Deconversion

[non-religious]

[Mr Bungle]Again, I completely understand where you are coming from.

Here's a bit about me:

I became a Christian in 2004. For the first 1-2 years I went to church as you'd expect but I didn't really have a relationship with God.

Then around 2006 I started to backslide, and eventually stopped going to church. I completely lost interest and basically went back to the same life I'd been leading before 2004. This put a lot of stress on my marriage and family life in general.

Just before Christmas 2010 things came to a head. I can't explain what happened, but I went to church that Christmas and felt completely empty and devoid of any Christian faith. I thought my faith and marriage were basically dead & buried.

But God had other ideas for me!
I went away for a few days between Christmas and New Year, and over the course of these days I began to dawn on me that I needed to do something drastic to save my marriage and faith.

At the start of 2011, we started going to church together again as a family. And i read my Bible every day, and threw myself in to really understanding the Christian faith. I also had a very influential friend who helped and inspire me throughout the course of 2011.

I've never looked back since then. My faith now is so solid it could survive a nuclear bomb! I've got absolutely no doubt that the Bible is 100% truth and is the inspired and inerrant word of God.
My personal life has also turned itself around completely, and I don't think this is a coincidence!

My bottom line for anyone who is or has backsliding, is firstly how much effort are putting in to your relationship with God? Is this a past or present relationship? A passive or active one?

And also, it is perfectly normal to have questions and difficulties with the Christian faith. But ask yourself whether these difficulties are sufficient to completely turn your back on it? Remember, Christ wants to have a relationship with you - he wants to know you!
But do the difficulties you have really result in Christianity changed from truth to a lie?

Yes, I to have difficulties with the Christian faith, but for me there is too much evidence that show Christianity to be truth and that for me is sufficient to give me the hope and patience that I may eventually have an understanding of these difficulties some time in the future...

Thanks for sharing

This to me this is a classic case of Christian answers 101. I hear these kinds of testimonies week in week out. I have even stood up and given them myself. To sum up. Man finds faith - life is good - has a wobble - leaves faith - realizes can't live without faith - comes back - life is better than before. That is the story of the archetypal backslider. That is not my experience.

To use a crude analogy. It is like jumping from a ship only to realize you can't swim. You're convinced that you need a relationship with an invisible power in order to get your life back on track. If that works for you (clearly given your great testimony it does) then that is great. I'm no longer convinced that all the considerable time I have spent in prayer, worship, fellowship, the Word etc... has in any way, purely from a supernatural perspective, affected my life. Those things have certainly altered my outlook on the bigger picture. They changed some of my lifestyle choices, but I am not persuaded this was as a direct consequence of a supernatural intervention.

It was merely a worldview that I adopted, I subscribed to and for many years wholeheartedly and sincerely believed. For a myriad of reasons I am now in a place whereby I believe my deeply held convictions were actually built on a false premise. I think I have been wrong.

 

[Gadarene]

This is quite interesting actually.
I would like to think that Christianity can stand up to the same tests that I would apply to rejecting other beliefs.
But I will always challenge myself and my beliefs. If my beliefs are worth having, then they will stand up to any test thrown at it..

So give me some examples of this because i want to get to the bottom as this issue...

Simple analogies are enough.

Would you believe in the claim of the resurrection from death of an Allied soldier during the D-Day landing - when the claim was made by contradictory, third-hand accounts dating at best to 1984 at the earliest?

If the answer to the above is "no", then you have no reason not to reject the gospel account either, as the situation is identical in terms of the extraordinariness of the claim being made, and the level of documentary evidence available.

(and yes, I can hear the "but we feel god's presence" line being queued up already. So do people of other beliefs, worshipping god-concepts that are in contradiction to the Christian one)

 

[Mr Bungle]

It was merely a worldview that I adopted, I subscribed to and for many years wholeheartedly and sincerely believed. For a myriad of reasons I am now in a place whereby I believe my deeply held convictions were actually built on a false premise. I think I have been wrong.[/FONT]

I know that you've mentioned some of the reasons in your previous posts, but what is the bottom line for you?

If it's a false premise (singular) what is this false premise?

 

[Mr Bungle]

(and yes, I can hear the "but we feel god's presence" line being queued up already. So do people of other beliefs, worshipping god-concepts that are in contradiction to the Christian one)

no - don't answer the question and/or put words in my mouth please!

 

[non-religious]

[Mr Bungle]

If it's a false premise (singular) what is this false premise?

Good question. Don't have time to answer, but will get back to you later

 

[Gadarene]

I quite agree that WLC is also a showman, and actually I personally prefer Ravi Zacharias in terms of apologists...

So a question for you - who would you advocate as an atheist spokesperson? I'd be interested because I looked in to this before, and the general consensus amongst atheists back then was Chris Hitchens. Would you agree with this, or is there someone else you'd recommend instead?

Let's be clear - Dawkins' tactic in TGD was entirely sound. Attack the core claims about the belief/god-concept, and all the high-falutin theology won't save it. If the core claims are false, then the claims that use the core claims as their base are necessarily non sequiturs. Dawkins just didn't do a very good job actually arguing this way.

I probably wouldn't recommend any of the four horsemen, to be honest. Dennett is alright. He at least know how religions work in the mind, which is something. They're all perfectly fun to read and you'd learn a lot from them, but they don't have airtight cases. They're only good against specific strains of Christianity at best. They serve well as popularisers.

If I were to recommend anyone, definitely someone who doesn't just fnarr at the philosophical end of the debate. Loftus is alright. I'd recommend Jeffrey Jay Lowder and Luke Muehlhauser over him though. I'm sure there are others.

 

[Gadarene]

no - don't answer the question and/or put words in my mouth please!

Reaping what you sowed in the other thread, it would seem.

Maybe you could respond to the bit of my post you edited out now.

 

[Gadarene]

I actually agree with this.
But a large degree of commonality inevitably excludes (at least) a minority of people within a society.

Does that mean that this minority of people are amoral?

The problem for me is that the social norms view of morality doesn't actually explain anything in terms of why or how the general consensus of what is moral (and therefore what is immoral as well) has been determined to be acceptable or unacceptable in the first place....

If it is an intrinsic part of human nature then it would seemingly be something we are all born with?

It's not simply social norms. Didn't say anything about where it comes from, only that subjectivity isn't the huge deal people make it out to be.

Humans have pain reflexes, an instinct to avoid suffering. Those that disregard this we regard as mentally deficient. I'm reasonably confident morality arose from a natural sense of consequentialism.

 

[Mr Bungle]

Simple analogies are enough.

Would you believe in the claim of the resurrection from death of an Allied soldier during the D-Day landing - when the claim was made by contradictory, third-hand accounts dating at best to 1984 at the earliest?

If the answer to the above is "no", then you have no reason not to reject the gospel account either, as the situation is identical in terms of the extraordinariness of the claim being made, and the level of documentary evidence available.

(and yes, I can hear the "but we feel god's presence" line being queued up already. So do people of other beliefs, worshipping god-concepts that are in contradiction to the Christian one)

A bit of patience please!

"Would you believe in the claim of the resurrection from death of an Allied soldier during the D-Day landing - when the claim was made by contradictory, third-hand accounts dating at best to 1984 at the earliest?

If the answer to the above is "no", then you have no reason not to reject the gospel account either, as the situation is identical in terms of the extraordinariness of the claim being made, and the level of documentary evidence available."


Firstly – given the year you are alluding to (1944) then is perfectly reasonable to believe that there would still be war veterans alive and actually able to give first or second hand accounts of such an event, or at least some sort of awareness of it
Secondly – the term “contradictory” is meaningless unless you state what they actually contradicted themselves on i.e. was in on facts that were central to the truth of the account, or was it because one account said the weather was raining, and the other said it was windy?
Thirdly – how do you define “resurrection” i.e. how do you differentiate from “resuscitation”? If it were the later then I would it potentially believable for me..
Fourthly – is there any other evidence to cross reference these claims against?

To be fair, initially I thought this was a good analogy, but I’ve now realised that it is too simplistic and therefore not an identical situation.

The comparison of historical evidence should be done without a bias, and the only way to do this is to compare historical evidence for Christianity versus historical evidence for something else that happened during antiquity or at least certainly a period where no witnesses could still be alive. This makes the analogy/ comparison void because it is not a like-for-like comparison.

The evidence for an event that happened in antiquity, given that it is ancient history rather than modern history needs to be compared to evidence for other phenomenon that happened during a similar era.

What you really need to do is look at the available evidence for some other historical event from a similar period of history, and then compare the evidence we have for Christianity against this instead.

By the way, there are no contradictions in the gospel accounts – just alleged contradictions on minor issues which do not change the central message of the birth, death and resurrection accounts. I don’t know of any single gospel contradiction that cannot be explained satisfactorily.

 

[non-religious]

[Mr Bungle]but what is the bottom line for you?

I never woke up one day and had an epiphany. It was a process of many things all pointing in one direction over a sustained period of time. Both my skepticism and doubt were gradually eroding my faith. I've ended up in place of doubting the very existence of God. I'm no longer convinced by the evidence (or lack thereof). It feels as though I have reached the point of no return. If I come back to a belief in God, I will always have that niggling doubt, and that doubt is too strong for me to just lay aside in the hope that I may or may not be right.

 

[Mr Bungle]

Just to change the emphasis of this thread, I was thinking about what it would take for me to loose my Christian faith...

In simple terms, I would have to be completely convinced that The Biblical accounts of Jesus were completely fraudulent.

I know some would argue that is already the case, but I am far from convinced.

So what would it require?

I'm not interested in alleged contradictions between gospels, I've no interest in manuscript copies with errors. Quite simply I've read enough to know that what we have in our cannon is accurate. I've read the arguments from both sides, and for me personally the evidence for the authenticity of our Biblical is huge (no evidence? LOL).

So it would take the discovery of an alternative history and an alternative account which could potentially exclude Jesus Christ altogether. At the very least an alternative history would have to show overwhelming evidence that the historical material that Christianity relies upon is false or fraudulent on the key issues that define what makes Christianity what it is.

There would need to be significant evidence to support any alternative account of ancient history that changed what we know about Jesus - significant to completely erase what we have previously accepted.

Finally, it would need to accepted by the majority people as being authentic - not just a breakaway faction or cult. If this happened and mainstream Christian authors, apologists and so on were forced to hold their hands up say "we are wrong" then I would also do the same and convert to some other belief system or way of life.

Until this happens, I will hold on to my faith and belief in the Bible as being true. Anything issues I don't understand about the Bible and God I simply put down to my own lack of understanding - not as something that would lead to reject everything I'd previously believed in.

 

[non-religious]

[Mr Bungle]Just to change the emphasis of this thread, I was thinking about what it would take for me to loose my Christian faith...

In simple terms, I would have to be completely convinced that The Biblical accounts of Jesus were completely fraudulent.

I know some would argue that is already the case, but I am far from convinced.

So what would it require?

I'm not interested in alleged contradictions between gospels, I've no interest in manuscript copies with errors. Quite simply I've read enough to know that what we have in our cannon is accurate. I've read the arguments from both sides, and for me personally the evidence for the authenticity of our Biblical is huge (no evidence? LOL).

So it would take the discovery of an alternative history and an alternative account which could potentially exclude Jesus Christ altogether. At the very least an alternative history would have to show overwhelming evidence that the historical material that Christianity relies upon is false or fraudulent on the key issues that define what makes Christianity what it is.

There would need to be significant evidence to support any alternative account of ancient history that changed what we know about Jesus - significant to completely erase what we have previously accepted.

Finally, it would need to accepted by the majority people as being authentic - not just a breakaway faction or cult. If this happened and mainstream Christian authors, apologists and so on were forced to hold their hands up say "we are wrong" then I would also do the same and convert to some other belief system or way of life.

Until this happens, I will hold on to my faith and belief in the Bible as being true. Anything issues I don't understand about the Bible and God I simply put down to my own lack of understanding - not as something that would lead to reject everything I'd previously believed in.

Reminds of the verses in Romans 8: 37-39.

You're not alone. Just like the Muslims are truly convinced their path is correct, so too are the Jews, Sikhs etc... Anyways, great thread and I'm happy to hear that your life is in a good place

 

[Gadarene]

So basically, whoever gets their hand up first and answers is right and is to be believed. Better to have an answer than no answer at all.

Well, if that's your logic, good luck to you.

 

[Gadarene]

Firstly – given the year you are alluding to (1944) then is perfectly reasonable to believe that there would still be war veterans alive and actually able to give first or second hand accounts of such an event, or at least some sort of awareness of it

Nitpicking over the analogy, but alright. It would unlikely that written texts would be the only form of evidence. Recast the analogy sufficiently far into the past (beyond the typical human lifespan) if you like.

Secondly – the term “contradictory” is meaningless unless you state what they actually contradicted themselves on i.e. was in on facts that were central to the truth of the account, or was it because one account said the weather was raining, and the other said it was windy?

Surely it matters if they can't get even basic facts straight. If they can't be trusted on the insignificant claims, how can they be trusted on the big ones?

Thirdly – how do you define “resurrection” i.e. how do you differentiate from “resuscitation”? If it were the later then I would it potentially believable for me..

Right, because it's entirely more plausible than resurrection. Most alternative explanations for the resurrection, however implausible they seem are still more plausible than the one most commonly accepted.

The comparison of historical evidence should be done without a bias, and the only way to do this is to compare historical evidence for Christianity versus historical evidence for something else that happened during antiquity or at least certainly a period where no witnesses could still be alive. This makes the analogy/ comparison void because it is not a like-for-like comparison.

Oh, well, if that's what you're looking for -

I don't accept that Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great were gods either. They were deified too.

The evidence for an event that happened in antiquity, given that it is ancient history rather than modern history needs to be compared to evidence for other phenomenon that happened during a similar era.

Why? Poor levels of evidential support is a problem regardless of the era. Some old book doesn't become more plausible just because it's old.

What you really need to do is look at the available evidence for some other historical event from a similar period of history, and then compare the evidence we have for Christianity against this instead.

If all events were created equal, but they are not. Claiming that someone existed, or occupied a particular position is small beer compared to claiming that someone was actually a deity incarnate who cheated death.

By the way, there are no contradictions in the gospel accounts – just alleged contradictions on minor issues which do not change the central message of the birth, death and resurrection accounts. I don’t know of any single gospel contradiction that cannot be explained satisfactorily.

With "creative" enough reinterpretation, of course you can

 

[Gadarene]

I'm not interested in alleged contradictions between gospels, I've no interest in manuscript copies with errors. Quite simply I've read enough to know that what we have in our cannon is accurate. I've read the arguments from both sides, and for me personally the evidence for the authenticity of our Biblical is huge (no evidence? LOL).

No detail given to support this claim, just childishness. Disregarded.

So it would take the discovery of an alternative history and an alternative account which could potentially exclude Jesus Christ altogether.

It's enough to show that the existing posited evidence for Christianity is insufficient. No alternative history is required. Again, this is basically just believing in the first story that comes along first, regardless of how implausible it is.

And no, Jesus Christ is not required to be excluded from history in order for Christianity to be false. It is entirely likely he existed - apocalyptic religious itinerant types were two a penny in Judea. What has no evidence is the miracle claims, and a handle of hangers-on saying "oh yeah, he totes did them!" 40 years after the event is a laughable level of "proof".

At the very least an alternative history would have to show overwhelming evidence that the historical material that Christianity relies upon is false or fraudulent on the key issues that define what makes Christianity what it is.

The existing evidence already is insufficient, and Christianity already is unsupportable. That's the case being made. We do not require an alternative explanation in order to have a case.

There would need to be significant evidence to support any alternative account of ancient history that changed what we know about Jesus - significant to completely erase what we have previously accepted.

Nope. Again, falsification is sufficient, not composing an actual theory, same as in any other discipline. Maybe you are personally consistent on this one when it comes to other topics, but it's rather shoddy thinking.

Finally, it would need to accepted by the majority people as being authentic - not just a breakaway faction or cult. If this happened and mainstream Christian authors, apologists and so on were forced to hold their hands up say "we are wrong" then I would also do the same and convert to some other belief system or way of life.

Of course, the number of people who support a claim is somewhat irrelevant when they aren't actual experts. Biblical scholars would be the best bet - not apologists/showmen for Jesus.

 

[Mr Bungle]

Surely it matters if they can't get even basic facts straight. If they can't be trusted on the insignificant claims, how can they be trusted on the big ones?

No it doesn't! Here's an example:
I went on a holiday 10 years ago to France with my friends.
On the penultimate day of our holiday we all went to Toulouse and spent the day there.
Now if we were all to sit down tomorrow and write down our own accounts of what we did on the penultimate day of our holiday back in 2002, if these accounts differed on insignificant facts like times, weather conditions etc would this mean that the holiday never actually took place? Of course not.
The main thing is that we all went on holiday together back in 2002 - we all agree on that main central fact.

Right, because it's entirely more plausible than resurrection. Most alternative explanations for the resurrection, however implausible they seem are still more plausible than the one most commonly accepted.

Purely subjective.
I'm not really interested in what you think is plausible or not. I'm interested in whether something is true, and what evidence there is to support it.

Why? Poor levels of evidential support is a problem regardless of the era. Some old book doesn't become more plausible just because it's old.

I didn't say that age = plausibility...
The evidence for The Bible is very strong regardless of era, and versus any other historical text from a similar era is overwhelming.
If you make a like-for-like comparison of the Bible versus any non religious historical text it is better atested, and certainly better than for any other religious text.

So please can you show me a text from antiquity which is better supported than the evidence we have for the Bible..

If all events were created equal, but they are not. Claiming that someone existed, or occupied a particular position is small beer compared to claiming that someone was actually a deity incarnate who cheated death.

Inconsistent argument.
You can't argue that alleged differences in minor facts are important, but then argue that differences between historical claims don't matter.

My argument is that minor differences do not matter, but that all claims of a historical nature can be tested in the same way.

Sorry but your "unusual claims demand unusual evidence" argument is rejected.

With "creative" enough reinterpretation, of course you can

Call it creative if you want, but actually it's just written down in plain English for anyone to read.

 

[Mr Bungle]

No detail given to support this claim, just childishness. Disregarded.

I've mentioned in alleged contradictions in my previous post, and given an example.
Point dismissed regardless because you have failed to provide any examples of such contradictions you keep referring to.

It's enough to show that the existing posited evidence for Christianity is insufficient. No alternative history is required. Again, this is basically just believing in the first story that comes along first, regardless of how implausible it is.

Right, so just leave gap in the historical record then?
Does it not occur to you that the reason this hasn't happened and has not been successfully challenged by anyone because it is actually correct. And that's an accepted fact by many scholars regardless of religious disposition.

And no, Jesus Christ is not required to be excluded from history in order for Christianity to be false. It is entirely likely he existed - apocalyptic religious itinerant types were two a penny in Judea. What has no evidence is the miracle claims, and a handle of hangers-on saying "oh yeah, he totes did them!" 40 years after the event is a laughable level of "proof".

Any evidence for the claim you are making here then? There is probably some shabby argument on the rational response squad website somewhere.....
Any claims to undermine the deity of Christ are usually derived from one of a dozen or so heresies about Christ which came and went during the 1st and 2nd century. They are popular today amongst people looking for pseudo academic slant on their attack on Christianity, but none of them actually hold any water.

Easy to disprove, discount and discredit any of the likely arguments you'll come back on this particular point.

The existing evidence already is insufficient, and Christianity already is unsupportable. That's the case being made. We do not require an alternative explanation in order to have a case.

Only when you've provided an actual argument as to why the evidence is insufficient.
Until then the evidence stands.
Claiming something is insufficient is meaningless unless you can actually show why this is.

Nope. Again, falsification is sufficient, not composing an actual theory, same as in any other discipline. Maybe you are personally consistent on this one when it comes to other topics, but it's rather shoddy thinking.

Falsification hasn't been established - not by you and not by anyone else.

Of course, the number of people who support a claim is somewhat irrelevant when they aren't actual experts. Biblical scholars would be the best bet - not apologists/showmen for Jesus.

I've got an open mind on this subject, which is why I asked you in another thread to recommend some good atheist speakers.

 

[Gadarene]

No it doesn't! Here's an example:
I went on a holiday 10 years ago to France with my friends.
On the penultimate day of our holiday we all went to Toulouse and spent the day there.
Now if we were all to sit down tomorrow and write down our own accounts of what we did on the penultimate day of our holiday back in 2002, if these accounts differed on insignificant facts like times, weather conditions etc would this mean that the holiday never actually took place? Of course not.
The main thing is that we all went on holiday together back in 2002 - we all agree on that main central fact.

When you're touting eyewitness accounts as the only form of evidence, and you can't even get the names right of which eyewitnesses saw him first, for example, that's somewhat of a problem.

Purely subjective.
I'm not really interested in what you think is plausible or not. I'm interested in whether something is true, and what evidence there is to support it.

It is not subjective in the slightest.

Do please tell us all how we regularly observe deities incarnate dying and coming back to life.

By contrast, compare that with the number of times we have seen conspiracy, lies, fraud, mistaken claims of fabulous things.

Goodness, by the claims of your religion Christ was and will only be the only god, and the only one who resurrected. By definition that is an extraordinarily unlikely claim and one which we would have no prior experience of or evidence for - unlike the alternatives.

I didn't say that age = plausibility...
The evidence for The Bible is very strong regardless of era, and versus any other historical text from a similar era is overwhelming.
If you make a like-for-like comparison of the Bible versus any non religious historical text it is better atested, and certainly better than for any other religious text.

So please can you show me a text from antiquity which is better supported than the evidence we have for the Bible..

By what standard do you consider a text to be supported?

Inconsistent argument.
You can't argue that alleged differences in minor facts are important, but then argue that differences between historical claims don't matter.

Of course I can, because they're two different things. The objection about contradictions is in part due to the fact that the texts are divinely inspired, so such basic mistakes appear even more outlandish, and because of the fact that eyewitness testimony, on which the whole shebang hinges, is incapable of establishing which eyewitnesses were involved. (And besides, it is not the case that the gospels were authored by eyewitnesses either).

If you're trying to claim that the singularly most important event in the universe should be held to the same standard of evidence as every other historical event (which would be by definition less significant) like the existence of Socrates, or crossing the Rubicon, then you have another thing coming. You are trying to get an extraordinary event scrutinised by less stringent standards, and I see no need to play along with such intellectual dishonesty.

My argument is that minor differences do not matter, but that all claims of a historical nature can be tested in the same way.

Sorry but your "unusual claims demand unusual evidence" argument is
rejected.

Your attempt to sidestep the burden of proof for your claim is duly noted.

It is funny, for the supposed one true faith, you really do need to evade a lot!

Call it creative if you want, but actually it's just written down in plain English for anyone to read.

Ah "plain English". The sure sign of someone who hasn't realised just how much of a role subjective interpretation plays in reading the Bible.

Very glad I realised that one early on in life, but it worries me to see how many Christians go through life without figuring that one out.

 

[Gadarene]

Right, so just leave gap in the historical record then?

It's an option.

Is "I don't know" a blasphemy to you?

Does it not occur to you that the reason this hasn't happened and has not been successfully challenged by anyone because it is actually correct. And that's an accepted fact by many scholars regardless of religious disposition.

What fact? That Christ resurrected? I think you'll find that it's only the Christian ones who accept that.

Any evidence for the claim you are making here then? There is probably some shabby argument on the rational response squad website somewhere.....

What claim? That Jesus existed? I would have thought you aren't disputing that!

I also said there is no evidence for the miracle claims besides the rather flimsy assertions in the gospels made by people who already believed and followed Christ. Unless you think there is more evidence for the miracle claims than that?

Snark is one thing, but do try and least read the portion of the post you're responding to first.

Only when you've provided an actual argument as to why the evidence is insufficient.
Until then the evidence stands.
Claiming something is insufficient is meaningless unless you can actually show why this is.

Because it is incredibly implausible from the get-go, and the eyewitness accounts are nth-hand, can't establish who saw what and when, and non-contemporary.

And you're honestly telling me that if similar evidence was presented for another historical event of equal extraordinariness that wasn't the singular most important event for the religion you already believed in, you'd believe that event as well?

I've got an open mind on this subject, which is why I asked you in another thread to recommend some good atheist speakers.

I'll add Richard Carrier to the list.

 

[koshka]

Hi Koshka - thank for your reply. I will read it fully a bit later today...

Maybe I said too much?

Just editing this post because I thought my words above might be misunderstood. I just posted the above because I had thought that there might be a response to my original post. I guess just writing it gave me pause for thought.

To be honest, sometimes I do wonder about what happened when I lost faith - I have one Christian friend who is hoping that I will come back. My leaving Christianity seemed pretty thorough - but part of me questions if I just had a wrong concept about God and faith right in the beginning. I know someone who strongly believes that much of the bible teachings are symbolic rather than literal - it makes me think about it whether it would be possible to have a faith that embraces that rather than it being so literal. But maybe once you've left Christianity and doubted and questioned so much, it's just not possible to have a faith in the future.