Skip to content

The Theist versus the Free Thinker: The Battle between Faith and Reason

September 3, 2017

faith reason  I have wanted to write a post about first philosophy, or metaphysics, for quite some time so against my better judgement  I  have decided to go for it. I intend to write a philosophical post about the difference between the so-called “free thinker” and the theist.

  I am stepping way beyond my comfort zone because I do not feel I am up to the task, many others much better and more versed in theology and philosophy than I am have broached this subject, but this is a post I have been thinking about writing for quite some time so here goes.

This is basically a post about faith and reason, or faith versus reason, and their relationship, or contradiction, to one another.

  In the past I have considered myself to be a “free thinker” while debating in my mind the possibility of an omnipotent God who created the universe versus the idea that a whole bunch of unrelated and coincidental accidents happened which led to the “creation” of the world we know exists. But, even while questioning, I still found it hard to believe the intricacies of nature, how everything works together, could have been an accident. So I continued thinking and it led me to a study of philosophy and theology in my search for the truth.

  This is the ultimate question we as human beings have to ask ourselves and it has been debated for thousands of years–where did we come from? This is in contrast to Albert Camus who argued in “The Myth of Sisyphus” that the only philosophical topic worth debating was suicide. Of course Albert Camus was an absurdist who believed there was no meaning to life, he had already given up on the ultimate question and moved on  to the question about how to react to his “unbelief.”

  But, before continuing Socrates would most likely ask us to define our terms. We cannot debate an issue without first knowing the terms we are debating otherwise this is an exercise in futility. How can you debate anything without defining what the debate is about? 

 So let us define out terms: defines a free thinker as “a person who forms opinions on the basis of reason, independent of authority or tradition, especially a person whose religious opinions differ from established belief.” While a theist is obviously a person “who engages or is an expert in theology”–in this case specifically Judeo-Christian belief.

  I know more than one person who define themselves as “free thinkers” because in their minds reason has led them to believe that all that is in the world is all that exists, and there is nothing more to this life than what we can see. But I believe their “reasoning” has led them to stop thinking where they need to start thinking.

  Reason without sufficient study would logically lead one to believe there is no god because that is the easiest thing to believe and it comes with no consequences, nature is nature and we are not subject to judgement for our actions but rather to the laws of nature. (Although “free thinkers” might deny any tie to theism with this belief it is ironically borderline Pantheism.)

  But with study we can come to a different conclusion: Aristotle is known as the “father of reason” and yet through study he came to the conclusion that there was a “prime mover” or an “un-caused cause” which must be eternal and perfect. He called this “un-caused cause” god but went on to call this god “thought.” He also said that because this “prime mover” was perfect it could only ponder perfect thoughts therefor this god only thought about himself. 

  In my opinion “free thinkers” are taking the easy way out. It is the easiest thing in the world to believe there is nothing more than this, in fact it takes no thought. However to think as Plato and Socrates did, that there is more to reality than what the human mind can comprehend is what true free thinking is all about. In other words being a theist is more true to free thinking than “free thinking” is! Solomon knew this roughly 500 years before Socrates when he asked God for wisdom and he was rewarded for it. (2 Chronicles 1:10) Solomon turned to God for wisdom instead of using man’s wisdom to prove God. He could have had anything in the world that he wanted, but he wanted something more important–the Truth. And isn’t that what we all are seeking?

  To think beyond the here and now, to think beyond what we can see, feel, taste, and touch, to think there is something more than this life, or after this life, to think beyond reason–well that is true free thinking. Reason might be the god of this world…that is not quite correct let me expand that thought: reason might be a tool of the god of this world–the master of deception–and twisted for his own purposes, but is there more to it all than that?

   I think I have written enough about “free thinkers” for now so now let us move beyond this (think beyond this?) and examine theology and what better example can we use than Thomas Aquinas, who used Aristotle’s reason, in his five proofs to prove the existence of God? His first and second proofs use Aristotelian reason to prove God so that is what I am going to focus on for the time being.

  Basically, it is the argument of the first cause, or the possibility of the un-caused cause. Aquinas argues that everything comes from something, nothing comes from nothing.  A whole bunch of nothing cannot will itself to become something. This would mean the will is preexisting, so there must have been something eternal–with no beginning and no end–which caused everything in succession. Therefor there is a first cause and we know this as God. At this point it might be interesting to ponder exchanging the idea that god is thought  with the term “Word of God” with Jesus naturally being the Word–Deism versus Christianity–but that might be the subject of a follow up post.

  So even if we accept the Big Bang THEORY as truth does this disprove the Biblical account of the creation? I think not, the Bible does not specifically say how God created the heavens and the earth, just that He did. This is lost on people who believe the Big Bang disproves the existence of God or the Biblical account of creation. Where does reason play in all of this? Aristotle gave us a clue, but moving on…

  Socrates said “wisdom begins in wonder” while Solomon in Proverbs said “fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.” Socrates was on the right path but Solomon went beyond this, so who was right or (to use a Buddhist term) is there a middle way?

  Dr. Peter Kreeft quotes and expands upon Thomas Aquinas’ writings about the relationship between faith and reason:

 “Thomas is marvelously clear: Here are all the things that we know by faith and divine revelation, and here are all the things that we know by the operation of natural human reason alone.  What is the relation between these two kinds of truths, or two classes of propositions?  Well, they could be simply different.  They could be identical.  They could be such that one includes the other.  Or they could overlap.  And the answer is that they overlap.”

 “There are some things like the Trinity, and the fact that God chooses to love you and save you, that can be known only by divine revelation.  They can’t be proved by human reason, or even fully understood — they are divine mysteries.  There are other things, like most of the propositions of natural science, and common sense, that form no part of divine revelation.  And there are a third category, the most interesting kind — for instance, the existence of God, and the perfection of God, and the fact that God is one, and the fact that God is moral, and natural morality, which are both divinely revealed and knowable by reason.  And that’s the area that Christian apologetics focuses on.  That’s where the two meet the most.  That’s, so to speak, the marriage bed of the two of them.”

  Reason and faith are wedded; Aristotle realized this although his conclusion was faulty–if Aristotle’s god was perfect thought and self-absorbed how could this god be the “prime mover” or the “un-caused cause?” This would mean his god would have been an accidental “prime mover” or “un-caused cause,” yet how could a perfect god accidentally move everything else? This thought-god could not be perfect which leads us to the topic of faith wedded with reason.

 The “free thinkers” of today will dismiss the possibility that reason and faith are wedded out of hand but even Socrates,  through the writings of Plato, argued that life comes from death much like being awake comes from being asleep. (An interesting metaphor considering the topic.)

  He was arguing about the immortality of the soul. He was close but, much like Aristotle, he missed the point because while he seems to have understood the concept he missed the true author of immortality and life beyond the grave–the unnamed god of Acts 17:23.

  While traveling through Athens Luke tells us that Paul found an alter to an unnamed god and used that alter to continue thinking, and teaching, about God where the Greeks stopped thinking. I cannot help but note the irony of this: the ancient Greeks had a love of wisdom (literally translated to philosophy with philo meaning love and sophos meaning wisdom) and yet it was the theist who thought beyond the Greeks and educated them.

  When Socrates was facing death by execution for denying the Greek Gods  he said “the hour of departure has arrived, and we go our ways – I to die, and you to live. Which is better God only knows,” while  Friedrich Nietzsche stated in The Gay Science that “God is Dead.” Which of these men would you consider to be a “free thinker?” Which man took the more difficult position? Which man thought harder?

  To bring this all back around again we must look at “the father of existentialism” Soren Kierkegaard. Albert Camus was influenced by Kierkegaard but while Camus used his unbelief to contemplate suicide Kierkegaard used his belief to take what he coined as a “leap of faith” to rationalize what he thought was an absurd world. He said, “to have faith is to lose your mind and to win God.” In other words he began to think where Camus stopped thinking. This echoes Jesus’ words in Matthew 10:39: “he that finds his life shall lose it: and he that loses his life for my sake shall find it.”

  Not everybody can make this leap and in conclusion it brings me to the ultimate and ironic conclusion that “free thinkers” stop thinking at precisely the same point theists begin thinking. This thought cannot be overstated because it is at precisely at this point when thought is most needed. Reason can lead to faith but faith does not exclude reason.

  This leads us to Pascal’s wager, a simple question, which side are you willing to bet your soul on?

 Disclaimer: many of these thoughts are not mine originally or alone. I have drawn freely from–some more than others–Albert Camus, Soren Kierkegaard, Thomas Aquinas, Friedrich Nietzsche, Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, Matthew, Paul, Luke, Solomon, Jesus, and probably most notably Dr. Peter Kreeft, who has lectured and written about faith and reason quite extensively and of whom I am quickly becoming a huge fan. I am merely putting their thoughts together with mine to draw my ultimate conclusion. To the best of my knowledge the idea of theists beginning to think where free thinkers stop thinking is mine with the possible exception of  Soren Kierkegaard.

 At this point I would like to thank my wife, Lauri, for reading all the rough drafts of this post that I left on her pillow for her to read after her long, hard nights at work. She provided valuable input and insight while convincing me to post this when I was doubting myself. Perhaps I should have included her in my disclaimer above of people whom I used as a source for this post because I would not have published it without her encouragement and insight. Her encouragement is valued beyond my ability to express properly.

  I would also like to thank Zip for reading the “final draft” and commenting on it. She provided me with some valuable input which was used in the finished product.

31 Comments leave one →
  1. September 3, 2017 10:21 pm

    “So even if we accept the Big Bang THEORY as truth does this disprove the Biblical account of the creation? I think not, the Bible does not specifically say how God created the heavens and the earth, just that He did. This is lost on people who believe the Big Bang disproves the existence of God or the Biblical account of creation. Where does reason play in all of this? Aristotle gave us a clue, but moving on…”

    IMHO, I think the real takeaway is that faith and science are not mutually exclusive. How long is a day to someone who is eternal? How about the concept of time dilation? Could that mean from the Creator’s point of view it did take seven days but from ours, it was billions of years? Even evolution does not deny the existence of a Creator(which is not even a conclusion that it attempts to make).

    What it does mean that we need to accept what we believe might not be the truth.

    I like using a quote from Thomas Paine in these discussions. “The word of God is the creation we behold and it is in this word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man.” I see science as the study of Creation. When we learn something that is in conflict with our beliefs, it means our belief needs to be reconsidered. This is where science and theism come into conflict.

    Liked by 3 people

    • September 4, 2017 6:59 pm

      Interesting comments Terrance, thanks for sharing them! I have thought about the meaning of “days” in the creation and have also wondered if this does not mean a literal day. I think it might mean “age.” God is outside of time while we are inside time and so terms had to be used which man could relate to. Just a thought…
      I also think that the theory of evolution does not discount creation, the Bible says God created man out of the dirt. Sounds king of like an evolution of sorts, but not in the sense the evolutionists mean. I like the idea Paine called science the study of creation.


  2. Brittius permalink
    September 4, 2017 5:27 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. September 4, 2017 7:43 am

    Well done Steve…herculean effort to deal with the great unknown. Seven billion of us, and not one of us looks alike, nor shares the same fingerprint. Sooner or later we will all experience the answer of the great mystery.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Deborah permalink
    September 4, 2017 12:28 pm

    Wow, that was quite a well researched commentary. I would like to join in. Man is tripartite like God is Triune. God, after all, made man in a different way from all the other creatures. He made man in His own image and His own likeness. ZECHARIAH 12:1 says: The burden of the word of Jehovah concerning Israel. Thus declares Jehovah, who stretches forth the heavens and lays the foundations of the earth and forms the spirit of man within him.
    Man is made of 3 parts: our physical body, our soul which is our psychological self (our mind, emotion, and will), and our spirit, which is the organ in which we contact God, receive God, and have fellowship with God.
    Until the Lord Jesus, as our Savior, comes into our human spirit, God cannot truly be known by man. That is how faith is substantiated. It’s through our God indwelled human spirt. Then as He imparts more of Himself into us by spending time with Him, through prayer, in His word, and calling on His name, we receive Him, through our human spirit. This life begins to spread from our spirit to our soul. Then our mind, emotion, and will are more influenced and changed by His divine life. Without faith it is impossible to be well pleasing to God. And without being born again it is impossible to have faith.
    But genuine free thinkers have to admit there must be as God.
    This story about Sir Issac Newton illustrates this.
    Sir Issac Newton once made a model of the planets and how they orbit and rotate on their track around one another. An atheist friend came to visit him and was amazed at the model. He asked, Wow, who made this? Newton replied: No one; it came into being by itself…. His friend said, Well, that is stupid! Newton: that’s right, it is stupid to believe this model came into being by itself, and it is even more stupid to believe that the universe came into being and is held into being by itself!
    May God bless all of you with more of Himself today!

    Liked by 2 people

    • September 4, 2017 7:05 pm

      Thanks for all the thoughts, very well said and I am glad you enjoyed the post. I love that Newton story, I had not heard it before but he put that atheist in his place. I would love to know how the friend reacted to his comment.


  5. September 4, 2017 4:18 pm

    Came across this today and since it spoke of ‘free thinkers’ I thought it might play out well here! Thanks for the “thought provoking” and interesting write Steve 👍🏼👍🏼😊
    Is the Illuminati in today’s chess world?
    It is said that the game we’ve come to know and love was a carefully reconstruction of the game whose orgins date back to India and littered with symbology of the Illuminati.
    Why would the Illuminati go through such efforts over a mere a game? Well that question is easy to answer.
    As with all Illuminati dealings, metaphores rule and it is their way of letting the world know that they are indeed present. The Illuminati pride themselves as being free thinkers of the highest regards and the ability to manipulate things into serving a common purpose. Even if you don’t openingly admit it, when you think of Chess don’t you think of it as an intellectual game? No? Have you never refered to one’s style of play as brilliant, genius or highly craftful?
    The first metaphore is the board itself. The classic black and white checkered style is coincidal with majority of every Grand Lodge of modern day freemasonry, the floor taking the place of the board. And then there’s the title Grandmaster. The highest honor given to a Chess player is also the highest given amongst Lodge.
    Conspiracy theory, the truth or just coincidence?
    Another is the cross upon the King’s crown. The Knights Templar insignia was that of the cross and their purpose was the protection of their high nobility, in this case meaning the pope. For what purpose is the cross on the King. Is the cross not a symbol God, and is not God a symbol of protection? Along with the obvious Knight, the egyption hat of the Bishop and even the Rook all hold ties to the Illuminati’s symbology.

    Liked by 1 person

    • September 4, 2017 7:09 pm

      I love it Zip! It really is a game of chess. The lower degree masons are the pawns in the game while the high degree masons feel as if they are illuminated, or should I say, “enlightened?”

      Liked by 1 person

      • September 5, 2017 10:33 am

        I thought you’d see the connection. 🙂 The Intelligentsia, Ivory Tower and “high minded” are spoken about in the Bible as well: 2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
        This is what ‘gets someone’s goat’! when Truth shines the lights on the strongholds of the ‘fallen nature’ (born of Adam) some see their need of being born anew by a different nature that isn’t corrupted. There’s “old man” thinking and “New man” thinking. One born of the flesh and the other born of the Spirit. Those playing the “life game board of chess” desire a ‘rebirth in their being’ but they choose a different spirit force. As you stated the “enlightened ones” ~ who are enticed by the fake light (imitation – the mimic). Just as we have ‘fake news’ we have ‘fake light’ and both come from the “spirit of iniquity.” [ps check your email]

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 5, 2017 7:03 pm

        I also like the verse about the light shining in the darkness but the darkness could not overcome it from John, as well as Jesus being the new Adam which you touched on.
        The truth is that we are all pawns in this game they are playing but while the pawn might have the least power in chess it can be powerful if used correctly.
        Got your email and will try that fix, thanks.

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 5, 2017 7:16 pm

        It didn’t work, I even tried making it part of the previous paragraph and it was still screwed up. Something in that line must be corrupted.

        Liked by 1 person

  6. September 7, 2017 5:30 pm

    Passing along a comment from a friend, Bob in TX who wrote:
    Good stuff. I think that anyone who is truly a “free thinker”, researches the information available, reads, at least in part, as to what’s out there, looks at the hard and soft sciences and what they bring to the table (math especially so)….., while ignoring popular opinion, political correctness, academic propaganda…., the only conclusion one can reach is that God/Jesus/Holy Spirit is the real deal. He points out, as have many who believe/know, that science, using his Big Bang example, does not disprove God. I’d add that Dawinism does not disprove God and even Darwin admitted to this reality as did Leaky and other scientists. Some mathematicians have concluded that for life to begin by chance as scientists now push on us and have been for some time, is so close to impossibility that it is an improbability; one in 40 to the 80th power is the most recent figure I’ve read (about two years ago). One French physicist made what should be an obvious statement, paraphrasing, he (don’t remember his name but not a contemporary) said that he preferred to believe that something that what was once alive could be resurrected rather than believing that which has never been alive could produce life. In short, he felt it easier to believe in the life and resurrection of Jesus than it is to believe iron oxide, oxygen, hydrogen, methane, water vapors (wherever they’d magically occur), some electrical charges, all without a trace of life in and of themselves, could come together to form a living cell. Where the proteins and amino acids come from, and as I recall, one of these die in water–again, wherever it would come from–so the development of life seems impossible to occur at random, and if not impossible, so highly improbable, that it’s not worth considering at this point.

    Liked by 1 person

    • September 7, 2017 10:53 pm

      Just because scientists have been incapable of recreating what happened on primordial Earth, it does not disprove that theory. It only means they have not solved the mystery. Please note that these reactions happened quintillions of times over billions of years around billions of stars. Additionally, there is evidence that some of the organic compounds were extra terrestrial in origin coming here on asteroids and comets. While it is mind-blowing of the odds of it happening, there was a mind-blowing number of opportunities of it happing.

      Statistically speaking, we are only able to observe a minuscule sample size of the entire universe.

      Liked by 1 person

      • September 8, 2017 1:05 pm

        Hi Terrant, I shared your comment with Bob and he emailed me some additional thoughts. I wish I would’ve set the stage by sharing w/ him your 1st comment – which I found of interest – to let him see more of where you were coming from, but since the topic is about ‘free thinkers’ and alluding to ‘open mindedness and learning’ I’ll share his reply with you (which he “okayed” me to do).
        – – – –
        While that may be so, impossible to prove, it still doesn’t disprove God (or whatever politically correct people decide to employ). I would suggest Terrant, having no answer other than “Just because scientists have been incapable of recreating….” isn’t open minded enough, a free thinker, to entertain the other possibility, the existence of God (or, again, whatever politically correct term people decide to employ). I’d add that if one is willing to base a belief on “a minuscule sample size…” why is it so difficult to entertain the other? Does this not become their faith?

        1. If scientists claim they KNOW what happened on primordial Earth, non-living materials, be it gas, chemical elements, electrical charges, but can’t replicate it, is this not like saying “I know everything there is about a combustion engine, just don’t ask me to make one because I can’t?
        2. Let’s take Darwinism into account. Let’s say that by some unexplained and unproven (nor unprovable at this point) set of events, these non-living materials, after billions of years (for the earth, 4.5 billion years according to the estimate I’ve heard), some life form did come about. What did it feed on, be it plant or animal or single-celled creature? If there was something, why was evolution necessary? With competition, what would be the needed? So, we’re now at multiple life forms created from the non-living materials on this lifeless rock humans call home. Is it possible that an asteroid crashed into earth, breaking apart and releasing living cells? Sure, I’ll give that one up but do organic cells require an atmosphere in which to live? Seems unlikely that an asteroid would have living organic cells, but still, may well be possible. (NASA scientists believe that Mars and possibly Venus had, at one time, an atmosphere capable of sustaining basic life forms, not sure it’s been determined to be based on “in our hands”, solid evidence (not asking for proof, just solid evidence).
        3. We hear a lot from scientists and sometimes their findings are determined by who is footing the bill, i.e., follow the money and you’ll know the conclusion of a study before it’s published. Some years ago, a professor found a tooth in Nebraska and claimed he’d found proof of early man in North America. Later, it was reported the tooth was that of a domestic pig. Fats are bad for you, now some are saying not so. Coffee is bad for you. No, claim some, it is good for you. Chocolate, vitamins, the list goes on and on. Should we then base our entire “faith”, being closed to all other possibilities, on “a minuscule sample size”?

        I have to look at the math, the chemistry, living vs. non-living, that which the soft sciences provides and some of the views from some of the great thinkers over the years. I have to look at some of the current crop of well educated people, some I personally know (one M.D., a DVM, a former Air Force officer who flew C-141s and C-130s, his wife who was involved in some high level, international deals, a liberal couple who ran a very successful business, —hate to admit to this, but two lawyers, at least four college professors), who think God, or whatever one wishes, does exist. None discount science and I certainly don’t. As to microevolution, there is no doubt in my mind. As to macroevolution, I’ve doubts as did Darwin, Leaky and others who’ve studied the living physical structures of the planet.
        (Some, justifiable so, would point out that the limb structure of whales are very similar to that of land mammals and that man and some animals have similar structure…….. Does this prove macroevolution? Could be viewed as so. However, does it not also suggest intelligent design? If a design works, why would one not use that design, perhaps with modification, to fit numerous units. For example, when the wheel was first invented, whenever that may have been, why was it used on carts, water mills, chariots….. Because it worked better than a square, triangle….)

        All too brief, I know, but hopefully it’s something to think about. If free thinking and one holds to the assertion that it all came about by accident, coincidence, great AND they’d be someone I’d like to chat with, get their take on world events, politics, social issues, etc., and the reason is they are a free thinker and go with their findings; take courage to do this in today’s world. I’d only caution that in this case, they’d better hope they are right, for if they are wrong, well, eternity is a long time—-if time is a necessary factor where eternity is concerned (does time matter with eternity or is all simply on a continuum; perhaps that’s all it is now, time being a tool for man’s need to organize, label, categorize, pigeon hole)

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 8, 2017 2:18 pm

        I would like to respond but I’m not going attempt to address all of that in this tiny comment box. Would it be acceptable for me to compose a blog post and link to it when I get a chance?

        Liked by 2 people

      • September 8, 2017 2:20 pm

        Sounds good to me Terrant. I know what you mean about the restrictive size – thought about that while posting it. Okay, I’ll relay it along to Bob, Thanks. (Might as well have some fun with it!)

        Liked by 2 people

      • September 12, 2017 9:53 am

        Egads, this is long and I am sure that I missed something.

        Liked by 2 people

      • September 12, 2017 8:30 pm

        Thanks Terrant. I’ll let Bob know and preview it as well. 👍🏼

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 14, 2017 11:18 am

        Hello Terrant, I left you a comment, it may not have been what you were hoping for or expecting, but that’s what came out, being motivated by your writing, your perspective and conclusion. Thoughts are important aren’t. Being a loving dad and husband maybe even more so! ❤️ Best to you!

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 14, 2017 11:29 am

        I found your comments. All I can say right now is that I’m going to have to set aside some time to read and understand it.

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 8, 2017 7:20 pm

        I find Bill’s second question about where did the food come from to be quite interesting!
        I look forward to your post Terrant, this is really taking a turn I did not expect and I am thrilled about it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 8, 2017 7:24 pm

        Like I said, there are people much more well versed on this subject than I am! There is also the debate over the “Cambrian Explosion” which I am just starting to read about. Apparently even Darwin admitted this could pose a problem to his theory. Here is an article that claims it disproves evolution, I have read others which claim it does not.

        Liked by 1 person

      • September 12, 2017 7:12 pm

        Thanks for the link in your post Terrant. I started reading it this morning before work but I haven’t finished it yet. You are right, there is quite a bit there to digest but I will.

        Liked by 1 person

    • September 8, 2017 5:48 am

      Thanks for sharing that Zip! I really liked this line: ” he preferred to believe that something that what was once alive could be resurrected rather than believing that which has never been alive could produce life.” Thank you for sharing this with your friend.

      Liked by 1 person


  1. The Battle between Faith and Reason | END TIMES PROPHECY
  2. Various thoughts: free thinking, theism, faith, reason – My Corner on the Internet
  3. A treatise on thought, wisdom, and the Word Part One | America's Watchtower
  4. A treatise on thought, wisdom, and the Word Part Two | America's Watchtower

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: