Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Future of Religion?

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:02:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm sure we had entertained many scenarios, but am I the only one who thinks that the world will be almost entirely Muslim?
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:02:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm sure we had entertained many scenarios, but am I the only one who thinks that the world will be almost entirely Muslim?

This is a good question, which I may answer in full later, but briefly:

The increase in Islam is primarily due to continuing high birth rates, ie. while developed countries (with religions like Christianity) do not have high birth rates, third world countries and such (typically Islamic) do. Also, the no. of devout religious followers has lowered due to a growth in secularisation. However, the key point-

People who are becoming less religious are becoming athiests, not Muslims Perhaps Islam will control a large percentage of the religious in the future, yet once their countries become developed it is likely that birth rates will decline and secularisation will grow. Certainly, those becoming atheists now are unlikely to be Islamic converts anytime soon.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 4:26:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

It's a pretty easy to trace trend. Once countries relax laws enforcing a particular religion and new technology gives people to ability to explore and understand competing points of view (i.e. the internet, television) then people become less certain that their own religious convictions are true. I'm not sure about atheism specifically, but religious views in developed countries are invariably more diverse.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 5:03:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:26:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

It's a pretty easy to trace trend. Once countries relax laws enforcing a particular religion and new technology gives people to ability to explore and understand competing points of view (i.e. the internet, television) then people become less certain that their own religious convictions are true. I'm not sure about atheism specifically, but religious views in developed countries are invariably more diverse.
That doesn't require secularization, nor is secularization equivalent to development, so that point fails.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 6:44:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 5:03:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:26:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

It's a pretty easy to trace trend. Once countries relax laws enforcing a particular religion and new technology gives people to ability to explore and understand competing points of view (i.e. the internet, television) then people become less certain that their own religious convictions are true. I'm not sure about atheism specifically, but religious views in developed countries are invariably more diverse.
That doesn't require secularization, nor is secularization equivalent to development, so that point fails.

Thats like saying, You dont require a law degree in order to be a lawyer. Its true, and im sure theres atleast one person out there claiming to be a lawyer but doesnt have a law degree, but that doesnt change the fact that the majority of lawyers have law degrees, and the more successful ones, certainly do.

In other words, you have a better chance at getting a country to develop if the country is secular, as opposed to a strictly religious country. The evidence for this is almost every single country, ever existed.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 6:54:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 6:44:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2011 5:03:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:26:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

It's a pretty easy to trace trend. Once countries relax laws enforcing a particular religion and new technology gives people to ability to explore and understand competing points of view (i.e. the internet, television) then people become less certain that their own religious convictions are true. I'm not sure about atheism specifically, but religious views in developed countries are invariably more diverse.
That doesn't require secularization, nor is secularization equivalent to development, so that point fails.

Thats like saying, You dont require a law degree in order to be a lawyer. Its true, and im sure theres atleast one person out there claiming to be a lawyer but doesnt have a law degree, but that doesnt change the fact that the majority of lawyers have law degrees, and the more successful ones, certainly do.

In other words, you have a better chance at getting a country to develop if the country is secular, as opposed to a strictly religious country. The evidence for this is almost every single country, ever existed.
Your argument is based on a mere assumption. You are using modern times to disprove the contention that secularism is not needed for the well-being and prosperity of a society. I don't care what today tells us. I care about what history has proven.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 7:13:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:02:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm sure we had entertained many scenarios, but am I the only one who thinks that the world will be almost entirely Muslim?:

The birth rate in Muslim countries is through the roof, and the trend certainly seems to indicate that Islam will be the next Christianity, and Christianity will be the Zoroastrianism of times past.

A new religion will come along and compete, but it will take hundreds of years to reach the popularity and stature that Christendom and Islam have achieved.

Perhaps you're wondering whether or not religion will die at all, given that the amount of atheists is also rising at a very quick pace. I don't think religion will ever die, just change form.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 8:44:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

Rape is also human nature.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:06:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 8:44:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

Rape is also human nature.
Sexual feelings are human nature. Dominance is human nature. Rape belongs to both of those. So rape is a side effect in itself. And just because two things are human nature does not mean that they are equivalent in their values. That is obviously what you're trying to indicate, in which case you enter a state of huge failure.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:06:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

One of the defining characteristics of humans is our ability to defy our nature.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:07:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:06:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

One of the defining characteristics of humans is our ability to defy our nature.
Defy, not eradicate.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:10:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:06:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:44:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

Rape is also human nature.
Sexual feelings are human nature. Dominance is human nature. Rape belongs to both of those. So rape is a side effect in itself. And just because two things are human nature does not mean that they are equivalent in their values. That is obviously what you're trying to indicate, in which case you enter a state of huge failure.

What value? I'm just stating that it is foolish to state that just because something is human nature, doesn't mean it is destined to occur, just as it is not destined for the majority of people to be rapists. Of course, religion is always going to exist, however that doesn't mean a trend towards secularization will not occur. Using human nature as proof that secularization will not occur is bad reasoning.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:13:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:10:42 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:06:13 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:44:24 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

Rape is also human nature.
Sexual feelings are human nature. Dominance is human nature. Rape belongs to both of those. So rape is a side effect in itself. And just because two things are human nature does not mean that they are equivalent in their values. That is obviously what you're trying to indicate, in which case you enter a state of huge failure.

What value? I'm just stating that it is foolish to state that just because something is human nature, doesn't mean it is destined to occur, just as it is not destined for the majority of people to be rapists.
1. Have you read the article?
2. Religion being part of human nature means that it is not highly probable that it will ever be defeated, despite any efforts being made. You, comparing rape to this, is just a strawman.

Of course, religion is always going to exist, however that doesn't mean a trend towards secularization will not occur. Using human nature as proof that secularization will not occur is bad reasoning.
Red herring.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:20:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:07:11 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 9:06:23 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 5/29/2011 8:13:24 PM, Mirza wrote:
As a side note, trying to fight the religious beliefs in humans and actually try to eradicate them is pure nonsense. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com... Sorry for some atheists.

One of the defining characteristics of humans is our ability to defy our nature.
Defy, not eradicate.

OK, so this 'huge study' doesn't really prove anything, but it does suggest it is in our nature to:
-Strive to understand our world.
-Fear death.

It doesn't remotely suggest that it is in our nature to worship Gods. Religion is just a product of these nature survival instincts. People will always fear death and we may never fully understand our world.
However, as science continues to improve our health and explain the universe, the natural evolution is to assign religious status to science, I.E. a 5% tariff to research you're passionate about, Sunday afternoon community classes on subjects you're interested in and tax-exemption for important research groups.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/29/2011 9:33:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 6:54:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 6:44:00 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 5/29/2011 5:03:49 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:26:35 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

It's a pretty easy to trace trend. Once countries relax laws enforcing a particular religion and new technology gives people to ability to explore and understand competing points of view (i.e. the internet, television) then people become less certain that their own religious convictions are true. I'm not sure about atheism specifically, but religious views in developed countries are invariably more diverse.
That doesn't require secularization, nor is secularization equivalent to development, so that point fails.

Thats like saying, You dont require a law degree in order to be a lawyer. Its true, and im sure theres atleast one person out there claiming to be a lawyer but doesnt have a law degree, but that doesnt change the fact that the majority of lawyers have law degrees, and the more successful ones, certainly do.

In other words, you have a better chance at getting a country to develop if the country is secular, as opposed to a strictly religious country. The evidence for this is almost every single country, ever existed.
Your argument is based on a mere assumption. You are using modern times to disprove the contention that secularism is not needed for the well-being and prosperity of a society. I don't care what today tells us. I care about what history has proven.

Your argument is utterly baseless. I never said that Secularism is needed for the well being and prosperity of a society. Just like a University degree is not needed to be rich and powerful. But yes, history has told us that a secular society is much, much more likely to prosper and be successful than a non-secular strict-religious state.

This is what history has proven. And you said you care about history.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:23:36 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:21:18 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:17:12 PM, Logic_on_rails wrote:
yet once their countries become developed
Explain.

Okay, 'developed' in this case takes a fairly typical meaning - advanced technology (computers being widespread etc.) and such. What this does is ease the hardships of many people. This can do a few things, 1, as Kinesis said, makes them less sure of their beliefs due to competing views, 2, lessens what some people see as a need for religion in their lives. After all, religion is seen as a reward despite present hardships, yet many in the modern world, with modern comforts, see less of a need for religion.

Now, typically, modern technology and such causes secularisation due to the points above and a number of other points. It's not that there's a direct correlation between secularisation and development, but that secularisation has typically risen with technology, and that's a point evidenced by the last few decades, when widespread global diversity has spread and a variety of cultures now exist in any 1 place. I know that at my school over 2/3 of students come from a non English speaking background - there's a lot of diversity at my school.

If you need more of an explanation, raise problems with the above.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 11:16:42 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 7:13:07 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 5/29/2011 4:02:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm sure we had entertained many scenarios, but am I the only one who thinks that the world will be almost entirely Muslim?:

The birth rate in Muslim countries is through the roof, and the trend certainly seems to indicate that Islam will be the next Christianity, and Christianity will be the Zoroastrianism of times past.

A new religion will come along and compete, but it will take hundreds of years to reach the popularity and stature that Christendom and Islam have achieved.

Perhaps you're wondering whether or not religion will die at all, given that the amount of atheists is also rising at a very quick pace. I don't think religion will ever die, just change form.

I doubt that Atheism will ever be the most common belief.
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 12:18:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Like others have already said, I don't ever see atheism as being the most common response to religiosity for various reasons, although certainly it does seem to be entrenched in western academia, particularly philosophy and science departments (although whether this is justified is a huge area of contention). The flip side for theists however is that religion is faced with a far graver problem than the intellectual conflict it experiences in parts at the moment - that of total apathy towards religion, which ensures the erosion of the importance of religion without debate or discussion, but gradually through default secularisation, a process I think has already begun here in the UK. You don't get mass support for atheism here, yet something like 10% of the population attend religious services.

As for Islam dominating the world, I just can't see it. To be sure, it is on the increase and factors like immigration see it being dispersed more and more throughout the west, but t there is no evidence that I am aware of that this has resulted in Islam making any significant inroads in the indigenous population, and maybe things like the western perception of Islam, the importance of Arabic and so on make such predictions hopelessly optimistic.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 3:58:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 9:33:03 PM, tkubok wrote:
Your argument is utterly baseless. I never said that Secularism is needed for the well being and prosperity of a society. Just like a University degree is not needed to be rich and powerful.
Then away with secularism. That should not have anything to do with Islamic countries. Nobody should impose it on them.

But yes, history has told us that a secular society is much, much more likely to prosper and be successful than a non-secular strict-religious state.
Modern times =/= history.

This is what history has proven. And you said you care about history.
Yes and history has informed me how well a society can function for centuries even with a theocracy.

And you think technological development is what makes a society prosper? Do you think that just because Western countries are ahead in technology and science that they are actually prospering better than say, Arab countries? They are backwards in morality more than I can think of. The lack of tolerance we see in Western countries is monstrous. I can name you the evils of the West until Christmas. The fact is that you will ignore all that and say, "Well, um, they do lead in science and technology." Yes, that doesn't constitute prosperity.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:13:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 3:58:53 PM, Mirza wrote:
Then away with secularism. That should not have anything to do with Islamic countries. Nobody should impose it on them.
Nonsense, i never said that we should impose secularism on other countries. Dont put words in my mouth.
Modern times =/= history.
20 years ago = modern times = history.
Yes and history has informed me how well a society can function for centuries even with a theocracy.

Were not talking aout a society that can function. Were talking about a society that can advance and develop. The christian nations throughout europe were functioning perfectly for centuries, yet we call them the dark ages for a reason.

And you think technological development is what makes a society prosper? Do you think that just because Western countries are ahead in technology and science that they are actually prospering better than say, Arab countries? They are backwards in morality more than I can think of. The lack of tolerance we see in Western countries is monstrous. I can name you the evils of the West until Christmas. The fact is that you will ignore all that and say, "Well, um, they do lead in science and technology." Yes, that doesn't constitute prosperity.

Sure, if you consider womens rights, morally backward, then yes, the Western countries are morally backwards.

And yes, even despite the lack of tolerance, you dont actually see that many people going out of their bounds to violate another persons freedom that often, do you? Yet, can the same be said of Middle-eastern countries?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:18:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/29/2011 4:02:36 PM, vardas0antras wrote:
I'm sure we had entertained many scenarios, but am I the only one who thinks that the world will be almost entirely Muslim?

From what I've seen, the world should be about half Muslim and half unaffiliated in the next 50 years. Christianity will become insignificant.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/30/2011 7:33:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 7:13:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
Nonsense, i never said that we should impose secularism on other countries. Dont put words in my mouth.
Where did I put words into your mouth? I am clarifying something.

20 years ago = modern times = history.
Modern times are still ongoing. We do not categorize them as history. Sure, they are history since even my last post is history, but that does not mean it is classified as history, particularly not when we talk about the subject in general. Nonetheless, even if modern times should count as history, then secularization is still not the best option for countries. Counting modern times only helps your case better.

Were not talking aout a society that can function. Were talking about a society that can advance and develop. The christian nations throughout europe were functioning perfectly for centuries, yet we call them the dark ages for a reason.
Semantics. How about a society that developed scientifically, socially, economically, politically, etc.?

Sure, if you consider womens rights, morally backward, then yes, the Western countries are morally backwards.
Women's rights? I feel sorry for the Western women you seem to refer to. You mean those who exercise their right to behave like idiots, mix with males and sleep with every single one of her male friends? You mean the woman who starves herself to be as hot as her friends? You mean the female who (like a great deal of others) is harassed at her job because she exercises her right to work with males? How marvelous. It seems like every woman's dream to have those "rights." Obviously none of you freedom lovers understand the concept of rights and consequence. You think government is the only power that brings consequences if you practice certain things. Pathetic.

And yes, even despite the lack of tolerance, you dont actually see that many people going out of their bounds to violate another persons freedom that often, do you? Yet, can the same be said of Middle-eastern countries?
Yes I do. I live in a society whose politicians spit hatred out of their mouths day by day on Muslims and their entire religion. I live in a society where a stupid nationalist party wants to ban Arabic channels. Is that what you all call freedom? At least the Middle Eastern countries have made it clear what they forbid and what they allow. In Western countries you have the feeling of being stalked and repressed in the most mystical way possible. I'm not saying Middle Eastern countries are well-developed. But neither are the Western. There's so much nonsense going on here it is shameful and pathetic to the highest degree. Neither science nor technology will bring the West out of its current societal problems.
Justin_Chains
Posts: 623
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/31/2011 2:39:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 5/30/2011 7:33:48 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 5/30/2011 7:13:04 PM, tkubok wrote:
Nonsense, i never said that we should impose secularism on other countries. Dont put words in my mouth.
Where did I put words into your mouth? I am clarifying something.

20 years ago = modern times = history.
Modern times are still ongoing. We do not categorize them as history. Sure, they are history since even my last post is history, but that does not mean it is classified as history, particularly not when we talk about the subject in general. Nonetheless, even if modern times should count as history, then secularization is still not the best option for countries. Counting modern times only helps your case better.

Were not talking aout a society that can function. Were talking about a society that can advance and develop. The christian nations throughout europe were functioning perfectly for centuries, yet we call them the dark ages for a reason.
Semantics. How about a society that developed scientifically, socially, economically, politically, etc.?

Sure, if you consider womens rights, morally backward, then yes, the Western countries are morally backwards.
Women's rights? I feel sorry for the Western women you seem to refer to. You mean those who exercise their right to behave like idiots, mix with males and sleep with every single one of her male friends? You mean the woman who starves herself to be as hot as her friends? You mean the female who (like a great deal of others) is harassed at her job because she exercises her right to work with males? How marvelous. It seems like every woman's dream to have those "rights." Obviously none of you freedom lovers understand the concept of rights and consequence. You think government is the only power that brings consequences if you practice certain things. Pathetic.

And yes, even despite the lack of tolerance, you dont actually see that many people going out of their bounds to violate another persons freedom that often, do you? Yet, can the same be said of Middle-eastern countries?
Yes I do. I live in a society whose politicians spit hatred out of their mouths day by day on Muslims and their entire religion. I live in a society where a stupid nationalist party wants to ban Arabic channels. Is that what you all call freedom? At least the Middle Eastern countries have made it clear what they forbid and what they allow. In Western countries you have the feeling of being stalked and repressed in the most mystical way possible. I'm not saying Middle Eastern countries are well-developed. But neither are the Western. There's so much nonsense going on here it is shameful and pathetic to the highest degree. Neither science nor technology will bring the West out of its current societal problems.

Society can never have true order and true freedom at the same time. At best it can be a 50/50 split to obtain a balance.

Truth and balance is the future of religion as it must be.

In my opinion, the seven principles of truth taught in the Kybalion will be accepted by many in the future. This will be the future of religion s it will be a religion based on truth. Truth that is logically understood an makes sense. It will create the strongest faith possible. It's like understanding how the solar system works, even though you can't actually see it. That is called logical faith, and it is the future of religious faith in my opinion.