Erin Rudolph

Children are perhaps the world's most remarkable creatures.  Aside from their ability to quickly rebound from difficulties, children have the ability to believe in fairies and princesses, witches and terrible monsters.  This baffles those adults preoccupied with reason, as those are things which are not supported by logic, physical proof, or even common sense; and yet, this topic of improbable events, otherwise known as miracles, becomes the focus of an entire chapter in the book Galileo, Darwin, and Hawking: The Interplay of Science and Religion by Phil Dowe.  Dowe argues that, contrary to the views of David Hume, miracles do not necessarily prove that God exists, but rather they create faith in him.

                In the chapter, Dowe's argument against Hume has three main parts: the definition of a miracle and his response to Hume's first and second arguments against miracles.  The definition of a miracle has always been a tricky one; Dowe states that a miracle can be defined as a "'very unlikely event'"(Dowe 87) or "an impossible event" (88).  One must also consider the definition that Hume himself made, which was that a miracle was "a violation of the laws of nature" (88).  A law of nature is a universal regularity, something that occurs 100% of the time without exception. 

The statements 'dead persons remain dead' and 'all metals expand when heated' are both taken to be laws of nature if in our experience there are no cases of persons rising from the dead or heated metals failing to expand (Dowe 88).

It is at this point that Dowe starts to attack Hume's theory with force using an argument pioneered by John Mackie.  If, Dowe argues, by definition a miracle defies the law of nature, how can a miracle happen at all? Say a metal was found that did not expand when heated; this would render false the universal regularity that all metals expand when heated.  Because this universal regularity is now false, it ceases to be a law of nature, and therefore any cases of a metal expanding would no longer be considered a miracle because the law of nature which it used to violate no longer exists.  At this point one may applaud Dowe for seeming to have made a valid dent in Hume's armor.  This, however ironic it may be, is also a weak point of Dowe's argument, as he does not present any real-life examples of this.  If Mackie's line of reasoning in use by Dowe is valid, than he should be able to present some sort of evidence to support his case.  Without the evidence, that is all Dowe's argument is: reasoning.  This particular argument makes perfect sense, but is not applicable in the real world.  Despite this, Dowe's strong point here comes toward the end of the section when he cites Hume's amended definition of a miracle.  According to Hume, a "more accurate" (90) definition of a miracle is an event that not only defies the laws of nature, but also must have proof of God's intervention.  Dowe says this is just absurd, as Hume is using the very thing he is ultimately trying to disprove (the existence of God) to prove his point that God doesn't exist.  Because of the ultimate absurdity of this claim, Dowe is able to emerge victorious in the battle.

                The second part of Dowe's attack against Hume involves Hume's first law against miracles.  Hume essentially says that testimony cannot outweigh physical proof for a miracle.  This all starts with Hume's belief that a person's belief in an event should be proportionate to the evidence in favor of the event.  According to his first law, if there is equal evidence for and against the occurrence of a miracle, then they cancel each other out and the debater is forced to admit they do not know where to proceed.  If the testimonial evidence in favor of the event is less than the scientific evidence against the event, than the evidence does not favor the occurrence; therefore, a miracle can never be proven.  The flaw in this argument, pointed out by Dowe, is that Hume later goes back and disregards the first rule. 

However, suppose that the testimony [for the miracle] was extremely strong...suppose that there is no disagreement amongst these reports, and that in every culture there is a lively memory of this event.  This is a case, claims Hume, in which we would have to admit that a miracle has occurred (Dowe 95).

Since Hume goes back and disregards his own rules, then the whole piece may be disregarded as reasoning against proof for miracles.

                The last piece to be put under Dowe's scrutiny is Hume's second law against miracles.  According to this, there are three possibilities for the occurrence of a miracle: it is either an act of God, it has no explanation, or the explanation just hasn't been discovered yet.  The second option is the weakest and is therefore eliminated, while the third is most probable; however, there is difficulty in proving either the first or the third option.  Here Dowe points out the vagueness of Hume's argument, and how it contradicts his earlier arguments. 

According to Hume's second definition, it is not a miracle because we should suppose that there is some natural explanation that we can't yet see...However, Hume does not advance any argument as to why we should pursue naturalistic explanations rather than divine explanations.  For this reason his argument begs the question at hand (Dowe 98).

Hume does not offer any evidence or other reasoning in support of his claims.  Dowe is now able to walk victoriously over the beast of a problem Hume's argument against miracles presented to both religion and scientific reasoning.

                Overall, Dowe's use of simple logic and his consultation of others in the field allowed him to emerge the champion.  However, the question remains: do miracles provide proof for the existence of God?  Miracles are not proofs for God; the only proof for God lies in the Gospel.  It is at this point that this author feels one should set aside the confusing arguments presented by both Hume and Dowe and take miracles are at face value; instead of "proving" that God exists, they promote faith in Him.  Although to some believing in miracles may seem as absurd as believing fairies, the leap of childlike trust needed is just the sort of thing one may need.  As the comedian Groucho Marx once said, "This is so simple, a child of five would understand it.  Somebody fetch me a child of five!" Perhaps those children who believe in the impossible have the right idea after all.                   

                It is nearly impossible for one individual to be truly apathetic.  Although one may try to think, write, speak, or act objectively, there is no way to keep personal bias out of one's self-expression.  A person's thoughts are often influenced by society and their culture, and this often comes through in one's writing.  This holds true even in the most famous of written works.  The American Declaration of Independence, written in 1776 by Thomas Jefferson, clearly shows signs of Jefferson's deist beliefs and Enlightenment surroundings.

                The Enlightenment was a philosophical movement that took place in the 18^th century.  It emphasized the superiority of reason and empirical thinking over the old ways of religion and tradition.  "Enlightenment thinkers used reason and nature to criticize institutions and customs of the past, which still dominated their eighteenth-century society" (Harrison, 470).  These people learned about the world by using their reasoning skills to make sense of what they perceived with their senses.  According to an Enlightened thinker, the only way an idea would be able to be proved false would be through reason.  "All we know and all we can every know is what we perceive through our senses and interpret with our reason.  There are no such things as innate ideas or revealed truth. (469). This test of reasoning was applied to all ideas, including the ideas of government.

Having used reason to test the monarchy of Great Britain and proven it defective, the founding fathers set about creating a new system of government based on the principles of reason and empirical thinking, rather than tradition and religion.   This is stated by Jefferson in the opening statements of the Declaration. 

Prudence indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient Causes; and accordingly all Experience hath shewn, that Mankind are more disposed to suffer...than right themselves by abolishing the Forms to which they are accustomed.  But when a long Train of Abuses...it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security (Jefferson, 1).

By using the reasoning concept of the Enlightenment, the founding fathers were able to justify their belief that "traditional institutions or customs should not be accepted because they have been long-lasting but rather should be examined critically and held up to the standard of reason" (469).  Since their current government had been proven ineffective and debilitating to the rights of the people, according to Jefferson, the people needed to exercise their duty to take care of themselves and their families by forming a new government.

                Another concept of the Enlightenment that is present in the Declaration concerns Nature.  Just like every other aspect of the Enlightenment, "nature is ordered, functions reasonably, and constitutes a standard for judgment" (Harrison, 469).  Like the evidence for reason, the evidence for Enlightenment-based beliefs about nature is stated in the opening paragraphs of the Declaration.  "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed" (Jefferson, 1).  The standard of judgment of government lies not in age-old tradition, but with the people themselves. 

                The last concept of the Enlightenment is that of change and progress.  According to the thinkers of the Enlightenment, change is a good thing, as it allows the people the freedom to form more perfect societies.  "Change, when dictated by reason and when in line with nature, liberates individuals and should be pursued" (Harrison, 469).  In other words, the perfect marriage of the concepts or reason and nature results in freedom from the oppressive shackles of tradition.  Although the American colonies specifically had problems dealing with the English monarchy, the bigger problem was the tension between the Enlightened thinkers and tradition, which was most often represented by the Christian Church.  Although the Christian Church at large was perhaps made a scapegoat in this instance, this disunity between reason and tradition gave birth to a new religion: Deism. 

Deism was based on the Enlightenment concept of reason and nature, essentially assuming that all human beings possessed the reasoning capabilities to know the universe's Deity from birth.  Therefore, if reason and nature go hand in hand to create change, and according to Deism "God revealed himself in nature and through reason" (Reid, 1), then change, when brought about by reason and nature, is a way to know the Deity, aka God.  This relationship is stated by Jefferson in the introduction to the body of the Declaration.  "Such has been the patient Sufferance of these Colonies; and such now is the Necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government...To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World" (Jefferson, 1).  If the Deist Jefferson, and by association the founding fathers, believed that change was brought on by the relationship between which escalated into what is now known as the American Revolution.

The Enlightenment, also known as the Age of Reason, was a time which challenged the people's trust in tradition with new ideas of empirical thinking and reasoning.   Because Jefferson was born and raised with these concepts present in society, it is only natural that his Deist beliefs and his ideas stemming from concepts of the Enlightenment are prevalent and laced through his most famous work, the American Declaration of Independence.

An old saying reads two heads are better than one.  Oftentimes the juxtaposition of two very different things results in a surprisingly harmonious relationship, such as how a writer and an artist come together to create a beautifully illustrated book despite their difference in talent.  This is what St. Thomas Aquinas does in his Summa Contra Gentiles when he connects together reason and faith.  His use of two of the three primary truths of reasoning to illuminate and make sense of faith in a world that perpetually puts a greater emphasis on reasoning than faith.

                The first primary truth of reasoning Aquinas uses is the principle of non-contradiction; that is, if something is true, it cannot be false, otherwise it would cease to be a truth.  He says,

"Now the knowledge of naturally known principles is instilled into us by God, since God Himself is the author of our nature.  Therefore the divine Wisdom also contains these principles.  Consequently whatever is contrary to these principles, is contrary to the divine Wisdom; wherefore it cannot be from God.  Therefore those things which are received by faith from divine revelation cannot be contrary to our natural knowledge."  (333-334).

In other words, Aquinas is saying that God was the one who created the world and gave humans their sense of reason.  Therefore, faith cannot be contradicted by reason, for God created both.  God is the one who instilled in humans their sense of logic, the one who taught them the basics of thought.  Because He taught reason, He must know reason; God would not pass on anything that was false.  God gave one both the ability to have faith and to reason.  If the two were at odds with each other, the world would be in contradiction, which would not be in God's plan.  Since God created humans and gave them both the worlds of reason and faith, then the two must work in harmony with each other.    

                The second primary truth of reasoning Aquinas addresses is the ability of the mind to know the truth.  This is proven by the same process used before in relation to a human's ability to both have faith and reason. 

"Now though the aforesaid truth of the Christian faith surpasses the ability of human reason, nevertheless those things which are naturally instilled in human reason cannot be opposed to this truth.  For it is clear that those things which are implanted in reason by nature, are most true, so much so that it is impossible to think them false." (333).

Humans do not possess the reasoning capability to fully comprehend the Christian faith.  This is clear in today's world by the thousands of different viewpoints on who God is and what He does.  However, the human nature is not opposed to the idea of faith.  Because God created humans, that disposition for faith was planted in them from the very beginning.  This is the truth humans are able to know, but not necessarily reason out.  To reason is to find an answer; to know is to feel an answer.  Although one is not able to grasp the full idea of God, one is able to feel in the depths of their soul the relationship with God one has through faith is good and right.

                St. Thomas Aquinas was a genius in the way he wrote about faith and reason existing in harmony.  Like sweet milk chocolate and creamy peanut butter, faith and reason seem to be total and complete opposites, better digested when consumed apart.  Although combining the two seems taboo and impossible at first, once the two become intertwined it is hard to imagine them apart.  The two elements complement each other; the difference of one complements the difference of the other.  The results are a delicious candy and a better understanding of the Christian faith.  Aquinas came from a perspective of faith and backed it up through the ways of knowing and reasoning.  The end of Summa Contra Gentiles reads,

"From this we may evidently conclude that whatever arguments are alleged against the teachings of faith, they do not rightly proceed from the first self-evident principles instilled by nature.  Wherefore they lack the force of demonstration, and are either probable or sophistical arguments, and consequently it is possible to solve them."  (334).

Aquinas holds that any arguments against the faith come from an ill-taught view of reason.  As he so clearly stated in Summa Contra Gentiles, reason cannot be used to contradict God or faith, since God is the one who created both.  Contrary to popular opinion, the two mesh together and form a harmonious way of viewing and learning about the world. 

Although it may not seem like it, by the time an average teenager has completed high school they have experienced a surprising amount of profound and knowledgeable truths.  I myself am amazed at how much I have learned over my life, although I may not have recognized it at the time.  Maya Angelou's poem A Brave and Startling Truth helped me to reflect on many basic truths that have become present in my mind over the course of the past month or so.  However, the poem ties together all of these into one basic truth: humans are not as unique as they think they are.  We are all connected and alike in one way or another, and upon realization of this, the world will become a more peaceful place.

                The Greek philosopher Aristotle argued that art (more specifically, tragedy) should imitate basic truths in the human experience that everyone is able to relate to.  In the poem, Angelou focuses on just a few of many basic truths, such as the ability to choose one option over another, the nature of pride, and the importance of dreams.  The first truth, the truth of choice, is evident in the poem as well as in my own life.  This past year choices abounded in my life as I decided on my college and career path.  Oftentimes I was stuck between two options in which I had a hard time deciding what to choose, and depending on what the outcome turned out to be it may have seemed contrary to my nature.  Angelou states this option of choice as this:

"We, this people, on this minuscule and kithless globe/Who reach daily for the bomb, the blade and the dagger/Yet who petition in the dark for tokens of peace/We, this people on this mote of matter/In whose mouths abide cankerous words/Which challenge our very existence/Yet out of those same mouths/Come songs of such exquisite sweetness."

How can humans be torn between two vastly different opposites, when we were created to live on this planet in harmony with one another?  The choices a person makes in life affect many others, although the individual may never know this for a fact.

                Another basic truth addressed in the poem was that of pride.  Angelou suggests that all would come together and humans would be able to live in harmony if we were able to just lay down our prideful selves.  "And when we come to it/To the day of peacemaking/When we release our fingers/From fists of hostility/And allow the pure air to cool our palms." I know without a doubt I have been guilty of pride in my own life; in my academic achievements, my musical capabilities, or my caring nature.  Problems arise when two people both believe they are the superior ones and neither is willing to concede.  This is part of pride.  How easy it would be for the world if everyone decided to let go of their pride and cooperate to achieve a goal.

                Perhaps one of the final truths Angelou mentions is the truth of the universality of dreams.  All people in the world have a dream of some sort, whether it is to own a house, get out of debt, win the local spelling bee or reading all six of Jane Austen's major novels.  "A climate where every man and every woman/Can live freely without sanctimonious piety/Without crippling fear."  Personally, along with following the Lord's will for me in my life, my hopes and dreams of making a difference in the world drove me to choose the career of teaching children.  It is this common hope that ties us all together.

                Personally, I agree with Angelou in her basic truth that every person is more similar than they think, and that upon the realization of this humankind will be better able to live peacefully.  Like an old saying says, to love one's enemies allows a person to get to know their foes more.  If we were able to see each other more clearly, the world would be better off.  I do not necessarily know this on a cognitive level; it is something I can feel in my bones.  The Lord made us to live on this earth in peace and harmony.  I think it is high time we put aside all of our selfish desires and learned to get along with and relate to the people around us.   

                America today has become enveloped in a self-centered mentality.  This is evident by numerous advertisement campaigns, such as Burger King's motto, "Have it your way."  The masses are no longer satisfied to cleave to the thoughts and notions of the dominant voice.  Every person wants their unique voice to be heard.  Although this may seem like a step in the right direction toward an intelligent and tolerant society, it actually has the opposite effect.  With everyone shouting their own opinions, the only thing that can be heard is one large mess of noise.  Because of the onslaught of voices, the words a person may speak become useless.  The sentence "This sentence serves so logical purpose." is true because as a post modernistic attitude overtakes society, human beings forget to listen to each other, and with no one to listen, words become useless. 

                Post modernism is a way of thinking that puts on emphasis on how information is perceived, not what the information is.  Students are no longer content to sit back and take meticulous notes while their professor lectures; instead they now speak out with their own opinions, challenging the ideas set before them by the teacher.  According to post modernism, just because the instructor has a degree or two from a post secondary institution does not mean that they are the only valid authority on the subject.  A high school drop-out flipping burgers at the local hangout has the same right to voice his knowledge of the stock market as does a professional Wall Street broker. 

                A large part of post modernism is suspicion of meta-narratives.  Meta-narratives are ideas that are enforced by a group that has power in some shape or form.  A prime example of a meta-narrative that is uniquely American is the Superman comic series from DC Comics Incorporated.  Created during the time of the Red Scare, Clark Kent was an average American Joe who stood for Truth, Justice, and the American Way.  When the city of Metropolis was in trouble, Kent would change into Superman and would save the city from whoever was threatening her.  On the outside, this may seem patriotic and admirable, but once one realizes that Superman was actually keeping America safe from the 'bad guys' of that time, the Communists, the legend is thrown into a whole new light.  To some, it may seem as though the country's children are being brainwashed to follow the 'patriotic' agenda of the American government.  A postmodern view on this subject would ask why both views were not presented in an equal light.  Postmodernist people are suspicious of meta-narratives, such as the Superman legend, much for the same reason they might question their professor's logic; one person has the same right to voice their expertise on a subject as the next.

                A more recent example of a meta-narrative in question would be the feelings after the Al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.  After the attacks, there was a surge of patriotism in the country.  Anybody who was against retaliating the attacks ran the risk of being labeled as anti-American.  A resurgence of justice overcame the nation.  This, however, had its repercussions in the postmodernist world.  The struggle between the need to create a world-wide definition of justice and the need to recognize all viewpoints of justice has become an explosive debate.  What justice means to an American GI is not necessarily the same sense of justice a member of Al-Qaeda would possess.   

In theory, postmodernism can seem like a great strategy for today's society; everyone has the opportunity to voice their opinions on a particular subject.  This, however, can become a problem.  With everyone shouting their ideas, a class discussion can quickly turn into a shouting match with everyone vying for the notoriety they think their proposition deserves.  Those who usually listen become bold, leaving no one left to listen and keep the debate in check, while the ones who always speak out simply become louder.  What results is a shouting match, a contest to see whose voice is the loudest.  An individual's idea quickly becomes lost in the sea of words; their sentences no longer serve a purpose because they are not being heard.  This is why the sentence "This sentence serves no logical purpose." makes sense when applied to postmodernism.  When society's use of postmodernistic theory becomes so extreme that no one is willing to listen to an opinion, words become useless because no one is willing to listen to what is being said.  Postmodernism has some good ideas about what value a person's viewpoint holds, whether that person is a beaten housewife or a millionaire living in the Hamptons.  The key is to find a medium between extreme modernism and postmodernism views of the world.  If people can learn to speak their opinions and at the same time listen to others, society as a whole would be better off.  

     Today's society is preoccupied with the thought of a rational world.  According to most scientists, psychologists, and many others, a logical solution has to exist for every problem; everything from the composition of paper to human life has a logical sequence to it.  Unfortunately for those people, not everything in the known world can be explained in a rational way; one such example is religion.  NT Wright addresses this issue in his book Simply Christian.  He uses the metaphor "Staring at the sun" to describe theology.  The employment of this image is helpful, and yet at the same time confusing for those who try to wrap their minds around the issues Wright is trying to get across.

                In the second section of Simply Christian, Wright starts out with describing God.  This is quite difficult, as there are many aspects and facets that need to be thought about before coming to a consensus on this issue.  What Person 1 considers God to be and what Person 2 considers God to be may be two very different things.  This is, of course, assuming the God they are speaking of is "the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition," (57).  Wright raises other questions about God in this section as well, such as "Is God in heaven?  If so, where is heaven?  How do heaven and earth interact?  Why are there different names for the same being?"  Although Wright certainly tries, it is nearly impossible to answer questions such as these in a straightforward manner.  When considering and contemplating the person and nature of God, one is bombarded with a multitude of different opinions, opposing ideas, contradicting evidence, and personal beliefs.  The only problem with Wright's answers is that he does not fully organize and evaluate all of the thoughts bouncing around in his head.  This makes his arguments somewhat confusing, for both the Christian reader and the non-Christian audience.  Although Wright is a brilliant man, this is perhaps the biggest flaw in his book.  Perhaps Wright was "staring into the sun" for a prolonged period of time and was blinded himself.

                For the most part, though, his arguments hold true to his metaphor.  The ideas he presents boggle the mind.  Just as when looking at the sun one is blinded by the excess of light, when one studies theology one is blinded by the excess of mind boggling information.  The human mind is incredibly small, and is unable to fully comprehend the whole idea of God.  As Wright says, "Since God...is not an object within our world or even an idea within our intellectual world, we can probe toward the center of the maze as much as we would like but we shall never reach that center by our own efforts," (58).  Although he cannot tell his readers exactly what God is like, Wright is able to connect and make God real to humans by likening God to real life examples they can understand.  Teachers do this when trying to teach their students complicated ideas; even Jesus used parables when teaching his disciples about heaven.  Wright often employs this technique through the section, so that instead of looking directly at the sun, his readers learn about the sun by looking through a little hole in a piece of paper, such as one would do in an eclipse.

                Wright employs this method of teaching when he addresses the question "Where is heaven?"  His explanation here is two-fold: first, that heaven is in another dimension, opposite that of the earth; and second: the two different dimensions of heaven and earth "overlap and interlock in different ways," (63).  His main analogy here is with Shakespeare:

"It's easy to think you have mastered Shakespeare's plays if all you have on the shelf is the comedies.  When someone brings you all the other plays as well - the tragedies and the history plays, plus a volume or two of the great man's poetry for good measure - you will complain that things are now getting confused and highly complex.  But you are actually closer to understanding Shakespeare, not further away," (63).

Compared to the other two options Wright gives, the "overlapping theory" seems quite complex and complicated.  Option number one is pantheism, which is where heaven and earth reside in the same dimension; according to this theory, heaven is earth, and earth is heaven.  Option number two is Deism, which is heaven and earth existing in two completely different dimensions that never interact.  Both of these choices seem very simple; both deal in absolutes.  However, choosing one of these options is like only reading Shakespeare's comedies; one cannot truly understand Shakespeare due the limited exposure.  However, reading all different types of Shakespeare is like choosing option three.  Although a person may feel lost, she is actually closer to better understanding God and heaven than she thinks.

One cannot learn about theology by addressing the issue head on for very long.  "How can we explain the inexplicable, except in a rush of images from the world that we already know?" (121). Just as it is helpful to learn about the sun by looking at its reflection, so it is helpful to learn about God by looking at His reflection; that is, Christians.  "It is through Jesus that we are summoned to become more truly human, to reflect the image of God into the world," (140).  The challenge Wright gives his readers is to learn to become a reflection of the sun so others may learn about the sun through the reflectors.  It is the personal intention of this author to gaze into the sun more often so she might be better able to reflect His brilliant light.      

So since Dr. Schuler rebuilt the blog, I guess we're supposed to give an update on our summer. Even though summer is kinda over, since classes started yesterday. 

Well, I worked at Camp Omega in Waterville, MN for a week, which was way too short a time to be at one of my favorite places in the world. I went to the Reniacensse Festival for the first time.  It was very exciting and I enjoyed it a lot, but I will say that wearing a belly dancer costume should be a privillage, not a right. 

CSP feels like home already, even though I've only been here for about six days. I suppose that's a good thing?

Well, other than that, I'm excited to be in Honor's. I think i'm going to have a lot of fun and learn a lot over the next years...provided it doesn't drive me insane first.

Hi to everyone taking the time to read this! I'm Erin Rudolph, a soon-to-be-freshman at CSP!!! I cannot wait, as is most if not all of the rest of you, I'm sure. So, I guess I'll explain a little bit about myself...

I have lived in Elk River, MN my entire life. My parents, Jim and Lorna, and their respective families have also lived in the general area for a loooooong time...I think I'm probably related to half the town...Anyway, I'm the oldest of three. My younger brother Ed is 15, and my younger sister Alison is 13. Although I personally think my family is absolutey crazy, and they drive me to madness most days, I love them to death and wouldn't trade them for the world!

My faith is the most important thing to me, it beats out even my family. Basically, I dig God. He's amazing. I love Him with all of my heart and I want everything I do to serve Him. (Although that doesn't always work...). God and me...we're BFF's. Yeah.

I have lots of interests. Music is absolutely essential to my existance. Living without music would be like living without air...it just wouldn't work for me.  I play the piano, flute, and guitar.  I love hanging out with my friends, playing softball or volleyball or soccer or whatever; or just chillin at somebody's house for a bonfire or a movie night. I love to laugh; Seinfeld and The Office are the best.  I'm a big reader...this summer I'm trying to make it through all 6 of Jane Austen's novels...we'll see how that works out for me. Camp Omega in Waterville, MN is one of my favorite places in the world. Bascially, I see the glass as half-full and I love to love life! 

Wow, sorry, that was probably quite a lot to soak in...I'm not nearly so talkative in person...But for those of you who have made it to the end, I can't wait to meet you in person at CSP!!! Good luck to all of us in the Honor's Program!!

Erin <>< 

PS. Look me up on Facebook...but make sure you say you're in the Honor's Program...otherwise I'll probably ignore you...