Tom Gilson

Why Is Richard Dawkins So Popular?

Some atheists/skeptics present thoughtful arguments against Christianity. Some others are like Richard Dawkins. Seriously.

Here’s the question: why do people listen to him, why do they think he has something to say on religion and atheism, and what responsibility does the church bear for it?

Hat Tip to Chris Shannon

Commenting Restored

The comment function here has been out of service, possibly causing frustration, for which I apologize. You can comment again now, and it will save and post as it should do. First-time commenters' comments will not appear, however, until approved in moderation.

34 thoughts on “Why Is Richard Dawkins So Popular?

  1. Sure. The question is, how did he develop such a fan base? What are his fans like, with respect to their dealing with what he has to say? Craig gave an answer in terms including silly, ignorant, unsophisticated, sophomoric, irrational, absurd, ludicrous, taken-in….

    But you’re right: this is not so much about Dawkins as it is about the distressing lack of thinking ability that exists far too widely in Western culture—without which Dawkins’s recent work would have been confined to bookstores’ and libraries’ silly shelves, where it belongs.

    To return to the point with which I ended the blog post: What responsibility does the church bear for this? I suggest this failure of general education is partly the church’s fault. Not completely, but partly; and it is something Christians ought to be addressing.

  2. Philosopher David Stove, a professed atheist, shreds Dawkins’s main argument in The Selfish Gene. See Stove’s, Darwinian Fairytales.

  3. To return to the point with which I ended the blog post: What responsibility does the church bear for this? I suggest this failure of general education is partly the church’s fault. Not completely, but partly; and it is something Christians ought to be addressing.

    While I agree that the church bears some responsibility for this, I want to take a slightly different tack.

    Please note a few things about the sort of crowd Dawkins attracts.

    * They don’t simply think religion is false, but they have a deep hatred of Christianity in particular.
    * Quite a lot of that hatred is wrapped up in politics: Abortion, gay marriage, general left-wingism, and so on.
    * Eradicating Christianity is not seen merely as a good in and of itself, but as a means to an end. See Harris’ explicit talk about the sort of government he wants and how he connects that to eradicating religion, or at least the religions he disagrees with. See Dawkins admitting that the reason he thinks atheists should no longer make common cause with religious liberals is because he sees them as enabling religious and political conservatives.
    * Insofar as there is a political motivation, there is this danger: Someone can be “listened to” because the rhetoric and conclusions he arrives at are politically convenient. Whether or not they are sound matter as much as talking points in the service of a political goal typically matters: Often, not terribly much at all.

    The point is that while there’s certainly an education aspect to all this – poor catechization and so on – I honestly wonder if it’s the core problem here. Identifying education as the reason people are enthusiastically endorsing inane arguments assumes that the arguments in question are what principally motivate them. I question that.

    It’s like telling me that the reason, say.. the president of Perrier claiming that there’s a substantial taste difference between Perrier and tapwater can be addressed by education. Why, just have him take a taste test, and if he can’t tell the difference then clearly he’ll admit that the two are, taste-wise, difficult to impossible to distinguish. Right?

  4. Luke 10:27
    “And he answering said, You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.”

    I think the church could do a better job in dealing with loving the lord with your mind. We get the messages that deal with the heart 90% of the time. I was 32 years old before I learned what “apologetics” was, and I was raised in the church.

    You don’t have to be a philosophical genius to read Dawkins and see that he makes all manners of logical blunders, but some basic knowledge on logic and reason goes a LONG way. Unfortunately, our public schools stopped teaching logic about 100 years ago, and this failure shows up in all walks of life.

    I’ve read people say that apologetics doesn’t convert many people, and that may be right, but it certainly can nourish a large part of the church in a way that is extremely fulfilling.

    If evolution made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist, reading Dawkins makes it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled Christian.

  5. Does Dawkins even rely on a rational approach to win his arguments? He is on record as someone who advocates using blatant contempt and ridicule as a means to change peoples minds. Note that he doesn’t think this approach will work on the “irremediably religious.” Rather, he is interested in attacking “the fence-sitters who haven’t really considered the question very long or very carefully. And I think that they are likely to be swayed by a display of naked contempt. Nobody likes to be laughed at. Nobody wants to be the butt of contempt.”

    But if these so called “fence sitters” are open minded enough to engage in an open minded discussion, why wouldn’t an appeal to evidence and reason be sufficient enough to change their minds? Maybe Dawkin’s arguments are not as strong as he thinks.

    http://richarddawkins.net/articles/3767-truckling-to-the-faithful-a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down/comments?page=1#comment_351636

  6. Does Dawkins rely on a rational approach? He says he does, that it’s at least part of his approach (along with contempt and ridicule, as you have helpfully noted). Between the claim and the deed, though, there is quite a discrepancy.

  7. This is tending off topic, but this from the Dawkins link JAD provided is pretty interesting:

    You might say that two can play at that game. Suppose the religious start treating us with naked contempt, how would we like it? I think the answer is that there is a real asymmetry here. We have so much more to be contemptuous about! And we are so much better at it.

    The real asymmetry is that Christians do not have naked contempt available as a strategy, nor would we want to have it. Not contempt towards persons, at least; contempt toward ideas is a different matter. The reason is simple: naked contempt towards persons is wrong.

    Does Dawkins have that category — right and wrong — available as a guide to how to proceed? Not coherently. He insists that everything in life comes from Darwinian sources but he rejects what he considers to be Darwinian ethics. I do not know where non-Darwinian (anti-Darwinian, even) ethics could come from if everything comes from Darwinian sources.

    Which brings us back around to JAD’s question: how rational is Dawkins, after all?

  8. Hi Tom,
    I believe Dr. Craig is correct about people being ignorant for lack of complete debatable knowledge.
    I also think he is failing to take into account the work of Satan as well; to divert people’s attention away from God. Dr. Craig is flabbergasted how people can believe the none sense that is supposedly logical refutation for the evidence of God, yet there have been people who have always done that from earliest recorded history to the present day. Was not Stalin and Hitler, at least initially, seen as savior’s by millions, despite their atheistic convictions?
    As for the Church’s responsibility in all this, the present day Church is far more self serving then concerned with saving soles. If it weren’t, it would be easy and effective to deal with all those who think the Dawkin’s mentality is legitimate with a one on one approach. There are after all over 2 billion Christians versus jsut a few million atheists. How is the Church taking advantage of it’s majority? It isn’t. It expects the unbelievers to come to Church, or believe’s the few really intelligent defenders of Christ, on websites like your own, to do the converting. That’s not how Christ ran His Ministry, and that’s the very best model there is for how to attain converts.
    I think it’s very simple really. It all boils down to “Thy Will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven” and “as a man sows so does he reap”.
    All this anti Christian sentiment must flourish and come to pass to see the End of Days.
    Thy will is being replaced more and more by the “my will” of original sin. This is how Dawkins and those like him attain popularity as they promote and glorify that sentiment, and it becomes popular with the naturally anti establishment/rebellious nature of youth. How many are even really interested in the sacrifices God requires when this material world is so enticing to the 5 senses?
    Hardly any at all. How can I know that? Because every day 25,000 children die because they lack the resources to stay alive, resources the rest of us waste on earthly delights.
    What good that is being done is not enough to go around because not enough are willing to give up the little it would take to abolish the above statistic. And this is just one example of many that could change this world for the better if people just cared; if they lived by God’s Wisdom rather then man’s deceit.
    JMHO:)

  9. Is the bible a sophisticated read? Dr. Lane makes a gross generalisation of people that may be interested in reading and following Dawkins’ ideas. All I hear in this interview (haven’t read his blog, nor I would after watching this) is him winging without giving any serious example of how simplistic Dawkins’ arguments may be. He makes an example of the “cosmological argument “, what a philosophic matter to begin with. I would suggest him to read Dawkins’ last book “The greatest show on earth” to see how his rationality and rigorous thinking can be put to test. If Christians want to rebuke Dawkins’ ideas, this video is not a good example; it makes the ridiculing job of some out-of-line atheists so much easier.

  10. Jorge,

    Is the Bible a sophisticated read? The answer is yes. I trust you are aware of the multiple, multiple libraries full of reflection upon its meaning, and the millions upon millions of people whose lives it has changed. Have you read it?

    This interview was, as olegt ably pointed out, not primarily about Richard Dawkins. It was about the people who find him convincing with respect especially to philosophical and religious matters. You really do need to bear that context in mind. Also, Craig was not “doing philosophy” in this interview. He can do it, without a doubt, but that wasn’t his purpose here. His purpose was instead to comment on the sad, dismal inability many have to understand and deal with logical lines of thinking.

    I assure you that Dr. Craig does not wing it when his purpose is to give serious philosophical answers. You say, “He makes an example of the ‘cosmological argument’, what a philosophic matter to begin with.” I’m not quite sure what you mean by that, but you might be interested to know that

    a). Dr. Craig has developed a version of the cosmological argument that the world’s best philosophers in that field are wrestling with, and
    b) Dawkins’s followers have completely misunderstood and mishandled it, which was his point here, and
    c) When he addresses Dawkins himself on this matter, he does it quite responsibly.

    Again, the video was not about rebuking Dawkins’s ideas and was not meant to be an example of such. I trust you have enough philosophical acumen (and common sense) not to judge Craig by such a short snippet. It’s as ridiculous for you to do that as it would be, say, for someone to judge Dawkins without having read The Greatest Show On Earth. I’m sure you wouldn’t want to make a mistake like that!

    I would suggest you read Craig’s co-edited book God is Great, God is Good to see how his rationality and rigorous thinking can be put to test, specifically with regard to the New Atheists. If you want to rebuke his ideas, this comment of yours is not a good example; it makes the ridiculing job of some theists so much easier.

    (If you want to see Craig’s book-length work on other topics besides the New Atheists, I suggest you look him up on Amazon.com.)

    If I wasn’t plain enough with the above, I’ll state it frankly here: you have taken one out-of-context snippet of a man’s thought, and from that snippet you have completely dismissed him. Then you have had the temerity to say that this man shouldn’t have criticized someone else without having read his latest book. You are far more guilty of that error than Craig is, my friend. You dismissed him without even knowing enough about him to get his name right! I hope your personal integrity will lead you to pursue the matter more responsibly than that. Try http://www.reasonablefaith.org and see if your criticisms still hold up.

  11. “If Christians want to rebuke Dawkins’ ideas, this video is not a good example; it makes the ridiculing job of some out-of-line atheists so much easier.”

    A slew of books have been written showing Dawkin’s range of logical fallacies. For free, however, Craig addresses many of them in videos which go into much more depth than this on YouTube. The rebuttal is out there. Implying that Dawkins’ arguments and fallacies haven’t been addressed is a mistaken notion.

  12. Interesting. I could ask the corresponding question, “Why is William Lane Craig so popular?” Some of Craig’s arguments are ignorant, unsophisticated, and silly – see his attempts to prove that an actual infinite cannot exist, for example – and yet Craig is supposed to be one of the top apologists alive today.

    As for the comments he gets on his website from the general public, just compare the comments on some atheist sites from Christians. (“If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys around?” and so forth.)

    I agree with him on the need for better critical thinking skills – there are plenty of ignorant and uninformed people on all sides.

  13. Robert, you might be able to argue that Craig’s arguments are wrong, but “ignorant, unsophisticated, and silly” is completely wide of the mark and displays questionable knowledge and sophistication on your own part. Craig’s arguments on infinity (to use your example back at you) stand in a line that is acknowledged to be learned and supportable by reference to established literature, even by those who consider them to be incorrect. There is a difference between disputed (which Craig’s arguments admittedly are) and ignorant or silly. You knew that, right?

    Dawkins’s anti-theistic arguments, on the other hand, are just awful. Do you really think his claims about religion and child abuse represent scientific thinking? Do you really think his “Central Argument” concerning the complexity of God has anything to do with what any theist believes about God? He thinks he’s taking down Christianity with this argument, when in fact he’s really just disproving a god no one believes in; and he doesn’t even know the difference!

    Do you really think his complaints about the OT God represent any real knowledge? It’s surface-level sophomoric stuff. And he doesn’t even care that he’s ignorant.

    Granted that there are Christians who have weak or ignorant arguments against evolution. I have long acknowledged that problem. That they post those arguments on atheist websites is embarrassing to me. There are people on both sides of this issue who are scientifically, theologically, and philosophically unequipped. That is the problem that Craig identified, and neither he nor I would dispute it, so I don’t know what point you’re trying to make with it.

    I don’t think he was trying to say that only atheists have unlearned followers. He was trying to say that the reason unlearned and philosophically naive atheistic writers like Dawkins can get away with such miserably poor argumentation, and sell so many books that way, is because there are too many people who don’t know enough common-sense logic and reasoning not to buy their arguments—or their books.

  14. I haven’t read Dawkins and don’t intend to defend him. But Dawkins doesn’t have philosophical training, and he was writing for a popular, not a philosophical, audience.

    Craig DOES have philosophical training, and yet he makes some really stupid claims in his public debates.

    For instance, he asks in debate after debate “What’s infinity minus infinity?” Now, I realize that this question is sort of a stand-in for a whole slew of arguments involving Hilbert’s Hotel type paradoxes and so forth. But, as stated, it is the sheerest mathematical absurdity. I could ask “What’s zero divided by zero?” and so “prove” that zero can’t exist in reality. In fact, Craig’s argument is even worse than mine, because infinity isn’t even a number. Zero is. (Infinity is a cardinality and it’s universally accepted that you can’t do arithmetic with cardinalities as you can with numbers. And anyone who took 9th grade algebra knows that infinity minus infinity is “undefined”.)

    Craig also regularly claims that mathematicians agree there can’t be an actual infinity. In fact, mathematicians say almost the exact opposite: that there is no logical contradiction involved with the concept of infinity. So here, too, Craig is either ignorant or dishonest. And, since he has been corrected on this point often, he apparently doesn’t care that he is ignorant/dishonest (take your pick).

    So my point is that if Craig, who certainly knows better, uses short-cut arguments and ignorant remarks in his public debates, it is hypocritical for him to lambaste Dawkins for doing the same thing in his book.

    Unlearned and philosophically/historically/theologically naive Christian writers sell a lot of books, too. Just look at Lee Strobel.

  15. So you’re trashing him for using a “stand-in” for the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox. Are you saying the paradox itself is ignorant and dishonest? If yes, then you are wrong. It has its respected place in the mathematical and philosophical tradition, even if you think it is invalid. There are lots of people out there making arguments that some people disagree with, which are nevertheless well-informed and honestly presented.

    The last time I pointed that out to you I added, “You knew that, didn’t you?” You’re still acting as if you didn’t. Those who lack knowledge of something as basic and obvious as this may accurately be described as ignorant.

    But maybe that’s not the case. Maybe you don’t think the paradox is ignorant and dishonest, and that Hilbert’s Hotel is a valid issue. But if so you are being incredibly uncharitable, trashing Craig as ignorant and dishonest for making shorthand reference to a valid philosophical/mathematical issue. Not only uncharitable, but also wrong; for in that case you would be admitting that you understand exactly what’s going on, and that Craig does know what he’s talking about.

    Either way, Robert, you’re not coming across as very credible. I wouldn’t give your argument a moment’s thought, because as I have said, it is either ignorant and/or wrong. Not to mention rude.

    Also: do you realize that your analogy to dividing by zero is no analogy at all? Do I need to spell it out for you, or would you like to think it through again?

  16. In debates, they typically have 20 minutes. Books can be as long as the author likes.

    Plenty of Craig’s books go into much more detail than he’s able to condense into a 20 minute opening statement.

  17. I am surprised that philosophers are still afraid of infinity. Mathematicians have long ago figured out the rules for dealing with it. Physicists have come to rely on it. There is nothing particularly scary about the concept.

  18. Robert Oerter:

    “Craig also regularly claims that mathematicians agree there can’t be an actual infinity. In fact, mathematicians say almost the exact opposite: that there is no logical contradiction involved with the concept of infinity.”

    You have missed his point, partly because he has shorthanded it for the clip. He refers elsewhere (see his website) to an aleph infinity rather a constrained one (the number of numbers between 1 and 2 or 2 and 3, even numbers, odd numbers, squares, cubes, etc.

    The argument goes this way. a universe where mass is infinite is also one where energy is infinite (Einstein’s equation). But, in order for that universe to be other than a singularity, g, gravity must be zero for such a universe to start or keep from collapsing on itself. But, if g=0, then no particles cohere and, as such are all getting further and further apart unimpeded by gravity. Because there is no interaction between them, T, temperature must be zero(absolute). So you have a universe where E and m are infinite and, oddly, g and T are zero.
    If this is not convincing: we would be part of that infinite universe and g would equal zero here. Accordingly,we would not be having this exchange, nor would we exist.
    Craig’s comment does not impinge on megaverse arguments, since each is constrained.
    I believe that it is Craig who argues that we need a second word to distinguish the two types of infinity, which, it seems, may be valid.

  19. “no particles cohere” should read “no atoms cohere to each other.” I was not thinking of subatomic particles that adhere due to other forces.

  20. Donald,

    Craig usually directs his argument not against infinite mass/energy but infinite time, i.e., an actually infinite number of units of time (milliseconds or millennia, it makes no difference) preceding the current moment.

    I’ve asked a physicist friend whether infinite mass is possible. If I remember correctly, and I could be wrong since it was a while ago, it’s possible for positive and negative mass/energy to balance out, to avoid the problem you’ve described. You might be right, of course, since this question is not in my field. Olegt could probably help us with this one, or if it’s actually your area of expertise you could correct me.

  21. Robert Oerter wrote:

    Craig also regularly claims that mathematicians agree there can’t be an actual infinity. In fact, mathematicians say almost the exact opposite: that there is no logical contradiction involved with the concept of infinity. So here, too, Craig is either ignorant or dishonest. And, since he has been corrected on this point often, he apparently doesn’t care that he is ignorant/dishonest (take your pick).

    Here is some interesting discussion about the existence of an actual infinite set of universes. The authors don’t believe an infinite ensemble of other universes is possible. According to wikepedia, one of the authors George Ellis, “is considered one of the world’s leading theorists in cosmology.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Ellis

    It appears to me that the authors agree with Craig about actual (not mathematical) infinities. (Craig does accept mathematical infinities.)

    When speaking of multiverses or ensembles of universes – possible or realised –the issue of infinity inevitably crops up. Researchers often envision an infinite set of universes, in which all possibilities are realised. Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that the answer may very well be “No”. The common perception that this is possible arises from not appreciating the precisions in meaning and the restrictions in application associated with this profoundly difficult concept. Because we can assign a symbol to represent ‘infinity’ and can manipulate that symbol according to specified rules, we assume corresponding “infinite” entities can exist in practice. This is questionable7. Furthermore, as we have already indicated, such infinities lead to severe calculational problems in the mathematical modelling of ensembles of universes or universe domains, blocking any meaningful application of probability calculus.

    There is no conceptual problem with an infinite set – countable or uncountable – of possible or conceivable universes. However, as David Hilbert (1964) points out, the presumed existence of the actually infinite directly or indirectly leads to well-recognised unresolvable contradictions in set theory (e. g., the Russell paradox, involving the set of all sets which do not contain themselves, which by definition must both be a member of itself and not a member of itself!), and thus in the definitions and deductive foundations of mathematics itself (Hilbert, pp.141-142).

    http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0407/0407329v2.pdf

    However, like Kant (1st cosmological antinomy, Critique of Pure Reason) I am personally still on the fence about actual infinities.

    I wonder if Robert thinks whether or not Ellis “is either ignorant or dishonest.”

  22. Tom wrote:
    “So you’re trashing him for using a “stand-in” for the Hilbert’s Hotel paradox.”

    No, I’m pointing out that HE’S trashing Dawkins for doing something he does himself.

    But you knew that, right?

    Justinius wrote:
    “Plenty of Craig’s books go into much more detail than he’s able to condense into a 20 minute opening statement.”

    In fact, his remarks on Hilbert’s Hotel in his published work are almost as bad as the one-liner he uses in debates. He really seems to think that “Infinity minus infinity – what’s that?” is a valid argument. He hasn’t understood the math, so he declares, “I don’t understand infinity, therefore it’s impossible.” Any competent mathematician could have straightened him out on this.

    Donald: What you wrote makes not an iota of sense. And it’s not what Craig says AFAIK.

    JAD: My point is not about Hilbert’s Hotel per se, but about Craig’s use of it. Craig confuses cardinalities and numbers. You won’t find this confusion in Hilbert or Ellis.

    In his more recent papers, Craig acknowledges that infinity is a cardinality, not a number. Yet he still uses his “infinity minus infinity” argument in debates. That’s why I think he’s dishonest. (That and the remark about how mathematicians agree with him, which is just ludicrous.)

    Tom wrote:
    “Either way, Robert, you’re not coming across as very credible. I wouldn’t give your argument a moment’s thought, because as I have said, it is either ignorant and/or wrong. Not to mention rude.”

    So when Craig calls Dawkins’s arguments silly and ignorant, he’s a hero, but when I call Craig’s arguments silly and ignorant, I’m ignorant, wrong, and rude. Hmm, do I detect a double standard here?

  23. Robert, what is your intention here? Is it just to trash W.L. Craig, or is it to present an argument? So far you have only done the former. just saying “that’s bad” doesn’t count as an argument, especially when there are accusations of dishonesty. Your point about cardinality would be more convincing if you would explain how it’s relevant. Could you do that for us, please? It has been recently noted here that competent mathematicians think that actual infinities are problematical.

    Is it your intent to trash Donald or to present an argument? You’ve done the former without the latter. I mean, I even gave you something to work with, possibly.

    This forum does not exist for the purpose of spouting ad hominems. If you have an argument, make it.

    I am using no double standard with respect to Craig and Dawkins. Dawkins doesn’t care to know, doesn’t care to study, only wants to ridicule. See his “courtier’s reply.” See his anti-scientism with respect to his child abuse claim. See his careless ignorance concerning the OT God. See how he refutes a God no one believes in (his Central Argument against God is against some non-theist God that has nothing to do with Christianity or other theistic religion). Multiple critics, including atheists and skeptics, have criticized him for not knowing what he’s talking about (here’s one). I have linked to many of these recently, so I won’t bother doing it again.

    You haven’t read Dawkins, you admit, and you say you don’t intend to. That’s hardly a position from which to accuse me of misrepresenting him.

  24. Anyone interested in what God has to say on the subject?
    Proverbs 3:5 and 1 Corinthians 3:19 for starters.
    Cheers

  25. Tom wrote:

    It has been recently noted here that competent mathematicians think that actual infinities are problematical.

    What?!

  26. Thanks Tom. I accept some of your points. I still think that by presenting one side of the argument with no clear examples only misrepresents the original purpose of it. I was really interested in knowing why Dawkins was so popular, I was presented with a short video that basically doesn’t address the point. This was also noted before my comment by others. I’d like to watch the complete interview and see if more of it makes sense to me. If so, I might read more about Dr. Craig’s ideas. It’s all about presenting the information in the first instance, this video does it poorly.

  27. Jorge,

    I think what happened here was a classic case of an audience/message mismatch. Craig’s video here was appropriate for one portion of his audience, consisting of those who are familiar with Dawkins and his weaknesses with respect to matters of God and religion. Craig was answering the question, “Why is it that someone whose arguments are so poor can nevertheless be so popular?” There are other valid, interesting facets to the question, like the ones you are interested in, that he admittedly does not address in this excerpt.

  28. Hi Robert,

    You said:

    He [Craig] hasn’t understood the math, so he declares, “I don’t understand infinity, therefore it’s impossible.” Any competent mathematician could have straightened him out on this

    This is not correct. It is never the mathematical concept of infinity that is under question. Rather, it is the correspondence of the mathematical concept to a real set of objects that is at the root of Craig’s objection. Everybody in the room (including Craig) realizes the rules for performing transfinite math. But the problem is, someone who is attempting to check guests in and out of Hilbert’s Hotel isn’t bound by such rules. Therein lies the issue.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe

Subscribe here to receive updates and a free Too Good To Be False preview chapter!

"Engaging… exhilarating.… This might be the most surprising and refreshing book you’ll read this year!" — Lee Strobel

"Too Good To Be False is almost too good to be true!" — Josh McDowell

Purchase Here!

More on the book...

Discussion Policy

By commenting here you agree to abide by this site's discussion policy. Comments support Markdown language for your convenience. Each new commenter's first comment goes into moderation temporarily before appearing on the site. Comments close automatically after 120 days.

Copyright, Permissions, Marketing

Some books reviewed on this blog are attached to my account with Amazon’s affiliate marketing program, and I receive a small percentage of revenue from those sales.

All content copyright © Thomas Gilson as of date of posting except as attributed to other sources. Permissions information here.

Privacy Policy

%d bloggers like this:
Clicky