An Illustration

"Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B* after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?

A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology."

hahaha I think envisioning Mary and Joesph [sic] as the ultimate swingers is awesome. Joe probably liked to watch while God tapped that, he's dirty like that.

It's actually pretty funny when you think about it... God raping Marry [sic].... That's hilarious. Considering how hypocritical so many Christians are.... Really... It's a SIN... and the son of God is born from this SIN... It's fucking hilarious.

If you have read the "About Us" and "About this Blog" tabs above, you know that I have noticed an increase in what I call "proselytising" atheism and an increased anti-theism.  The quotes above are an illustration of the sort of anti-theism I've been encountering.

The first quote is actually quite old.  This "joke" was written by a blogger named Amanda Marcotte, sometime before she was hired on by the John Edwards campaign back in 2007.  (Plan B, by the way, meant ending the pregnancy)

The second two quotes were cut and pasted from facebook comments recently made in response to this article 'God Raped Mary' posters 'Hate Crime.' The person who shared this story condemned the Christians in the story for thinking these posters were a hate crime because, in his view, it was the truth, and went on to promote a facebook group called "God raped Mary, who gave birth to a bastard son."

There are a few reasons why I chose these quotes to illustrate the anti-theism I've been seeing.  One is to show that it's been around a long time (the first quote is 4 or more years old).

Another is because, in so few words, they demonstrate so much about anti-theists.

One of the things demonstrated is the deliberate offensiveness.  They are taking something that Christians view as joyful and loving into something crude, lewd, violent, obscene and even criminal.

I've noted a particular obsession with anti-theists and crude sexuality, deviant sexual behaviour and sexual violence.  No term is too vulgar or vile for them.  In fact, the more offensive, the more vulgar, the more gleeful they are about it. (har har... I just offended a bunch of Christians!  I'm so much smarter than they are! lolz) It denotes a singular immaturity as well as an obsession with sex.  Other examples I won't quote here involve condemning the Catholic church in regards to sexual assaults by priests (which I would normally agree with) by using sexually explicit descriptions of those assaults and blanket statements that condemn all priests as raping pedophiles, implying that these assaults were fully supported by the Catholic church.  It's an interesting thing to note that they automatically associate sexual assault - which can include everything from inappropriate hugging to violent rape - by priests, with gay rape.  That so many do so while explicitly describing gay penetrative sex tells me more about their own minds.  While I would agree with condemning sexual assault by priests, it should be noted that some of these accusations did not involve rape or violence, and some may not actually be true.  In one case I remember reading about, the accuser, a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, was visiting a priest and happened to note the priest was looking at images on his computer that the accuser interpreted as child porn.  He then claimed seeing these images on the priest's computer was damaging to him, because of his own history as a sexual abuse victim.  It should be noted that whatever the pictures were the priest was looking at, there were no charges made against the priest in regards to child porn.  In another case that made the news fairly recently, a woman suddenly remembered, during therapy, sexual assaults she's suffered at the hands of a priest 20 years ago. She had apparently blocked these memories from her mind.  There has been no actual evidence of this priest sexually assaulting anyone, nor any other inappropriate behaviour, either 20 years ago or today.  The problem with repressed memories that come out in therapy is that, far too often, they have turned out to be false memories implanted, sometimes subconsciously, by the therapist.  This is not to excuse actual abuse at the hands of priests, but to point out that sexual assault may not actually be true, and of the ones that are, sexual assault does not always equal penetrative rape, but the anti-theists not only jump to that conclusion, but they do so using terms and descriptions that would be more appropriate for a porn magazine than public forums.

This brings up another curious thing I've noted about the anti-theist attacks on religions in general and Christianity in particular.  For a group that denies even the possibility of the existence of an omnipotent deity, they seem to believe themselves to be remarkably omnipotent.  Not only do they know exactly how all those priests sexually assaulted their victims (in lurid detail), not only to they claim to know what "the church" (meaning everyone who is a member of said church) thinks, what the Pope thinks, how all these people feel at any given time, but they claim to know what people thought and felt thousands of years ago.  Even more remarkable for a group that denies the existence of God, they claim to know what this non-existent God thinks and feels. 

Remarkable, indeed!

A Word on Bias

Before we start getting into the meat and potatoes if this blog, I want to spend a bit of time talking about bias.  Here are a few definitions (from various dictionaries):

bias (noun) - a preference towards a particular subject or thing.

                   - an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially: a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment: prejudice

biased (adj) - tending to yield one outcome more frequently than others in a statistical experiment

                    - having an expected value different from the quantity or parameter estimated.

                

First thing I want to make clear: I am biased.

Second thing I want to make clear: so are you.

We all have biases.  Our upbringing.  Our culture.  Our education.  Our personal experiences.  Our exposures to others.  All of these things affect how we interpret information we are exposed to.

Bias is a pretty normal and natural thing.  Often we are biased without even knowing it, simply because we haven't been exposed to knowledge or experiences that reveal our biases to us. 

In some cases, bias is not only normal, but expected and desirable.  We are all naturally biased towards anything that promotes our personal well being.  Parents tend to be biased towards their children and, since we are responsible for the health, education and safety of our children, that is as it should be.  As business owners or employees we are biased towards our own products or services.  Meanwhile, consumers are biased toward their own needs, rather than the needs of a company.  We tend to favour our own community and cultural traditions, our own language and our own beliefs. 

There are times when we hold negative biases that cross over to prejudice without really understanding that the views we hold are biased in a negative way.  A child who is raised in a racist household has no understanding that the beliefs they hold about certain racial groups are wrong until those views are challenged.  I recall an old neighbour of ours, a Metis, describing something that happened with his then girlfriend (his wife, by the time we knew him).  She was white and had been raised by racist parents.  The first time she visited his family, they had a bowl of mixed nuts on the table, including Brazil nuts.  She asked someone to pass her some "n****r toes."  She meant the Brazil nuts. They were totally shocked, and she had no idea why.  She had never heard them called by any other name, and they had to tell her what they were really called, and why the name for them she'd used was inappropriate. 

Bias tends to cross the line to prejudice and bigotry far too often.  It can happen when people are unaware of their own biases, or refuse to acknowledge them.  It happens when people simply refuse to accept evidence contrary to their personal beliefs, or twist evidence to meet those beliefs.  There is a tendency to correlate our personal beliefs - our biases - with our own self worth.  We hold to our beliefs because we are convinced they are right; because they are superior to the beliefs of others; because they meet some deep seated need within us.  There is also something called "confirmation bias," which is when we have a tendency to seek out and interpret information that confirms our own beliefs while ignoring or lending less weight to information that contradicts them, even to the point of rewriting our own memories. 

All the things that contribute to our biases - the experiences of our lives and the knowledge gained in the process - are valuable and should not be ignored.  The challenge becomes recognising when these experiences are contributing to our biases, and determining whether or not it is helpful (as in, it adds to our intellectual and emotional development as a person) or harmful (when it clouds our ability to accept evidence contrary to our experiences).  Bias towards my children is helpful when it makes me a better parent; unhelpful if it leads to my ignoring or excusing unacceptable behaviour.

Here are a few things that add to my personal biases.

I was raised Polish Catholic.  My husband was raised French Catholic.  I point out the ethnicities because, growing up, I had no idea that some of what I attributed to Catholicism was actually part of my Polish heritage.  It wasn't until I met my future husband's family and learned some of their customs and traditions that I began to realize that other people did things differently, even though they were still Catholic.  Today, I no longer consider myself a Catholic, though I am still (small c ) catholic, in that the word actually means "universal church."  For a variety of reasons I do not take part in any formal religion, but I am a Christian.  Yet I still continue many of the traditions and customs associated with the religion of my upbringing, because I have found value in them.  In the past, I didn't have the knowledge necessary to be able to separate what was cultural from what was doctrine.  Since then, I have learned to recognise the mark of culture in various belief systems - most of the time, at least.  I've learned to separate what people do from what their religion teaches.  In the process I have turned a judgemental eye on my own beliefs, through the lens of my own experiences and the knowledge I have gleaned over the years, and have come to the conclusions that have solidified my views about God and religion.  The more I was able to look at these views with a jaundiced and judgemental eye, the more I was able to recognise that the things that had been driving me away from my core religionous beliefs (and define those beliefs) were about the people, not the beliefs.  Faith and rationality are not in opposition, and I came out of my period of doubts and questioning with a much stronger faith than I would have had if I had never questioned it to begin with. 

Some other areas that contribute to my personal bias include my upbringing on a farm I lovingly describe as being two sticks ahead of the stone age.  It is because of these experiences that I can look at the romanticized notions put forward by environmentalists touting "sustainable living" and call them on their bull puckies.  I've lived the life so many of them say we should all be living, and while it has much to commend it, and I would love to be able to go back to it, it's not the utopia they make it out to be.  Nor is it as sustainable or environmentally sound as they claim, either.

How my parents raised me and my siblings has contributed to my bias.  My parents immigrating from Poland to Canada and being proud of both countries is another contribution.  Their experiences during WWII and the long term effects that had on them effected me, as well.

My many moves across Western Canada, living in both country and city, has contributed.  My being able to travel Canada from coast to coast has played a part.  Being a parent has contributed, as have the various parenting choices we've made over the years.  Our experiences with our health system, either directly (such as my husband's ongoing health problems and my own need for surgery) or indirectly (through various family members, friends and neighbours) has attributed to my bias. 

Knowing I have all these bits and pieces in my life colouring my view on things helps me to step back and examine my reactions to new situations.  It also helps me recognise bias in others that they may not recognise in themselves.  When visiting a new doctor, does my distrust of the medical system stop me from accepting the advice of a medical professional?  Knowing I have that distrust allows me to step back and accept the individual practitioner for what they are.  Doing so allows me to go to my own family doctor with full confidence in his abilities, but I will never go back to the specialist that couldn't get past the size and shape of my body.  He had his own biases against fat people - biases I'm sure he justified in his own mind - that contributed to his inability to treat me as a patient trying to find out why I've had a chronic cough for nearly a decade, rather than a fat woman who's body fat must somehow be contributing to the problem, despite test after test refuting that notion.

As you read the various postings on the subjects of this blog, realize that I write these with the full recognition of my own biases, and with a ruthless eye to preventing them from drawing inaccurate conclusions from the information, rather than what my personal desires would like to draw.  These are my own conclusions (and those of my daughter, as we work on this together) reached through the lens of my personal experiences, research and the level of knowledge I have at this time, with the willingness to accept that I may come across new information that will require me to change my mind.  It is that willingness to change my mind - to overcome my biases when they have been proven to be wrong - that has lead to me changing my mind about a number of things I had simply assumed to be true in the past, without really thinking about why I believed them, or questioning the source of those beliefs.

I hope that, as you read these posts, you will be able to do so while aware of your own biases, and to be able to recognise when those biases are either a help or hindrance in your life journey.   

About this blog

If you've read the About Us page, you've had a hint on what we'll be writing about here. If you haven't yet, click on the tab above and give it a read.



All done?



Cool.



Yes, we're going to be talking about Darwinism and evolution, but this is not going to be a blog about evolution. We'll be talking about science, but it's not going to be a science blog. We'll also be talking about religion (and I firmly place atheism in the religion category), but it's not going to be a religion blog. We'll be discussing cultures, philosophies and traditions, modern and historical.

Mostly, though, this blog is going to be a challenge of what I've come to call proselytizing atheists.

Over the last few years, I've noted a substantial increase in aggressive atheists - or should I say, anti-theist - who are on the attack. At the same time, they are actively trying to convert people to their anti-religious belief. They are increasingly, unapologetically, insulting, mocking and offensive. Even the moderates among them are becoming more acidic.

While the anti-theism is supposedly aimed at all religious beliefs (all of which are dismissed as superstition ignorance), they especially target Christianity and Catholicism. These are their special enemies.

As these virulent attacks became increasingly common and vicious, I began to notice something strange. Whether I was reading comments on a blog post, letters to the editor, or articles and opinion pieces, they had a lot in common. Too much in common. It was like they were quoting from some script. In some ways, it reminded me of Bible thumpers quoting scripture, but I knew nothing about this anti-Bible they were all quoting and paraphrasing.

In the background of this, my daughter was doing her research on evolution, genetics, anatomy, linguistics and more. I was doing my research on the environment and climate. Of course, I was still studying history, archaeology, anthropology, politics and religion. Since I was a child, I have been exploring human history, but my interest was not one of who was famous, what great battles were fought, or when certain things happened. I wanted to know what ordinary people did. What they ate, what they wore, what their home life was like, and so on.

In a world increasingly specialized, I have made a habit of stepping back and looking at the broader picture. What I noted was everything seemed to be woven together; politics, religion, science, culture, tradition, history, geography, climate, economics and more, all made up the threads of a great tapestry. Nothing stood in isolation.

So when the anti-theists began quoting their scripts about the horrors of religion, I knew there was something wrong with their claims. When they made claims about how their own belief system was morally superior, I knew this was inaccurate. I could also see, however, that they weren't lying. They were repeating things they truly believed, with a fundamentalism and dogmatism as strong as any religion they were opposing.

Recently I watched a two part show from Richard Dawkins called The Root of All Evil? There I found the source of so much anti-theist scripture I was seeing quoted.

I began to realize I was looking at a new, fundamentalist religion of the anti-religious. Darwin had been elevated to a sort of messiah. Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens had become prophets (along with a few others). "Science" (at least their interpretation of what science is) became their culture. Darwinian Evolution had become the foundation of their religion.

It was watching Dawkins in "Root" that finally put us over into making this satellite blog. Never before have I see so much aromatic bovine feces in one place. I think I spent most of the time watching with my mouth hanging open in shock at the ignorance and idiocy displayed. Dawkins made the most outrageous statements and twisted things so badly, I could hardly believe anyone would take anything he said seriously.

I was actually surprised to find out the two episodes came out in 2006, as I've seen so many people quoting Dawkins' words as gospel from this show recently, I thought it had to be newer.

For this reason, a lot of what we're going to be writing about here is going to be directly about Dawkins and the show. Partly, it's because we actually own a copy so it's easy for me to go back and forth. Partly because there was so much wrong in there, it would take a novel to point out the individual erroneous claims, misconceptions and just plain ignorance in there. Way too much to use my other blogs to talk about.

A large part of it, however, is because so many people today are quoting Dawkins (and Hitchens) like mindless drones. What he says already fits their atheistic world view, so they don't even bother to question the accuracy or examine the information themselves.

Worse is that Dawkins' teachings, with the authority of "science" and "rationality" behind him, have given people permission to let loose their prejudices, bigotry and hatred for those who hold different beliefs they don't approve of. They blithely ignore the horrors perpetrated by those who follow their beliefs while blaming things on religion that rightly belongs elsewhere. They are re-writing history to suit their notions.

Atheism, riding on Darwinian Evolution and claiming superiority though "science" and "rationality," has increasingly become a belief system of open hatred aimed at pretty much everyone else, but especially towards Christians.

These new, proselytizing atheists have put themselves on an interesting pedestal. Since they claim their own beliefs are based on "rational thinking", "evidence" and "science," this frees them to claim anyone who disagrees with them is, by default, irrational, unscientific or superstitious. Therefore, no one who disagrees with them is worth listening to and, instead, can be mocked and ridiculed. They claim moral superiority, which allows them to attribute all immorality to those who don't believe as they do.

Atheists have given themselves a variety of ways to always be correct. For starters, they reserve for themselves the right to define their opponents beliefs however they see fit. They have given themselves the right to historical revision. They even reserve the right to determine when evidence - hard, testable evidence - is acceptable or not. There are other ways, but they will be discussed in detail elsewhere.

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about this new breed of atheism is their open hatred, bigotry and prejudice, coupled with mockery, insult and offensiveness. They can mock people's beliefs by using terms like sky god, invisible man in the sky, bearded white guy in the sky, and more. They can insult people's intelligence, slander entire groups and make the most outrageous statements that they would never accept where they made by their opponents, but in their minds, it's perfectly justified. It's only hate if the other guy says it. They're not bigoted if it's "the truth" (of course, they get to define what "truth" is). And if they say something that's offensive... well, too bad. Because to this new breed of atheist, offending those who hold different views is not only acceptable, the fact that they are offended at all is just more proof of how right the atheists are. They should just accept that they're wrong, the atheists are right, and STFU.

Well, I won't. I refuse to ignore prejudice and hatred, no matter how convinced the perpetrators are that they are right. If they say something that's false, I will call them on it. If they spout hate, I will call them on it. If they misrepresent the beliefs of others, I will call them on it.

I will not be bullied. I will not be intimidated.

While I have focused mainly on atheists here, I will just as openly call non-atheists on their fallacies as well, but the primary focus will largely be on refuting anti-theist lies and bigotry.

That is what this blog will be about.

About Us

A Personal Evolution

What you are reading now is a satellite of my main blog, Moving On; Thoughts of a Modern Day Heretic, and is being written in partnership with my elder daughter (throughout my blog I refer to my husband as Dh and my daughters as Eldest and Youngest).  Before we go into the meat of what will be discussed on this satellite blog and why, here is a bit of background of the journey that led us to the point. 

On this date, 18 years ago, I was pregnant with Eldest.  It had been 8 years since I left the family farm; I had already moved 7 times (with many more moves to come) and been married for almost 6 years to one of my best friends from high school.  With our first child on the way, I was already as experienced with children, from newborn to preschoolers, as possible without actually having had children myself.  I had no romanticised illusions about parenting.  Being a product of the public school system and having worked in a daycare, most of my parenting views were rather different from how I, myself, had been raised; though I valued much about my own upbringing, it would have been, by today's standards, viewed as dysfunctional and even abusive.  When faced with the notion of parenting my own child, I was confident that I had the skills and knowledge necessary.  I made great effort to educate and prepare myself for the experience as much as I knew how to at the time.

On the Ides of March, after 71 hours of labour and largely iatrogenic hassles, my daughter entered the world.  While my own doctor was fabulous and supportive of us (much to the dismay of the hospital staff), our hospital experience was pretty disastrous.  As soon as I could, I brought my daughter home, physically and psychologically damaged by the experience, not realizing how badly our daughter was affected by the drugs given to me during labour - drugs I had been assured would have no negative affect on her, or I would never have given permission to use them.  As nursing problems escalated, the medical profession failed us again.  It took the help of another mom - the local La Leche League Leader - to find out what was going wrong and help us fix it.  By the time our baby finally had her first proper nursing and a full meal, she was a week old.  When I was finally able to see my own doctor some time later, he was horrified by our treatment, but the damage was already done.  Enough damage, in fact, that I could only nurse one sided.

After the effects of the drugs wore off and my daughter emerged from her stupor, I found myself with a completely unexpected situation.  Not that I was a part-time single parent, as my husband was shipped off to sea or on course over the next few months.  I was prepared for that.  What I wasn't prepared for was a child who was "more."  I had never encountered a child like this before.  I knew no one who had a child like this - which is saying a lot, since I knew families of 10, 15 and even 17 children.  Suddenly, all the things I knew about newborns flew out the window.  The parenting books were useless.  I was flying by the seat of my pants.  In the end, all I had to go on was my own instincts.  What I was "supposed" to do was let her cry it out.  Train her to self-sooth.  Set a schedule, even for nursing.  Make her sleep alone in her crib.  Leave her with a sitter, and so on.  Somehow, I knew that doing these things would make things worse.  Instead, I carried her constantly, often strapped to my body.  She slept with me in my bed.  I nursed on demand.  As everything I thought I knew was turned upside down and shaken, I started to joke that God looked down at me and decided I was just too darn confident and gave me Eldest to teach me some humility. ;-)

Once again, the medical community failed me and it was La Leche League that filled the knowledge gap.  Through them, I discovered something called the High Needs Child, and a whole new world I never knew existed was opened up to me.  As I delved into this alternate universe, my faith in the medical community was irrevocably damaged.  I discovered that, just because someone had a "Dr." in front of their name, that didn't mean they actually knew what they were talking about. 

Like most people, I had a lot of assumptions on how things would go.  This included the notion that I would be sending any children we had to school.  My husband and I had already decided that one of us would be a stay at home parent and, since he was the one on a military contract and I was the one with functioning mammary glands, that meant me.  We still assumed that, in time, our children would go to school and I would return to the work force, part time at first, as they got older.  Very early on, however, I realized that school would not be a good fit for Eldest.  In fact, I was pretty sure it would be disastrous.

The La Leche League Leader (LLLL) that helped us so much in the beginning was a home schooler - something I'd heard of vaguely and already rejected.  On meeting another LLLL that was home schooling, I asked more about it.  Actually, I had only one question.  "Is it legal?"  That was all I needed to know, though my husband needed more convincing.  A bit of research was enough to assure both of us that it was the right choice for our daughter.  By the time Youngest was born (at home, with two midwives attending), it was already decided that she would be home schooled, too.

Though we decided on taking full responsibility for our children's education, we still had a few preconceived notions to overturn.  Despite knowing that school would be a bad fit for Eldest, I still had the idea that school-at-home was how we "had" to do things.  Once again, Eldest helped overturn my notions.  All attempts to enforce learning were dismal failures that did more harm than good.  Before we knew it, we were walking the path of unschooling, otherwise known as child-led learning.  I quickly discovered that, the best way for my daughter to learn was for me to get out of her way.  She began teaching herself to read by age 5 and was reading fluently by age 6.  By 10, her favourite books included encyclopaedias and university textbooks.  In "kindergarten" she was making her own microscope slides and helping her toddler sister view them.  As we moved back and forth between city and country in different provinces, they got to explore Buddhist temple gardens, museums, libraries, oceans, lakes, open fields, busy streets, and more.   They got to visit wildlife sanctuaries and bogs on the West Coast, then slog around in ponds and ditches in my home town.  They got to visit museums and science centres and build rockets.  Inspired by a TV show, they built working model trebuchet and battering rams out of popsicle sticks, masking tape and elastic bands. 

Over the years, I saw my role as providing opportunities for my daughters and exposing them to new ideas and experiences.  After that, it was up to them.  If they were interested, we explored more.  If not, we moved on to other things, possibly going back to them another time.  More importantly, I saw my role as teaching them to love learning, and to see learning as a life-long journey.  Rather than teaching them what they "should" know or following some set idea that they had to learn certain things by certain ages, we explored and learned things together, and they often went far beyond anything I would have thought to expose them to myself, had I taken a more authoritarian role.

More than anything else, we talked.  Science and philosophy, politics and history, religion and culture.  All of these things were explored, not as isolated subjects, but as real-world experiences.  I tried to teach them to question and search; to not make assumptions, and to explore all points of view.  On some topics, I made my own beliefs and thoughts clear, and why I held them, while encouraging them to examine things for themselves before drawing their own conclusions.  As I explored my own interests and shared them, I also tried to encourage my children not to assume that only the "experts" were good enough or smart enough to be the ultimate authority on any subject; that they, themselves, were intelligent and capable enough to question things and work out their own conclusions.

As the children grew older, they took on a more active role in their own education.  They turned to me less and began following the threads of their interests on their own, which has lead to some fascinating pathways. 

Now we come closer to where we are today, and the creation of this satellite blog.

In following her own threads of interest, Eldest began to explore evolution.  Thankfully, she never really approached me on the topic.  All I could have done was talk to her about Darwin, since as far as I knew, evolution and Darwinism were one and the same.  Instead, she used that greatest of resources, the public library system, and explored the topic herself.  Then, as we tend to do, she brought up her findings with me and we talked.

For the first time in my life, I was exposed to the notion that there was more to evolution than Darwin. 

As we had explored the culture of scientific communities, my initial disenchantment with the medical establishment spread to include other sciences as well; everything from climatology to sociology, biology and physics was explored.  What we discovered was that, far from being the bastion of rationality and open minded exploration, the world of science was filled with people every bit as dogmatic and fundamentalist as the most extreme religions; where reputation and status is every bit as important as in the world of business, and that power plays, authoritarianism and manipulation is as rife as in the worst of politics.  

Few scientific fields, however, can compare to Darwinism for such cutthroat demonizing of those who dare question the approved consensus.  We began to see some very disturbing trends, which I'll cover in more detail later.  The tendrils of fundamentalist Darwinism is far reaching, touching on just about every aspect of our lives in ways I never would have imagined.

In this satellite blog, we will be exploring and discussing the things we have found. 

I want to make it clear that we are not trying to convince anybody of anything.  We are not trying to convert people to our way of thinking.  We are not here to argue for or against the topic with anyone.  These are our thoughts and our conclusions, as we follow the data and evidence we encounter.  As I am able, I will include ways for people to join in the discussion (watch for a Feedback tab later), but due to the contentious nature of the subject, comments will not be allowed.  Resource lists and other information will be added to the blog on separate pages as time permits.

I hope you join us on our journey.