God, you should ignore it because it can not be true because the only truth is that no one can know God?
5) some other explanation
If you could clarify that for me, then I would be better able to communicate with you in regards to the discussion on this thread.
Sincerely,
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 8:06:58
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
Obviously there are areas in my faith life where I have chosen to take leaps of faith. I just choose them carefully.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 9:51:08
In reply to Re: Lou's response to Liz's post: an example » fachad, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 0:05:37
> it's not just that organised religion uses faith to get things wrong, but that its adherents are so horribly cruel to anyone who dares to disagree.
Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to overgeneralize, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 3:23:33
> Okay, Bob, I said I wasn't going to add anything to the PB Faith board but I'd like to point out something about the definition of faith.
Hey, great to see you here, after all! :-)
> Faith as defined by a dictionary is different than the way the Bible defines faith at Hebrews 11:1. There is says that "faith is ... the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld (the evidence of things not seen - KJ version).
>
> This meaning is different than a dictionary's definition as it doesn't imply blind faith at all, but suggests reasoning or rational thought - looking for evidence of the said unseen things. For faith to be worthwhile, it should be based on demonstrative evidence of the unseen. Maybe there's not hard proof but there should be sense & logic backing up a person's faith. There should be tangible evidence that can be shown to back up one's beliefs - much like black holes are unseen but there's strong evidence to back up a belief in them. That's the sort of faith that's meant in the Bible.
>
> IsoM> I think IsoM explained it much better than I could. Absolute proof? No, I suppose not. How about the preponderance of the evidence as a standard?
>
> DinahI see what you're saying, and like the black holes analogy, and don't mean to imply that faith is totally irrational or illogical, or necessarily "blind", but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
Hmm, "preponderance" is to some extent subjective, what's convincing to one person isn't always to another. Maybe a better way to see this is as objective beliefs vs. subjective ones? Rather than as beliefs with evidence vs. those without?
And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
Bob
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 14:30:53
In reply to Re: please rephrase that » FredPotter, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 9:51:08
> > it's not just that organised religion uses faith to get things wrong, but that its adherents are so horribly cruel to anyone who dares to disagree.
>
> Keeping in mind that the idea here is not to overgeneralize, could you please rephrase that? Thanks,
>
> Bobsorry - it's not just that organised religion sometimes uses faith to apparently get things wrong or not wholly right, but that there is evidence that its adherents have been and can be so horribly cruel to anyone who dares to disagree.
Posted by IsoM on October 17, 2002, at 16:09:53
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
I’d like to make clear, Bob, that I’m not talking about rationalism, a philosophical belief, but about rationality & logical thinking from gathered evidence of the world around us, & the resulting faith.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
“…but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?”Yes, it’s possible that it is something else but it wouldn’t be so very off target. Let’s get back to the black hole analogy (not the best one but I grabbed it out of the air quickly). Because there’s no real proof that there’s black holes, in the future as more evidence is gathered (& possibly a grand unifying theory is reached), we’ll find that this phenomenon that was believed to be black holes isn’t. But if it isn’t, it won’t be radically different. What’s discovered will still fit the data that’s been gathered & the math describing it. If it’s not a black hole, it’s going to be something awfully similar. We won’t find that it’s some huge orbiting dog in space.
Evidence should lead to a logical conclusion. The ancient Greeks knew that the Earth wasn’t flat. They used evidence about of what they could see & study – the Moon & Earth. They noticed the different phases of the Moon, & how the shadow of the Earth looked on its surface. During half-moon phase, the demarcation between lit & unlit was a straight line down. If the Earth was just a flat disc, it would’ve thrown a shadow of the curve of the disc on the Moon, but it didn’t. Any child with a flashlight & two spheres can check it out for themselves to understand. Ancient societies that thought the Earth was a flat disc didn’t take the evidence before their eyes into consideration. We find it amusing now how evident certain things were that primitive societies didn’t bother checking out.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -“And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?”
Blind faith doesn’t mean a stronger belief – it means shutting your eyes to evidence, hence the term blind, rather than unseen faith. There’s very little that doesn’t have some sort of evidence about; it just depends on whether people will bother checking it out or not.
Blind faith is about insisting that the Earth is still flat:
http://flatearthsociety.com
http://flat-earth.org
Or saying that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS.
Or saying that Man has never landed on the Moon & it’s all a conspiracy.
Or believing every urban legend or piece of gossip that comes along. I could offer sites on all these ideas but I doubt that anyone would get much out of it other than a good laugh. Why? Because we know better than that. We don’t have their blind faith.
And that’s where blind faith leads!And if you say that everyone’s views & opinions should be given equal credence, then why isn’t an equal amount of money used to back these theories too? Because it’s obvious after reading what’s shown, that it’s illogical & ridiculous. For something to be taken seriously & believed, there should be some basis, some *sensible* reason to believe in it. If we have no evidence, then maybe each of us should just make up any silly fairy tale as the basis of our belief system.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -What bothers me is the fact that faith has become a ‘dirty’ word. People’s opinions have become clouded about faith because it’s been presented over & over that there doesn’t have to be a rationale for it. Faith NEEDS rational evidence to be real (though not necessarily everything is completely understood, but then we don’t completely understand everything around us yet, let alone the universe). The word blind is an adjective to describe a faith without logic or reason – it’s a set of credulous beliefs.
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 16:21:16
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 17, 2002, at 14:29:24
>
> I see what you're saying, and like the black holes analogy, and don't mean to imply that faith is totally irrational or illogical, or necessarily "blind", but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
>
> Hmm, "preponderance" is to some extent subjective, what's convincing to one person isn't always to another. Maybe a better way to see this is as objective beliefs vs. subjective ones? Rather than as beliefs with evidence vs. those without?
>OK, Agreed. Someone else may look at the same facts and come to a different conclusion. And the evidence is open to interpretation. That's why I have no problem with anyone coming to a different conclusion than I have. It's also why I always hope that those who have come to a different conclusion than I have also respect my conclusions and the fact that I have put thought and effort into it.
> And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
>
> Bob
>
I certainly don't think it's a lesser kind of faith. I know many many people with blind faith, and I respect their beliefs, although I don't always completely understand them. However I also don't think it is necessarily a stronger belief. God gave us brains for a reason, and I don't think He requires that we put them aside in matters of faith.Perhaps faith can't be quantified or evaluated. Perhaps believers are just different, with differing spiritual gifts. And perhaps that's what makes the whole endeavor so fascinating and rewarding. :)
Dinah
Posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 16:54:39
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 16:21:16
Dinah wrote
>God gave us brains for a reasonThere's a lot of faith in that phrase
By the way Newton's theory of gravity was useful rather than true. It worked very well for over 200 years, and continues to do so. Einstein however got closer to the truth with a notion that was totally different to Newton's. In time Einstein's theories will be replaced by more useful theories I expect. However there may be no truth - just ever more useful theories. Which brings us to Karl Popper . . .
Posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 19:36:39
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by FredPotter on October 17, 2002, at 16:54:39
> Dinah wrote
> >God gave us brains for a reason
>
> There's a lot of faith in that phrase
>Why, thank you. :) I do try.
Dinah
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 1:58:11
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dinah on October 17, 2002, at 16:21:16
> OK, Agreed.
Agreed? Success! :-) Thanks for this different point of view. Sorry I didn't get it at first...
Bob
PS: Now if IsoM and I could just agree, too... :-)
Posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 2:46:47
In reply to Re: Rationalism and Philosophy, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 1:58:11
"Now if IsoM and I could just agree, too..."
Ah, but I'm willing to discuss it further. I think I've shown some strong points in this discussion. This is what I mean by rational & logical thinking. Bring up point of view, back it up with logic & possible evidence, be prepared to confute what's not logical, misleading, and/or false evidence, & draw a conclusion.
Basically, it's not that different with the scientific method http://phyun5.ucr.edu/~wudka/Physics7/Notes_www/node5.html
What is a little different is, in science, one hopes to ultimately arrive at hard proof. In faith & beliefs, one is not able to present hard proof. But that doesn't mean one should leave reason, logic, & common sense behind.How valid is a belief system that's based on groundless (blind) faith? How much could one rely on, in a crunch, something that has no foundation to it, nothing solid to hold your faith in times of hardships, stress, & various problems? Faith should give one hope. What would anyone base his or her hope on if there wasn't something to show a good reason to do so.
I'm not American, but I'll use the States as most posters are from there. Almost everyone in the States knows that the country's in debt to more than 6 billion dollars. If the president was to tell the public that in one year, there'd be no more debt, how many would believe him? Wouldn't people want to know just how he was going to bring it about? Wouldn't they want some evidence to believe this? And what past evidence has he shown in money matters that would make them base their hope on it happening?
Now to balance the budget when it's in the red to the tune of 6 billion in one year seems a little much, but how about if he said he could have it balanced within one month? How about one week?
See? Something's are just not reasonable or logical. We don't accept that which doesn't make sense. People won't have blind faith in Bush just because he's the president & said he would. They'd want evident demonstration before they put their faith in him.
Posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 8:43:15
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 2:46:47
(I must be honest, IsoM. While I have no problems with the beliefs of anyone, as long as they don't cause anyone any harm, I do have problems with direct encounters with blind faith where I'm expected to agree with it. I just bought my new Sunday School study book, and it seems to suggest that mental illness can be overcome by prayer and that anyone unable to overcome, say, fear (including one overt example of OCD) by prayer and faith was sinful, since God told us directly not to fear. I checked with my husband to make sure my perception of the book was accurate, then decided to skip Sunday School for a couple of months. There are many in my class who find great comfort in faith without reason, but I'd find myself challenging their faith if I showed up for these classes, and I have no real desire to do that. Well, not too much anyway.)
Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 9:29:45
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » IsoM, posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 8:43:15
I bought a book while visiting Wendy this summer by Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of Christian Science. The woman who sold it to me insisted I could be cured of anything by reading this book, even if I were an athiest. Many athiests, they said, had found this book successful in helping them eradicate their diseases.
Yes, I bought the book anyway, knowing that was a sales pitch. I can't bring myself to read it, so it has been collecting dust on the shelf upstairs.
Just recently, though, I bought a book called "Women's Bodies, Women's Wisdom" by an author I respect, Christianne (?) Northrop. In it, she talks about a colleague discussing a study done (I'm summarizing from memory here) involving prayer. All the people were sick, but some of them were prayed for by other people. No one knew who was being prayed for and who wasn't. Those who were prayed for got better in a significantly high percentage. When the doctor mentioned the study, all the other docs pooh-poohed it.
Northrop said that if this had been a medicine study, the findings would have been so overwhelming they'd be the latest thing.
beardy
P.S. I don't know what this has to do with anything, but maybe your Sunday school story sparked it.
Posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 9:51:03
In reply to Mary Baker Eddy » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 9:29:45
Well, as I said, I have nothing against the faith of others. But were I to sit in class during this particular book, I migh feel compelled to bring up the fact that Luther and Wesley (and many others - amazing how the history of religion is filled with those suffering from OCD) didn't find that a fervent belief in God, prayer, or knowledge of the scriptures freed them from fear or guilt. And that, according to this book, they would be considered sinners for that fact. Now if that isn't an everlasting loop, I don't know what is. Can't overcome the fear and guilt, must be a sinner, so how as a sinner can I overcome the fear and guilt, therefore I must be a sinner. No wonder Luther (I think it was Luther) was prohibited by his priest from going to confession.
About the efficacy of prayer in a double blind study. I have heard it, and am willing to believe it, depending on methodology and the study being done a few times. But it brings up the dilemma of Job doesn't it? I once heard a woman tell quite earnestly and with complete belief a story. It seems the leader of her local church died from cancer, and his supervisor came and berated the church, saying that if they had prayed harder and with greater faith the man would have lived. Of course, I don't think it necessarily correlates that if outcome is better with prayer, then a negative outcome means a lack of faithful prayer.
Oh heavens, I'm sorry I brought it up. I just felt a bit guilty (OCD) for implying that I was completely OK with blind faith. I am completely OK with blind faith for others, but find myself rather uncomfortable in its midst, and my post was a confession of that fact. Nothing more or less. The fact that I'm uncomfortable with it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2002, at 10:27:22
In reply to Mary Baker Eddy » Dinah, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 9:29:45
Beardedlady,
I am not a member of Christian Church of Christ Scientist, but some people have told me that the experiance that I had could also have been experianced by others, including Mary Baker Eddy.
In what I am describng in my expeiance , The 7 Gates on the Road to the Crown of Life, it was pointed out to me by a person that did belong to the Church of Christ Scientist that my experiance was real to them for my experince led to my being able to ovrcome addiction and depression without drugs and their group agreed. The Spirit of God was revealed to me in my experiance to be perfect Love which caused in me to have all fear cast out of me.
In reference to your post about the prayer people that prayed for others, and some of the others were healed, it was revealed to me in my experiance that prayers by those that have been indwelled with the Spirit of God are effectve to cure others. I have witnessed healings of people that had others pray for their deliverance from afflictions.
Thanks for citing the study about praying for others.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2002, at 11:05:04
In reply to Re: Mary Baker Eddy » BeardedLady, posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 9:51:03
Dinah,
I am interested in the book that you are referring to. Could you give me the title, or/and the author,and any other infomation about the book so that I can obtain a copy of it?
If I can read the book then I will be better able to understand what you are saying in your post and it could help me to comunicate better in this disscuion.
Best Regards,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 11:25:38
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 2:46:47
> > Now if IsoM and I could just agree, too...
>
> Ah, but I'm willing to discuss it further. I think I've shown some strong points in this discussion.I didn't mean to imply you weren't. And you certainly have. I just got too tired last night. :-)
> > …but it does seem to me that if evidence enters into it, so does interpretation of that evidence. Maybe what's being "demonstrated" is something else?
>
> Yes, it’s possible that it is something else but it wouldn’t be so very off target. Let’s get back to the black hole analogy (not the best one but I grabbed it out of the air quickly). Because there’s no real proof that there’s black holes, in the future as more evidence is gathered (& possibly a grand unifying theory is reached), we’ll find that this phenomenon that was believed to be black holes isn’t. But if it isn’t, it won’t be radically different. What’s discovered will still fit the data that’s been gathered & the math describing it. If it’s not a black hole, it’s going to be something awfully similar. We won’t find that it’s some huge orbiting dog in space.But new theories can in fact be radically different. The world being round vs. flat, for example...
> Ancient societies that thought the Earth was a flat disc didn’t take the evidence before their eyes into consideration. We find it amusing now how evident certain things were that primitive societies didn’t bother checking out.
Maybe there's data relevant to black holes that's before our eyes right now, but that we're not taking into consideration? Maybe future societies will find us amusing?
> - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>
> > And what about blind faith, anyway? Is that necessarily a lesser kind of faith? Wouldn't belief despite a lack of evidence [or evidence to the contrary] be a *stronger* belief? Leaping farther?
>
> Blind faith doesn’t mean a stronger belief – it means shutting your eyes to evidence, hence the term blind, rather than unseen faith.OK, I agree -- if someone really does shut their eyes -- but what if their eyes are open, they see it, and still they keep their faith?
> And if you say that everyone’s views & opinions should be given equal credence, then why isn’t an equal amount of money used to back these theories too?
Here, anyway, I'd like you to respect the views of others. But that doesn't mean you have to write them checks. :-)
> What bothers me is the fact that faith has become a ‘dirty’ word. People’s opinions have become clouded about faith because it’s been presented over & over that there doesn’t have to be a rationale for it.
I don't know how I ended up on this side of the issue :-) but why would not having a rationale dirty it? Wouldn't eyes-open, damn-the-evidence faith be the most "pure"?
> How valid is a belief system that's based on groundless (blind) faith?
Validity is in the eyes of the beholder? Since faith is personal?
> How much could one rely on, in a crunch, something that has no foundation to it, nothing solid to hold your faith in times of hardships, stress, & various problems? ... What would anyone base his or her hope on if there wasn't something to show a good reason to do so.
Maybe it's a leap of faith?
> I'm not American, but I'll use the States as most posters are from there. Almost everyone in the States knows that the country's in debt to more than 6 billion dollars. If the president was to tell the public that in one year, there'd be no more debt, how many would believe him?
Maybe not many. So it might be a small church. :-)
Bob
Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 13:28:10
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 11:25:38
> Wouldn't eyes-open, damn-the-evidence faith be the most "pure"?
I think you're talking about something completely different here. There's the leap of faith, that Kierkegard describes, which is the one that Abraham took, but that's not what you're talking about, as there was really no evidence to the contrary.
Regarding "damn-the-evidence" faith, think of this. Are those who believe the emperor is not naked (which he clearly is) but is instead wearing clothing made of a special cloth exhibiting pure faith? Or are they misguided?
Then what about the thing that many try without success? Say, traveling around the world in the hot air balloon or swimming across the English Channel (before folks actually started doing it). Are they exhibiting pure faith? Or are they misguided?
Wouldn't it seem somewhat foolish to believe that two plus two is three, even thought we know it's four?
I guess I'm asking you to help me understand what you mean by "damn the evidence" kind of faith. Because as far as I'm concerned, no one can prove there is NO god. And that means religion is not "damn the evidence" faith.
I even think you can believe in a god and still believe in evolution.
> > I'm not American, but I'll use the States as most posters are from there. Almost everyone in the States knows that the country's in debt to more than 6 billion dollars. If the president was to tell the public that in one year, there'd be no more debt, how many would believe him?
You'd be surprised. How do you think he got to be president? (I am joking, of course.)
beardy : )>
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2002, at 13:35:57
In reply to pure faith v. damn-the-evidence faith + Iso » Dr. Bob, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 13:28:10
BL,
Thank you for bringing forth that as far as you are concerned, NO one can prove that there is not a God.
Lou
Posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 16:01:21
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation, posted by Dr. Bob on October 18, 2002, at 11:25:38
Will write more in a couple of days, but need to be busy elsewhere.
Posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 16:10:38
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 16:01:21
Posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 16:11:00
In reply to Re: Agreement or Confutation » IsoM, posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 8:43:15
Dinah, I won't go into length here about the views that faith & prayer should heal ills, but wish to say that if one's religion takes a firm view this way, that's fine by me. But if it's said that it's a Biblical teaching, I beg to differ.
It's NOT Biblical. If they wish to feel faith & prayer can cure ills - fine, but I dislike the idea presented that it's the Bible's view. It isn't. I could point out many instances in the Bible to show it.
The idea of creating further problems for someone already ill by having them think it's their fault & their faith is weak is a cruel idea to perpetuate on anyone. Yes, our minds can do much to influence our physical health, but only because a good attitude helps strengthen our immune system in ways not fully understood yet. But there's many ills that the best attitude could never influence at all.
Posted by IsoM on October 18, 2002, at 16:12:04
In reply to Nuh uh! LOL! (nm) » IsoM, posted by BeardedLady on October 18, 2002, at 16:10:38
Now what's that supposed to mean, my goofy friend?
Posted by Dinah on October 18, 2002, at 16:27:06
In reply to Re: Mary Baker Eddy » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 18, 2002, at 11:05:04
I'm sorry Lou, but I wouldn't feel right giving the name of the book. I'm sure it helps many people and I would feel bad about saying something negative about a specific book, especially a faith based book. I'm also sure that my class will get a lot of benefit from it.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Faith | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.