How do Christians live with Science without being hypocrites

[NeoEclectic]

Let's assume that we're all familiar with the popular talking points about how God created everything and none of it needs to be questioned.

 

My feeling is that if Christianity had its way with everything then we would still be in the stone ages technologically. There is very well documented evidence where Christians have attempted to suppress the truth of things that Science had revealed for centuries.

 

So that gets me wondering a few things. It appears that Christians as a whole are anti-Science because every time a breakthrough is made through science it directly challenges the existence of God.

 

So if that is the case then why do Christians openly participate and graciously accept the gifts from scientific discovery and invention?

 

One example that comes to mind are Christian couples that will visit a fertility clinic in order to get pregnant. Shouldn't Christian logic suggest that if you're not able to conceive naturally that it's God's will and you're not supposed to have children? But instead they choose to go against the will of God and look to Science for help?

 

The real kick in the teeth is if they do manage to get pregnant through the help of Science they will end up thanking God but not the doctor's and years of medical research that gave them a baby.

 

Or the Christian cancer patient that goes to the hospital and begs medical Science for an extension on life. Shouldn't they just sit at home and pray instead of hypocritically seeking the help of that thing they despise?

 

And I'm sure if the Christian cancer patient beats their cancer it's all because of God and not the Chemotherapy and radiation treatments they received that was developed from Science. The doctors, nurses, and pharmaceuticals be damned.

 

It was all God; praise Jesus.

 

But if that same Christian cancer patient dies most likely it's because it was the doctor's fault and so now it's time to sue. AND it was God's will that the patient was to die anyway so that they can be in Heaven with him.

 

So if it was God's will all along then why did you even bother trying to fight the cancer in the first place? And if it was God's will that person should die from cancer I guess you can drop the lawsuit now right?

 

With the Internet being widely available now theists and non theists alike are taking to Youtube to preach their particular beliefs. The thing that I keep wondering is why are bible thumping, science hating, Christians making videos and putting them up on Youtube. It was Science after all that allowed the Internet and Youtube phenomenon to happen in the first place. So shouldn't Christians fundamentally oppose technology created by Science and stay off of Youtube and the Internet?

 

Recently there was a story about the Taliban kidnapping aid workers for administering the polio vaccine to children. I got to wondering why is it that the radically religious Muslims oppose modern medicines and cures but they have absolutely no problem with sporting AK-47s, RPGs, cell phones, and other modern weapons and conveniences.

 

Help me out with this one. I'm interested in hearing the communities thoughts on this.

 

Maybe I'm wrong.

[Billy]

Not that I disagree, but why single out christians? Its all religions. 

[NeoEclectic]

Yes, that is why I stated theists and included that bit about Muslims at the very end.

 

Thankfully, theists didn't have their way. Had they had their way we'd still be riding around on horses chucking spears at each other. At least that's what I believe.

 

There wouldn't be things like cancer treatment, Internet, cell phones, fertility therapy, psychiatry, and possibly even free thinking philosophy. Religious zealots would have spent every moment of their lives fighting modernization and science. We've seen it throughout history and still witness examples of this type of ignorance in modern days.

 

My assertion is that since they don't shun life enhancing advances that are the result of Science then in reality they're not as devout as they pretend, or just simply hypocrites which I feel disproves their belief system.

[Ruben Zandstra]

I just keep on asking the religious people when they show up in my life.

They'll talk all night about how god wants us to think for ourselves and seek medical help, how scientists are inspired by god etc etc.

You'll feel frustrated at how they appear to be immune to logic, science and evidence while checking their smartphones for messages, while presenting you bad pizza from their fricking microwaves.

But it will be heard, and remain to be processed by their unconsciousness long afterwards. It might help in the long run who knows.

[Existing Alternatives]

You seem to assume that all Christians (or other religious folks) are exactly the same – believe the same things, read the same books, etc. This simply isn’t true. On one side of the spectrum there are hermits who live in caves and consume nothing but morning dew, and then there others like George from Seinfeld, who does it only for the hats. The same could be said about atheists – just because one does not believe in God, does not mean they automatically accept everything that modern science has to offer. Just look at the range of advices that Stef received on this board on how to treat cancer.

 

The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather two dimensions of one’s world perception.

[bootoo]

 

The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather two dimensions of one’s world perception.

 

They are mutually exclusive if you are doing them right

[Ruben Zandstra]

 

The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather two dimensions of one’s world perception.

 

This is what I think is called a "deepity": "A statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another".

[Existing Alternatives]

They are mutually exclusive if you are doing them right

 

If by “right” you mean “your way”.

 

For centuries science prospered within realm of religion. To this day a lot of top research universities are affiliated with religious organisations. Many scientists today are religious. On a personal level, science is not applicable to every part of one’s life, leaving enough room for other less rational influences, including religion.

 

So, no, not mutually exclusive.

This is what I think is called a "deepity": "A statement that is apparently profound but actually asserts a triviality on one level and something meaningless on another".

 

Instead of calling my contributions trivial and meaningless, you could try and add something to the discussion.

[bootoo]

If by “right” you mean “your way”.

 

For centuries science prospered within realm of religion. To this day a lot of top research universities are affiliated with religious organisations. Many scientists today are religious. On a personal level, science is not applicable to every part of one’s life, leaving enough room for other less rational influences, including religion.

 

So, no, not mutually exclusive.

 

I am neither a scientist nor religious, so not my way, but i see what you are saying

 

What other poorly written iron age fiction other than religious books would you read to answer question that science cant or hasnt answered yet? 

 

How about modern day fiction? Would it be a good idea to read comic books to find answers that science hasnt gotten around to yet? How about Scientology? 

 

I am much happier with 'i dont know' and draw conclusions from my own experiences rather than filling all the blanks with some other guys imagined reality

[Existing Alternatives]

I am much happier with 'i dont know' and draw conclusions from my own experiences rather than filling all the blanks with some other guys imagined reality

 

Scientology is a perfect example here. Sure it is silly, but a lot of very smart and educated people adhere (?) to it without necessarily using it to answer all their questions or needs.

[NeoEclectic]

You seem to assume that all Christians (or other religious folks) are exactly the same – believe the same things, read the same books, etc. This simply isn’t true. On one side of the spectrum there are hermits who live in caves and consume nothing but morning dew, and then there others like George from Seinfeld, who does it only for the hats. The same could be said about atheists – just because one does not believe in God, does not mean they automatically accept everything that modern science has to offer. Just look at the range of advices that Stef received on this board on how to treat cancer.

 

The point is that religion and science are not mutually exclusive concepts, but rather two dimensions of one’s world perception.

 

Good posts so far it's got me thinking a little but still hard to wrap my brain around.

 

I understand there are distinctions within religions forming sub cults of varying degree of beliefs. But they all still share the core tenet that God is everything and God's will should not be opposed.

 

Again it seems just like with their own religion they cherry pick ideas that are appealing to them even if it's in direct conflict with their own religious ideology.

 

Let's take the some American Amish communities. They oppose technology as a core tenet of their existence yet they still use modern technology to assist them with their daily living. Such as it's illegal to own modern machinery such as tractors, saw mills, power tools, and etc. Yet they are allowed to use these items to enhance their lives and community so long as they don't personally own said technology which is a cop out in my opinion.

 

I watched this special on TV discussing the Amish community. They had tractors, saw mills, power tools, automobiles, the whole nine yards on their property and using them all. But it was okay because they didn't technically "own" any of this stuff. They were simply "borrowing" it.

 

Muslims oppose modern day medicines and cures yet Osama Bin Laden was receiving modern medical treatments for his illnesses.

 

When someone gets sick they go to the hospital. They don't sit around and leave it up to prayer because they KNOW it doesn't work. They know prayer does not work!

 

To me that is a direct contradiction to any religious person's beliefs. They don't want to leave it up to God because they know that there is no God listening that's going to cure them. Or maybe they do believe but know their God is a vengeful and uncaring God which is why he won't go out of his way to cure them. So then why would you want to worship a deity that will just let someone suffer then die?

[Existing Alternatives]

Let's take the some American Amish communities. They oppose technology as a core tenet of their existence yet they still use modern technology to assist them with their daily living. Such as it's illegal to own modern machinery such as tractors, saw mills, power tools, and etc. Yet they are allowed to use these items to enhance their lives and community so long as they don't personally own said technology which is a cop out in my opinion.

 

I watched this special on TV discussing the Amish community. They had tractors, saw mills, power tools, automobiles, the whole nine yards on their property and using them all. But it was okay because they didn't technically "own" any of this stuff. They were simply "borrowing" it.

 

Muslims oppose modern day medicines and cures yet Osama Bin Laden was receiving modern medical treatments for his illnesses.listening that's going to cure them. Or maybe they do believe but know their God is a vengeful and uncaring God which is why he won't go out of his way to cure them. So then why would you want to worship a deity that will just let someone suffer then die?

 

Your examples do sound like hypocrisy. However, I am sure these people have very plausible explanations for it, albeit inconsistent and / or illogical. But then again, can you expect a consistent and logical explanation of things that aren’t logical? I’ve heard Amish explaining how it’s ok “to be moved by a car”, it’s just not ok “to move a car” – go figure. At the same time they do not insist that *you* don’t use technology, so maybe they are less hypocritical and more just plain irrational.

 

 

When someone gets sick they go to the hospital. They don't sit around and leave it up to prayer because they KNOW it doesn't work. They know prayer does not work!

 

To me that is a direct contradiction to any religious person's beliefs. They don't want to leave it up to God because they know that there is no God listening that's going to cure them. Or maybe they do believe but know their God is a vengeful and uncaring God which is why he won't go out of his way to cure them. So then why would you want to worship a deity that will just let someone suffer then die?

 

 

Some people wouldn’t. Stef had an early podcast on Christian Scientists, I believe, who would refuse many medical treatments despite life threatening diseases. At least they are consistent, I guess.

 

 

Ultimately, these examples are not representative of the entire religious population. A lot of scientific discoveries were just that – discoveries, and not creations. Any religious person would make an argument that someone had to create them first, therefore there is no inconsistency from their pov in discovering things.

[powersquash]

When I was a Christian, or at least forced to be one in childhood, I always thought that god worked through science. I suppose this was just my brain trying to make sense of obviously contradictory ideas. I assumed he put into motion the laws of physics and whatnot. Much like a programmer puts in all of the script and let's the program run from that point.

I've never seen that idea used anywhere else so I don't know if many religious people hold those views. That's my perspective on how they can be OK with science

[ReptilianBrain]

I remember taking a course in college called "the history of science and religion" or something like that. We discussed how religions influenced scientific thought and how religious views were changed by science. 

 

Bottom line: religious views are constantly evolving to account for progress in human knowledge. Does that make religious folks hypocrites? Who cares?

[GRosado]

Let's assume that we're all familiar with the popular talking points about how God created everything and none of it needs to be questioned.My feeling is that if Christianity had its way with everything then we would still be in the stone ages technologically. There is very well documented evidence where Christians have attempted to suppress the truth of things that Science had revealed for centuries.So that gets me wondering a few things. It appears that Christians as a whole are anti-Science because every time a breakthrough is made through science it directly challenges the existence of God.So if that is the case then why do Christians openly participate and graciously accept the gifts from scientific discovery and invention?One example that comes to mind are Christian couples that will visit a fertility clinic in order to get pregnant. Shouldn't Christian logic suggest that if you're not able to conceive naturally that it's God's will and you're not supposed to have children? But instead they choose to go against the will of God and look to Science for help?The real kick in the teeth is if they do manage to get pregnant through the help of Science they will end up thanking God but not the doctor's and years of medical research that gave them a baby.Or the Christian cancer patient that goes to the hospital and begs medical Science for an extension on life. Shouldn't they just sit at home and pray instead of hypocritically seeking the help of that thing they despise?And I'm sure if the Christian cancer patient beats their cancer it's all because of God and not the Chemotherapy and radiation treatments they received that was developed from Science. The doctors, nurses, and pharmaceuticals be damned.It was all God; praise Jesus.But if that same Christian cancer patient dies most likely it's because it was the doctor's fault and so now it's time to sue. AND it was God's will that the patient was to die anyway so that they can be in Heaven with him.So if it was God's will all along then why did you even bother trying to fight the cancer in the first place? And if it was God's will that person should die from cancer I guess you can drop the lawsuit now right?With the Internet being widely available now theists and non theists alike are taking to Youtube to preach their particular beliefs. The thing that I keep wondering is why are bible thumping, science hating, Christians making videos and putting them up on Youtube. It was Science after all that allowed the Internet and Youtube phenomenon to happen in the first place. So shouldn't Christians fundamentally oppose technology created by Science and stay off of Youtube and the Internet?Recently there was a story about the Taliban kidnapping aid workers for administering the polio vaccine to children. I got to wondering why is it that the radically religious Muslims oppose modern medicines and cures but they have absolutely no problem with sporting AK-47s, RPGs, cell phones, and other modern weapons and conveniences.Help me out with this one. I'm interested in hearing the communities thoughts on this.Maybe I'm wrong.

Disclaimer: I am not a Christian or theist but I don't like when people straw man the other side of the spectrum.In a strict sense Technology & Science are different but both are so intertwined that they enable each other to acheive their respective goals. You keep claiming that Christians are the reason innovation has slowed but if you weren't ignorant of history you would realize that it was The Papacy that held back advances which was a government body controlled by Christians who were hardly such simply research the Borgia popes & their successors (maybe Pope Julius). Your over generalizing & demonizing a whole demographic without actually providing the historical facts.The papacy wasn't anti science per se they just viewed scientific advances as challenging their authority over the people's worldview & secular power.Science hasn't completely disproved the possibility of a Deity it has only disproven the Christian concept of a deity. If you want to find some interesting arguments read & watch Dr. Gerald Schroeder an Israeli physicist.I won't disagree with you on that many Christians do flip flop on issues but I feel it is due to the people in charge of their doctrine who manipulate the bible to their benefit. One thing that I criticize Christians & theists for is their strong belief in personal intervention even though it frequently fails.

[P. Mason]

"How do Christians live with Science without being hypocrites"How do atheists live with irrational beliefs about government without being hypocrites?

[Tenko]

No telling how God really feels, but one possible reason why He started us out with no technology is perhaps because as battlestar galactica puts it, "our hearts need time to catch up with our minds". In star trek another example is the prime directive, showing how advanced technology in the hands of savage primitive people is dangerous. In dances with wolves we see native americans firing guns for the first time, in a circle around the victim, shooting mostly each other instead.

 

But regarding people's feelings towards technology or scientific advance, I think it again depends "on our hearts catching up with our minds." An old interpretation of some of the words in the Bible led an institution of power and conquest to adopt its own extra-biblical 'facts' like 'the earth is flat'. And when people challenge their extra-biblical 'facts' they challenge the validity of their institution. At that point the struggle is over a private interpretation of the Bible, when everyone should be deciding own their own interpretation. Yet something tells me the 'parishoners' had little choice about which church to belong to. Major problems existed there to begin with, burning scientists was just one side effect of things more sinister.

 

The Bible uses metaphor and parables to teach us many things. If we settle for the most simple interpretation possible in all places, we end up with a very unlikely story instead of a moral lesson or a fact. There are many real events in the Bible as well, and those can be interpreted accordingly, as everyone interprets the words as they will. For example, moses leading slaves to freedom, God etching commandments into stone, and Jesus dying on the cross are examples of real events and are not parables, yet may still contain descriptive metaphor.

 

Now, would these same medeival priests burn a scientist who knew how to build, say, an energy weapon like a laser? If that scientist wasn't planning on arming the crusaders, I would imagine so. But if that scientist was willing to help the church attain more power, I think that scientist would go from heretic sorcerer to "warrior of God" very quickly. For if there was something better to use for conquering than a rock, they used it [a sword]. And if there was something better to use for conquering than a sword, they would have used it [a laser]. But that's yesterday. Tomorrow, if there's something better for conquering than a laser, people will use it [nukes].

 

I think the lack of invention during those times was less due to religious restriction and more due to the lack of incentive. Why go above and beyond what other people do to invent something when everything that is reaped from that invention profits only the people in power, and not the laborers who produce the product? I think that if the medeival serfs could be fed cheaper using better farm technology, a cost analysis would have prompted that change, but only because it benefited the slavedriving class (surplus food to sell, or surplus manpower). Probably why they used horses and plows instead of fingers and nails. But it's still amazing how slowly technology progressed until a fraction of actual freedom became available to mankind. That suggests that the serfs were not inclined/able to invent, but also that the slavedrivers were quite content with toiling as it was, or perhaps were too busy planning to conquer other kingdoms for a quick enrichment at the cost of others instead of a slow enrichment under their own labor. If there are 2 thieves and 20 workers in a room, the next day there will be 3 thieves and 19 workers, etc, and by the end there will be no more production at all, just people fighting over what currently exists.

 

Is the Bible against technology in general? I don't believe so. What we make with our hands is a result of our sin or lack of sin. A sinner might feel the need to invent a gun so he can rule an empire with it. A righteous man might feel the need to invent a gun so he can defend his righteous kingdom from an offensive invasion. In one situation, a weapon is being invented. In the other situation, a tool is being invented. Even thought it's the same thing. And if there were no technology in heaven, then would heaven seem a little disappointing compared to earth? Heaven is described as being joyful beyond our current understanding.

[dsayers]

An old interpretation of some of the words in the Bible led an institution of power and conquest

 

This is presumptive. Assuming that religious texts are not what they claim to be, it's far more likely that they were created for the purpose of power and conquest. Not the other way around as you posit. We know this because religions do not change and punish anybody that asks questions that could lead to change.

[Tenko]

I went through my own athiest period followed by a deist period before having Christian revelations and seeing things quite differently. When I was athiestic I also had the same thoughts - that religious texts were written by man for power and remain today to fill those collection baskets. I thought to myself, if someone were to make this up, what kind of carrot and stick would they decide on, eternal bliss and eternal damnation being the most motivating and potentially profitable stories, etc.

 

Looking back in hindsight with my new information, I can see why I had this perception. It's because religion in general is being used for profit and power, all over the earth, and it had turned me away from truly considering the word of God. Islam appears to me to be a conquering religion, mainstream Christianity in America seems to me to be a commercial religion, etc. Rather than looking at the words I listened to the people, rejected the people, and left the buildings. But we can't use the actions of evil people as a 'barometer' for the existence of God. Just because every institution that has been examined is at least partially corrupt doesn't mean that it's impossible for a single man to find God on his own, nor does it mean that the existence of God relies upon a mortar building remaining uncorrupted.

 

If you walked away from those profiteers, I say more power to you. But if there is no building one can possibly enter to seek salvation, can't one still try to find God on their own? Surely prayer with sincerity would lead to fulfillment, and the path would be made visible.

 

KJV Rev 22:18 "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:"

 

KJV Rev 22:19 "And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book."

 

Here, and in many other places, God warns us not to go meddling with His word. There is good reason for this, one obvious reason being that if anyone could alter the true word of God while retaining its divine authorization, then Green Eggs & Ham could become the true word of God. Penthouse could become the true word of God. A blank piece of paper could become the true word of God. The latter would be just as bad as adding/subtracting just one word, and both would render the whole equally devoid of its original meaning and its divine authorization. If the word of God was mutable (contracts are immutable) then it would not be a contract, and it would have no effectiveness at accomplishing its goal. How could it accomplish its original goal if the goal can be changed via alteration to the words?

 

Do you suggest that God has to evolve His word and His covenant to us according to what our culture currently accepts at any given time? Or are we supposed to evolve ourselves into God's plan? Who's been around longer, who has more wisdom, who has seen countless worlds rise and fall, who knows the truth behind the mystery, who knows the path to salvation, you or God? Do you suggest that man should be capable of changing God's word to suit his current whim? What is the point of trying to communicate if every person who carries your message has a canister of white-out and a pen? I think that the opposite of what you suggest would be true - that changing God's word for any reason, including 'to keep up with the times', is anathema to God's plan, if God exists and His plan is written in the Bible.

 

On the other side of the coin, hypothetically assuming that God doesn't exist, it would be more profitable ($$$) for a religion to be able to change its doctrine. A marketing department would be useless if it couldn't come up with new marketing gimicks. If a tire company could never improve its product it would quickly lose its customers and its profit. Don't we see the pope accepting evolution and homosexuality [i'm not saying that's a sin]? The point is that we see religions making changes to themselves all the time in order to keep those pews warm. If morality is absolute and unchangeable everywhere for all time, then why would God change the morality that He teaches in order to enrich the coffers of those who seek these changes specifically for the profit they will bring?

 

If a religious text was created for power and profit, and its practicing institution is raking in a mint from its application, then its gears turn for money only, and once that money dries up its gears must be changed to adapt. Change in religious text is a sign of corruption. Immutability in God's true word is a sign of integrity.

[dsayers]

we can't use the actions of evil people as a 'barometer' for the existence of God

 

You're not even being consistent with yourself. Nobody made this claim and you said this in the context of explaining why religious texts being created to enslave others is improbable. Surely you understand that the existence of God and religion are two different things.

 

If God intervenes, then no belief is necessary as we would have proof. If God does not intervene, then his existence is inconsequential. Religions (including statism) claim something to be true while discouraging any attempt to verify it. In this case, that God intervenes, but nevermind the lack of ability to substantiate this. You can't have both and this contradiction is precisely why I reject your claim that religion (including statism), like government, is a tool and therefor there is room for legitimate use.

[Tenko]

Nobody made this claim

 

This is presumptive. Assuming that religious texts are not what they claim to be, it's far more likely that they were created for the purpose of power and conquest. Not the other way around as you posit. We know this because religions do not change and punish anybody that asks questions that could lead to change.

 

You say that we know religion is likely created for power and profit because religions never change and punish those who call for change. Thus you are implying that the source of religion is not God because religion never changes, and that monotony is the result of evil actions [punishment to enforce monotony]. Thus I say we cannot use the evil actions of others as a 'barometer' for the existence of God.

You're not even being consistent with yourself. Nobody made this claim and you said this in the context of explaining why religious texts being created to enslave others is improbable. Surely you understand that the existence of God and religion are two different things.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. In my posts I've described how I believe many religions were created for profit and power, and how all mainstream religions are currently being used for such. I've never been arguing from the perspective that people don't create religious text or rewrite religious text for their own profit. I've been arguing the opposite.

If God intervenes, then no belief is necessary as we would have proof. If God does not intervene, then his existence is inconsequential. Religions (including statism) claim something to be true while discouraging any attempt to verify it. In this case, that God intervenes, but nevermind the lack of ability to substantiate this. You can't have both and this contradiction is precisely why I reject your claim that religion (including statism), like government, is a tool and therefor there is room for legitimate use.

 

Well point blank, God intervenes. As far as I understand, God places us here and watches what we do, reacting to those things with a hand that is definitely measurable. The question is, what are you looking for? One could be looking to measure something that is by nature immeasurable, thus disregarding the measurement process entirely as a failure before it even begins. Or one could be looking entirely for things that occur as a mechanism of the universe [its a creation, right?]. If the measurement one takes falls entirely within the boundaries of their normal scientific activity, understanding of reality, etc, then how can one discern between natural and guided phenomena? Even this decision requires some artistic license, or some interpretation, or some amount of faith, or some kind of new protocols.

 

For example:

KJV Rev 8:7 "The first angel sounded, and there followed hail and fire mingled with blood, and they were cast upon the earth: and the third part of trees was burnt up, and all green grass was burnt up."

Now look up Morgellan's Disease and crossreference that with Chemtrails.

 

Did God give us every little detail of what is in the chemtrails? No. But we have enough to go on that an easy interpretation becomes: hail = metallic salts, fire = nanotech DNA which is also mixed with synthetic red blood cells. The chemtrails are also killing trees and grass worldwide. Now admittedly, this is not a videotape recording sent from the future through a timeportal for us to watch events unfold and consider their truth while we hold our pinkies up sipping tea. But despite its lack of resolution, it's spot-on accurate with the detail that it does contain. And the whole point is that, should the Bible be what it claims to be, then we have evidence of God's prophetic power which itself is indiscernable from measurements of nature [God wrote it by employing human hands, etc].

 

If all of this is really true, if we're all living in the end times, then to borrow pascal's wager, you know the rest. Pascal's wager isn't proof, I know.

 

Now, if you reject the existence of God based on the assumption that God could only be immeasureable...

...and then reject the existence of God based on the assumption that measurements of God and nature are indiscernable...

...then you have created a situation whereby a boolean value being true proves X, and being false also proves X. And you have gone awry somewhere if this is the case.