Have you read the God Delusion?

If so I need a bit of help qualifying something that David Robertson is asserting.

Here is Robertson’s quote:

No. What Kelman and Dawkins mean is that we are wired to believe in God (he calls it an evolutionary throwback – I call it God!). Are you saying they are wrong?

Dorothy Kelman is a child psychologist.

This sounds much like what Justin Barrett was claiming a while back and I cannot for one second countenance Dawkins accepting such a notion.

As Robertson refuses to divulge the exact quote or reference where in God Delusion Dawkins is supposed to have said this – he is as always charming  and super-helpful in this regard, a proper Christian, dontcha know?

I need one of you sleuths to provide the quote. Thanks in advance.

Ark

 


67 thoughts on “Have you read the God Delusion?

  1. Dawkins probably didn’t say anything remotely like Robertson claims. If he did he is no doubt changing context. However I do believe that we are wired to see agency in everything. Is there a tiger or not? Usually better to assume the noise in the bushes is dangerous than just the wind. Humans are pattern seekers. Dennet and Stenger go into this as well. Dawkins probably got it from Dennet.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Knowing the way Robertson deals with certain things I tend to agree with your take, Mark.
      I’m sure someone will find the passage in question and vindicate Dawkins. But I doubt Robertson will allow anyone to provide the actual quote and the context.

      Agency yes, I have said so on his post.
      As it is still in moderation and I don’t know how long he will keep it there.

      Like

  2. Can’t provide the quote. Anyone with an eBook version can search for it, though.

    I suspect this is a misinterpretation of us having an overactive agency attribution ability, which keeps us alive longer (false positives come with no cost, false negatives can cost you your life). So believing in things not seen is hard wired into us, but that is ordinary believing, not religious believing. Another case of the religious hijacking reasonable arguments and claiming they apply to their fantasies.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Dawkins could become a raving Christian lunatic tomorrow and denounce every other belief or thing he’s ever said, and, you know what? It would NOT prove ANYTHING about the existence of invisible people living in a time-less, space-less, no-where land in an everlasting, but invisible, paradise that is directly tied to the Christian, and ONLY, the Christian friggin’ bible!
    I don’t think the Christian in question here is misquoting Dawkins, I think he’s outright LYING about this said quote from Dawkins, but, like I said, even if he is telling the truth, SO WHAT??!! Now, if Christopher Hitchens were to return from the dead and say, “HEY! FOLKS!! GUESS WHAT??!! There IS a Heaven and it IS run by Jesus! I’m proof. My return from the dead proves it,” I’d take notice and want to know just WTF was going on. But, no matter WHAT Dawkins EVER changed his mind to, and he won’t ever do that, I believe, it would prove NOTHING, ABSOLUTELY NOTHING at all as to the existence of effing INVISIBLE people living in time-less invisible realms. $Amen$!

    Liked by 1 person

        1. From snow up to your … well, I’ll let you fill in the blanks … to humid heat that makes one sweat EVERYWHERE. This ole’ earth is definitely giving us a taste of her disgust at what we’re doing to her.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. Never read it, but it appears what he’s referring to is that we’re hardwired to find “agency” in nature. Although unseen, bending blades of grass *could be* bending because of a stalking lioness. Agency DOES NOT mean god.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. This is what I have managed to ascertain from sites mentioning the book but cannot find a direct reference to what Robertson is asserting.,
      We did the whole agency thing (Barrett ) with Mel, if you recall, so I cannot truly believe Dawkins would ever suggest we are hardwired to believe in ”God”.
      I suspect he is quoting out of context or being disingenuous.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. In The God Delusion, Dawkins talks about his concern regarding the evolutionary claims for a ‘God Centre’ in the brain and makes the distinction between proximate and ultimate explanations. The proximate explanation is the detailed cause-and-effect material process explanation (he references the visual religious experiences studied and duplicated by Michael Persinger’s God Helmet experiments to be related to temporal lobe epilepsy) versus his interest in the Darwinian ultimate explanation (the evolutionary purpose and fitness function). Previous commentators here have referred to this ultimate explanation. He says, “If neuroscientists find a ‘god centre’ in the brain, Darwinian scientists like me will still want to understand the natural selection pressure that favoured it.” He then talks a bit about group selection including shared religious beliefs may be (he references the safety aspect belief in gods might bestow) one of these pressures. (Chapter Roots in Religion) But I’m not finding evidence Dawkins believes there is any such ‘wiring’ in the brain; rather, he seems to me to be saying if any is found, this doesn’t change the evolutionary explanations for it. And, to any rational human being, one then understands such ‘wiring’ if true in no way is evidence that the belief object is therefore more likely to be true. But seeking such rationality to be maintained is a big ask from those already subscribed to being a member of the religiously deluded tribal in-group.

    Liked by 5 people

    1. I asked him to provide the quote but he refused.
      Aside from being a smug arsehole anyone who had the quote to hand would proffer it immediately to cement the point they were making. Not Robertson.

      Like

      1. They also firmly believe that we all cling to the “leaders” of the new atheist movement (which really is non existent) but as you can see, we did this on our own. Nobody here has read much about it. I think Robertson has cherry picked a comment from some other jackass that hasn’t read it either. ¡See, see, I knew he was a believer”!! So what if he was? It changes nothing g at all. Pointless, worthless, debilitating belief. Cancer, really.

        Like

        1. You know, Jim, I think it’s kind of interesting, actually (actually is such a Canadian idiom!).

          I’m becoming more and more convinced that the reason why we find clumps of associated opinions together (say, human caused climate change denialism and misogyny, or apologetics and belittling science, or anti-abortion and conservative) because we’re not dealing with reasoned positions concerned about what’s true but hallmarks of ranking within an identity politics framework, namely, positions and opinions held because they mark our belonging to and position within this group or that. These opinions are therefore immune to facts, immune to any concern about what’s actually true, immune from legitimate criticism, unconcerned about appearing hypocritical, ignorant, and even foolish. I liken it to being a sports fan and wearing football jerseys to proclaim allegiance, and so we find people quite willing and able and even eager to broadcast their association with a preferred team’s virtues without paying any attention to their accompanying vices. In the case of all of them, what’s true and knowable simply doesn’t matter, simply doesn’t hold any sway. No matter what counter point might be raised, the answer that advertises this framing is usually, “Yeah, but…” which means anything proceeding the ‘but’ doesn’t matter.

          So it surprises me not at all that these team-based/partisan opinions (and those who hold them) assume that those not on their team (whatever the partisan issue may be) must therefore be on the ‘other’ team (but less virtuous, let’s be clear), cheering as much for the ‘other’ team as they themselves do for their own, and so it doesn’t surprise me to encounter this underlying assumption that the teams themselves must be playing, that the opposition must be equivalently team-based partisans.

          I’ve noticed this partisanship and the bell ringing for membership it entails across not only across the political spectrum but polluting even strong and capable minds when it comes to certain public or controversial or problematic issues. It’s like this signalling is more important than the pressing issues that need addressing and need resolving themselves. It also explains why the in-group will find the person criticizing something about the team to be a far more heinous crime than any crime actually committed by a team member!

          I see more and more people moving further and further away from recognizing common concerns and granting any middle ground where real world solutions may be found in favour of elevating one’s self within one’s partisan tribe by becoming more extreme, more… pure so to speak, and therefore more moral regardless of the mounting real world cost to everyone.

          Liked by 3 people

          1. Another interesting add on (to me) is the way I have been accused of being a Dawkins or Harris disciple, yet I’ve never read them. I guess I take it as a compliment. Through unbelief I’ve been able to figure out the faith trap on my own—and with a little conversation with other common atheists.

            Liked by 2 people

      2. Why do you allow this wee person to get under your skin? Can’t you just gently take apart his ‘points’ and then pop him back in the box with all the other stuffed toys?

        Like

  6. I’ve read both the God delusion and dennetts book Breaking the Spell.
    They both talk about humans, actually all animals, being “wired” by our evolutionary history not some god, to assign agency, even when none actually exists. It’s both a product and a “finely tuned” adaptation of our having survived to pass on our genes. (Pun fully intended). One that people like the “Tiny Deer Tick” in Scotland intentionally misrepresent for apologetics purposes

    Liked by 3 people

    1. I’ve download the book and Robertson is miles off the mark
      First the psychologist is called Deborah Keleman and all that’s written is this:
      psychologist Deborah Keleman tells us in her article ‘Are children
      “intuitive theists”? ‘Clouds are ‘for raining’. Pointy rocks are ‘so
      that animals could scratch on them when they get itchy’.

      Liked by 2 people

    2. Hold it thar jest one cotton pickin’ minute, Graba!

      Evolution is nothing more than the tool Our Lord uses to accomplish His holy purposes, no? He set it all running back in the beginning, thus freeing Himself up for later Cross duty, knowing that while He was hanging out all was purring along without His attendance. Clever God, that one … I bet them Buddhists and Hindus and things never thought of that …

      Like

  7. In the God Delusion Dawkins also tries to understand how the idea would have originated to begin with. Saying something to the effect that while it may now be passed down through generations by language, at some point it wasn’t. The idea did have an origin. He explores several possibilities. The one that I liked the best was that once we reach the age of 4 or so we feel a duality within ourselves. Like there is a voice inside our heads talking to us. The practice of Buddhism also notes this duality and actually the practice of meditation is to actually show that duality to be an illusion, that it is really just us. I think that what Dawkins actually claims is that we are wired to give agency to unintentional agents.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Don’t forget we have bicameral brains and so this sense of the ‘other’ within our own thought processes has a perfectly reasonable explanation. The problem is that too many people think this ‘other’ voice is evidence of some exterior source.

      Liked by 5 people

      1. Good point. Which is why I found reading about and understanding the brain an integral part of my atheism. I don’t know why the brain and our many cognitive biases isn’t part of standard curricula in school.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. It’s supposed to be, in the sense of what is called ‘critical thinking’ in every Western curriculum I’ve read. Dangerous stuff to many. Ironic to me and here’s why (the scare quotes reveal the actual curriculum terms) :

          The sad part is that almost no teachers can tell me what this term even means and so if they can”t even enunciate the fundamentals well when asked directly, then how on earth are they supposed to teach all the components and skills related to it as the curriculum demands they do? So the term usually receives only lip service by those charged to teach it. And for most parents similarly unaware, this is okay because it sounds sort of good.

          One of my favourite ways to introduce students to critical thinking (mandated in almost every subject’s curriculum I should emphasize) is to have a debate – the core subject doesn’t really matter (I’ve done this from Math to Music, from Auto Mechanics to Adult Education) – where the students feel passionately about something (and so the volume is sometimes loud as is the accompanying laughing) but then have to argue the opposite position and do so to the scoring of their peers. (You just knew there had to be a twist, didn’t you?)

          What’s quite remarkable is how easily and consistently students across the grades and abilities then delve into revealing ‘the strength and weaknesses’ (which are identical in meaning to what we call ‘logical fallacies’) of the opinion and/or argument – even if they are unaware of the terms used to describe the most common. So when it comes to defining logical fallacies later on some test, suddenly students realize they already know them! All they have to do is be able to name them – and be able to do so on some stupid test – and this is where I as the teacher come in to help. Don’t blame me if you get a perfect score. And so this process makes ‘critical thinking’ a fun game identifying the fallacies when they are encountered, creating the framework for students to be able to recognize good arguments from poor ones, emotional arguments from rational ones, fact-based arguments from faith-based. So far, so good. But not so fast.

          (As an aside, it’s fascinating to me how all of us make these errors and will easily draw upon them… even when we know better…. almost like a knee-jerk reaction to criticisms that hit a little too close to home when it comes our preferred beliefs.)

          I’ve used this ‘method’ a lot throughout my teaching career… from elementary to secondary to post secondary in all kinds of subjects, in all kinds of weird and wonderful ways… and have yet to find a student who didn’t love this whole exercise. Perfect attendance is a pretty good indicator that the students themselves really want to be there, want to learn this stuff, don’t want to miss the next lively installment. That attendance, and never having to send a student to the Principal have followed me forever. You’d think this would be a Good Thing.

          Nope.

          I’ve gotten into all kinds of trouble for teaching the curriculum successfully and effectively – especially from other teachers and administrators who think the ‘problem’ students I have often been assigned should be behaving badly but for some unknown reason (that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with THEM, it goes without saying) just don’t for me. That’s not right and so I must be getting away with something. Well, it seems the ‘skills’ section of the critical thinking curriculum when ‘applied’ successfully by students (especially ‘problem’ students) against something teachers or administrators might say or try to rationalize in fact ‘demonstrates’ that these ‘educators’ don’t really want to help ‘guide and facilitate’ the development of ‘educated’ students willing able to use their ‘critical reasoning skills’ in real life! Someone MUST be to blame for such disruptions in the status quo!

          But you’re quite right that when students become curious WHY we think the way we do, it really is like a light switch being turned on and students become quite interested in the brain (which is also Movie Time in the classroom – not for the movie that can be watched by anyone with streaming but the discussions and the fun people have dissecting what it means).

          It’s not that this stuff can’t be taught in schools but that the typical pressures are for teachers to avoid trouble by teaching down, by covering subject to the lowest baseline, the lowest common denominator, by being focused only to the core curriculum approved by the majority of the teachers. I’m sure we’ve all had teachers like that. It’s not the fault of education; it’s the fault of too many people satisfied with too little, too much safety, and an unwillingness to challenge their own perceptions about the abilities of others.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. On teachers ….

            My kids had a math teacher who never ever gave homework, although homework was stipulated in the curriculum.
            According to him, if he couldn’t teach it in class the kids wouldn’t get it at home. No student he taught failed matric. And yet no other teacher at the school ever followed his example or deviated from the ”party line”.

            Both my kids had him as their math teacher. My son didn’t care for him, my daughter loved him. Both passed with distinction.

            Like

          2. That’s interesting: I never assigned homework either because I didn’t think I had any right to infringe on that time outside of school. I also never wanted a parent to feel they had to force/teach their kids at home on their time the math I was paid to teach. So I always allowed enough time in class to get the work done, and if students decided to do other stuff then they would have decided themselves that they had homework to get done. Not my call. All I asked was that these students didn’t interfere with students who wanted to get stuff done in class time. Never had a problem. And I saw kids teaching kids all the time.

            I also never had a student who didn’t do well in math. Like all of us, they already knew the concepts (or could figure it out) so all they really had to learn was how to show it on paper to maximize their marks. My marking scheme allotted the ‘answer’ to be about 25% maximum of the sum of the marks. Show me. Don’t tell me. Calculators? You bet! It allows us to do more MATH! And math is fun for two reasons: it’s easy (and beautiful) when you understand it and everyone else thinks you must be pretty smart if you do. Imagine this effect on the worst students (5 each from grades 4,5,6,7) at one of the lowest ranked schools when in eight weeks their demonstrated math skills went from the bottom percentile to the 95 percentile. As I said to them afterwards, “Don’t blame me: you wrote the tests. Didn’t you believe all of you were so damned smart to begin with? Funny any of you thought that was ever in doubt.”

            Liked by 1 person

          3. It sounds like you are an excellent educator tildeb. I agree with you that critical thinking is a term that gets thrown around a lot but doesn’t get defined very often. I think the strategies for employing critical thinking can vary across subjects one is trying to teach, but I agree debate is a good one that works for many and one that I’ve employed occasionally. I only teach at the college level and I have found it challenging to employ these types of exercises after they’ve had 12 years of wrote memorization thrust upon them. It’s amazing how many students say they want more tests and hate having to do anything that involves group work and collaboration. It’s a challenge initially, but I do think they eventually come around. The problem comes when those critical thinking exercises aren’t being employed in other classes which makes them less and less comfortable with any type of exercise in which they aren’t guided step by step through the process. It’s frustrating for sure. Critical thinking needs to be enforced at early ages at be consistently applied as the move forward in school.

            It seems Canada often lags behind the U.S. in all the worse ways, but I imagine anti-education sentiment has infected the school system there and might be much different than when I was in grew up in Edmonton. Here it’s all about performance testing, and using these scores to determine funding. Teachers aren’t encouraged to innovate, and ones that do, as you describe aren’t appreciated, and tend to move on to private schools where their salaries are better, resources are better, curriculum is a bit more loosely defined. The educational disparity here among school districts and sometimes within school districts is so high that plenty of students are losing out on a good education. And I’ll be honest the students in my college class who are the worst complainers and the least adept at critical thinking are those students who want to become elementary school teachers. It seems obvious to me as I am sure it does to you that to teach, at any level, that one must be have high intelligence and critical thinking skills, but elementary education, while attracting people that clearly love for children, simply aren’t terribly bright. It’s seen as an easy major, with a relatively guaranteed job, and summers off. But then I think how can I blame anybody for seeing it that way, when the starting salary for such teachers in most places is very little and teachers in this country aren’t respected and seen as lazy. So the cycle continues as new graduates with low critical thinking skills are who most kids get at the start of their educational career.

            Like

          4. I still think there is some a great deal of merit to merit-based pay for teachers, where there is a basic pay plus incentives. The incentives I think should be based on student development (not simply grades) meaning from this point to that over time. How successfully have students learned?

            I always felt that my student’s achievements were a reflection of my teaching methods, so that a struggling student indicated a need for a change in my teaching methods – to find a better one, one that could produce successful learning – and not a moral or ethical reflection of the student’s character or intellectual ability. And isn’t this struggling what is really indicated with poor test results? Obviously, the student doesn’t understand so whose job is it to help that student find the means to understand? And isn’t the central point of having a teacher to begin with has been and continue to be be to aid the student in achieving learning outcomes?

            To me, these notions were fundamental to everything I did as a teacher (AND parent), demonstrating to students that what they learned not only mattered most to me as a teacher but was the heart and soul of what education regardless of subject really meant for all of us: learning how to think well so that one could apply its reasoned use to navigating life – including all of its challenges – in a meaningful way, one that added value and enabled us to live as well as possible in all conditions. (And aren’t achieving parenting goals really the same principles at work, to help produce a happy, healthy, responsible, well adjusted mature adult able to navigate life successfully regardless of changing conditions?)

            Too airy fairy, I guess.

            I earned a very great deal of hostility from those in the teaching profession and administrators for advocating our value as teachers were best reflected by the improving outcomes of our students. Agent provocateur, I guess. Somehow and in some way the current principles and philosophies in education have been translated to mean that how students think (and feel) must be put on a pedestal a priori to any other goals. To do otherwise is often rephrased to mean increasing a threat against the student’s self esteem and undermining (helicopter) parenting. And we simply cannot tolerate that. It’s like education’s number one objective (once it goes through the grinder of proper progressive ideology) now is facilitate no disturbances in the student’s life and try to squeeze in some job training without offending anyone. And the notion that equity of results – whether as teachers or students – is the only right and proper final arbiter of what defines a ‘good’ public education is now all the rage. Learning how to think well has mostly disappeared where I’ve taught under the suffocating blanket of achieving ‘good’ results – ie checking off the the right answers – in the upcoming standardized testing. Is it any wonder that student’s number one concern, therefore, is figuring out what will be on the test and perfectly understandable that everything else doesn’t matter? They don’t want to have to think: they want to get a good mark.

            But the surprising thing here is that students want – I’d argue, crave – to learn, want challenges, want to be challenged, want to face challenges they can overcome, want to know they learning, are gaining insight, making connections, able to demonstrate their creative and critical faculties (these two faculties are completely intertwined whereas modern education separates them into competing factions) and produce results that are meaningful. Meaningful to them. And we know the teacher’s batteries are recharged every time a student has that sudden comprehension, that something we’ve said or done has helped bring exactly that about.

            The disembowelment of education from meaningful academic achievement to gaining ideological purity is a great concern to me not because I think it’s counterproductive to a real education but because I think it causes real harm to real students in real life. Far too many ‘educated’ people have lost the means to think well. And that’s a failure owned by all of us.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. I agree with you. I didn’t mean to imply that grades aren’t important, only that standardized tests shouldn’t be the only means of assessing that learning. It’s not surprising that this often leads to grade inflation either as some school districts struggle to get the basic funding they need to keep the school running with updated textbooks, art supplies, etc. One the oddest things to me is that when I was a student, when I had a question to ask my teacher it was always about the material. “I don’t understand angular momentum, can you explain it to me?” Most students, when they come to my office ask the question “How do I do better on the next test?” or “I’m failing, what do I do?” As you said the focus is all about the grade. My friend’s daughter, when she was in middle school, they made a big deal about the standardized test day…the whole school basically got involved in supporting those students in the 8th grade who had to take tests the whole week…brought them snakes, had a kind of pep rally. It just boggled my mind that so much of a school’s life was centered around a week of exams. I can’t imagine the pressure those students felt. I wonder if instead of being buoyed by the support of their fellow students that they actually felt more pressure because if they did poorly they were letting even more people down.

            I remember when I first started here as a professor one of the staff asked if I would do a little talk about weather for her daughters 1st grade class. I decided to talk about tornado safety, but I’ll admit I wasn’t really prepared for how to talk to 1st graders. The thing that struck me though was just how curious and inquisitive all the children were. I didn’t even get to say word before 10 hands went up and they asked all sorts of questions. It was amazing to me, because after a semester and a half of teaching college, in which no students ask questions it was kind of a shock. Somewhere in between elementary and college curiosity is quelled and that just made me sad.

            Like

        2. SWARN:

          Dunno about that—my Spouse can drive without a clue about what makes all the noise in front; I think better kids be taught how to use the tool without going into the details of how God made it … out of what, etc; and possibly more better if we look for His holy motives: God was lonely? God fancied vicarious sex by incarnating as His own self/son and banging the once-was-a-virgin wife of some itinerant carpenter in an obscure nowhere? (Why not just live a whole life as Adam, and then once more as Eve; and leave it at that having had the best of both worlds?)(Without of course getting themselves pregnant) (sheesh, this theology is complicated!)

          Like

          1. I don’t disagree that this doesn’t also make a difference but your car analogy here isn’t a good one. Knowing how an engine works doesn’t make you a better driver (although can help you better maintain your vehicle), but knowing how the brain works helps one understand oneself better. How one perceives things, how one can easily be misled by what our senses pick up and maybe more importantly what we don’t pick up.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Valid points, Swarn. Discussable points …

            Sadly for me I see where you’re coming from—and it’s just such knowledge (whether consciously held or not) that also helps enable the clergy; all the constant repetition in ‘sacred’ halls … brrrrr.
            But rather than fight by attempting the impossible* I prefer to arm people to spot the thin end of the wedges (contradictions) and then investigate further. I have no idea how my brain works and no interest in finding out — I just use it, having faith in my being right.

            “Taurus excreta confoundem cerebellum” … sometimes. (In religion, always.)

            * Prove them false. How can anyone do that, especially in the well established faiths in their ancient Books? Books that must be true because (a) they’re the Establishment, and (b) they’ve stood the Test Of Time. Books that greater thinkers than I have endorsed for thousands of years. One doesn’t need to know how the brain works to use it. Or to utilise the brains of others. But yes, it helps.

            Like

  8. Well Ark, you quickly got your answer(s) on Robertson’s imaginative or wild interpolations of reading material — OH! And btw, that also includes the Holy Bible… now WHICH “holy” bible out of several (over how many various decades?) I am not sure. About 9-times out of 10, neither do Christians. 😆

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I found the psychologist he alludes to, and there is no quote that comes close to what Robertson asserts.
      I struggle to understand why on earth he would assert such a thing as it is a simple matter of searching the book to discover no such quote from Keleman or Dawkins exists.

      I think he may be a bit puddled in the head.
      It might be all that Dickens Cider he’s been drinking since his arrival in Oz. ( Gods help the Aussies );)

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “Several”, Prof? Ain’t there dozens of oodles? Many of them a wee bit contradictory but all of them inerrant—

      Ouch!

      Damn! Just bit me tongue …

      Liked by 1 person

        1. I keep hoping (against hope?) that one of these apologists turns out not to be a slimeball.
          Believe it or not, it is my propensity to think that behind the vulgar facade of someone like Robertson there is the possibility of a nice person.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. On an utterly DIFFERENT note/topic Ark… 🙂

    Watched the International Champions Cup game tonight between Liverpool vs. Borussia Dortmund. Great game! Even though The Reds lost, it was a VERY good, entertaining, skilled game! I was very interested in watching one of our new American hot prospects, the son of the former great USMNT hall-of-famer Claudio Reyna, 16-yr old Giovanni Reyna. He showed moments of greatness, much like his father did in the early 90’s. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Didn’t see the game – we had no feed down here.
      Watched highlights over breakfast.
      The kids played very well, that’s for sure and I was happy to see Oxlaide -Chamberlain fit.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Oxy played very well. Both keepers had very good games. Simon Mignolet had a great game as well making 1-2 fantastic saves, one of which that was shot hard from only 6-8 yards in front of him and he got down to his left and stopped. Klopp was generally proud/happy with the performance.

        Like

        1. God knew roughly fourteen decimal five thousand million years ago who would win. Sheesh, all you needed do was ask! AND if you’re good he might tell you who will win the next World Cup …

          Liked by 1 person

      1. Ha ha ha. Had my phone split between your post and a text with my wife. Now I have to explain to her why I’m telling another man that I love him. It’s gonna be one of those days I guess. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s