So I elected to work my way through On Guard in order.  I’m skipping the first chapter, which is just an introduction to apologetics and not really worth my time.

As a side note, I’m writing quotes from the book by hand, as there doesn’t appear to be any digital format of the book available (perhaps to prevent exactly what I’m doing.  Who knows?), so if I make mistakes in my quotations, I apologize and will endeavor to correct them where I find them.

And hang in there, because this is really long.  The headings all correspond to the subheadings in the book, in case you were wondering.

What Difference Does it Make if God Exists?

Craig opens the second chapter, titled ‘What Difference Does it Make if God Exists?’, with an anecdote from the former Soviet Union.  He was speaking with Andrei Grib about the nature of the Russian people’s return to religion after the fall of the U.S.S.R.  According to Craig, Grib responded:

“Well, in mathematics we have something called ‘proof by the opposite.’  You can prove something to be true by showing its opposite is false.  For seventy years we have tried Marxist atheism in this country, and it didn’t work.  So everybody figured the opposite must be true!”
-p. 29

A paragraph or so later, Craig states:

Professor Grib’s “proof by the opposite” is also know as reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity).  This label is especially appropriate when it comes to atheism.
-pp 29-30

First of all, no it isn’t.  Grib outlined a nearly textbook example of a false dichotomy.  Since Marxism failed them, many Russians assumed that the Orthodox Church must be the correct choice.  But the correct choice could just as easily be Buddhism, sun-worship or secular humanism.  Secondly, reductio ad absurdum does not apply to atheism.  It applies to what William Lane Craig is about to attempt is his attack against atheism.  What Craig actually goes on to do is attack nihilism, specifically Sartre and Camus: without God, life is absurd!:

Now when I use the word God in this context, I mean an all-powerful, perfectly good Creator of the world who offers us eternal life.  If such a God does not exist, then life is absurd.  That is to say, life has no ultimate meaning, value, or purpose.

These three notions–meaning, value, and purpose–though closely related, are distinct.  Meaning has to do with significance, why something matters.  Value has to do with good and evil, right and wrong.  Purpose has to do with a goal, a reason for something.
-p. 30

I actually partly agree with Craig here.  Life, in general has no ultimate meaning or purpose.  The Universe is wholly indifferent to our struggles, even our presence.  But Craig is outright wrong to say that life has no value.  Craig is confusing ‘value’ with ‘values’.  Life does have value.  Like everything else, it has value because it is rare.  To our knowledge, it exists solely on a tiny planet orbiting a backwoods star in an unremarkable spiral galaxy.  What Craig is talking about is values, specifically his Christian ones, which are, yes, rendered totally void by the fact that, in all probability, there is no such thing as a god.

Moreover, while life, on the whole, cannot be said to have meaning or purpose, much like rhythm cannot be said to have meaning or purpose (though it, too, has value by virtue of its scarcity), specific lives can and do have purpose.  We give our own lives whatever purpose and meaning we wish.  I, for instance, in applying to law schools, am hoping to use my life to advance the idea of the rule of law (which is greatly in need of defending these days), equality and human rights.  I have a purpose even if life on the whole does not.

If God does not exist, our lives are ultimately meaningless, valueless, and purposeless despite how desperately we cling to the illusion to the contrary.
-p. 30

Yes, I confess!  The Universe is indeed wholly indifferent to us.  One need only point out that our star will eventually die, enveloping this small planet in an unimaginable ball of fire and that our galaxy is on a collision course with its neighbor to see quite plainly that the Universe doesn’t give a rat’s ass about us and it never will.  I also agree that Craig is desperately clinging to an illusion, though I suspect that’s not what he meant.

The Absurdity of Life without God

If God does not exist, then both man and the universe are inevitably doomed to death.  Man, like all biological organisms, must die. …  This thought is staggering and threatening: to think that the person I call “myself” will cease to exist, that I will be no more!
-p. 31

Yep.  Deal with it.  The rest of us are.

We all learn to live with the inevitable.  But the child’s insight remains true.  As Sartre observed, several hours or several years make no difference once you have lost eternity.
-p. 31

In fact, the opposite is true.  A very wise man once wrote that “If nothing we do matters, then the only thing that matters is what we do.”  If no gods are sitting in judgment than the only things that matter are how we treat the lives around us and what we make of our own.

(That was Joss Whedon, by the way.)

On the eventual heat-death of the Universe:

This is not science fiction:  This is really going to happen, unless God intervenes.  Not only is the life of each individual person doomed; the entire human race and the whole edifice and accomplishment of human civilization is doomed.  Like prisoners condemned to death, we await our unavoidable execution.  There is no escape.  There is no hope.
-p. 31

Misused colons aside, my only response is, “Deal with it!”  We have proven ourselves capable of many things.  I am confident that in the epochs yet to come before the sun explodes; before our galaxy and Andromeda annihilate each other; before, even, the Universe dies of heat death, we may find a way around.  Who is to say we could not eventually find a means to move from this universe to another?  Or create our own to our specifications?  In fact, I think there’s an intriguing story to be told in a race that lives on by again and again creating new universes.  Hmm.

If each individual person passes out of existence when he dies, then what ultimate meaning can be given to his life?  Does it really matter in the end whether he ever existed at all?  Sure, his life may be important relative to certain other events, but what’s the ultimate significance of any of those events?
-p. 32

Craig never bothers to lay down what it is he means by ‘ultimate’ but from the context I gather he means something similar to when he (in a later chapter) refers to objective values.  He wants a significance from a point of view completely without bias.  So yes, from the point of view of the Universe, no human event or life has any significance.  And really, should it?  When you compare it to events like the Big Bang, the formation of stars and galaxies colliding, does my individual life really deserve to rank anywhere even close?  I can honestly say that I don’t think it should.

It does, however, make every difference what we do with our lives to the people around us and those who will come after.  It is only when thinking in terms of society and human beings that we can make our lives significant.  This is no flaw or tragedy.  It is the honest truth.  And the fact that we are capable of recognizing the fragility of life that our lives are worthy of moral deliberation.

Ultimately, Craig’s view, “This is the horror of modern man: Because he ends in nothing, he is nothing,” is his subjective point of view, and a highly flawed one at that.  It is basically an endorsement of the ends justifying the means.  If it ends in nothing then everything is nothing.

If life ends at the grave, then it makes no ultimate difference whether you live as a Stalin or as a Mother Teresa.  Since your destiny is unrelated to your behavior, you may as well just live as you please.
-p. 33

So, basically, from William Lane Graig’s point of view, if there is no higher power to hold him accountable for his actions, then he has no real reason to consider the interests of others.  He is the only person that matters to him.  I don’t think he meant to, but the point he just made is that whether or not God exists, all William Lane Craig is concerned with (indeed, all any Christian, in Craig’s view, should be concerned with) is he himself.  If there is no god, then he will do whatever makes himself feel good.  If there is a god, then he will act as that deity commands in hopes of feeling good as a reward.  Ultimately, he cares nothing for other people’s well-being.  Ass.

And destiny is simply what we intend to make of ourselves.  What we hope to accomplish.  Our destinies stem directly from our behavior.  Craig, I guess, is suggesting that, if there is a god, then our destinies exist independent from our actions.  That is the case in which what we do is of no consequence, because the end has been preordained by a superior power.

Here Craig quotes Richard Wurmbrand, a paster in the Soviet Union tortured for his beliefs.  I won’t copy the quote here.  Suffice to say that Wurmbrand’s ordeal at the hands of the Soviets was horrendous and excruciating and I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of his account.  I raise only three points: 1) Wurmbrand is a theist tortured by non-theist captors (though the Soviet Union, especially under Stalin, was really a cult of personality.  Stalin, for all intents and purposes, was on the level of a god, so take their non-belief for what it is); 2) his experience may or may not be a representative sample; and 3) this has more to do with the inherent flaws in the Russian application of Marxism than it does with lack of belief in a deity.

Given the finality of death, it really does not matter how you live.  So what do you say to someone who concludes that we may as well just live as we please, out of pure self-interest?
-p. 34

Given the finality of death, it really does matter how you live.  My conscience and my duty to society and my species dictate that I live in a way that fosters growth over decline.

We all know situations in which self-interest runs smack in the face of morality.
-p. 34

Sure, incredibly short-sighted self-interest.  Consider Israel.  The United States bends over backwards to support the state of Israel.  Not because this furthers United States’ interests and not because they deserve it, but because doing so ensures that politicians who support those policies keep their jobs.  That is a perfect example of short-sighted self-interest preventing people from doing the right thing.

Moreover, if you’re sufficiently powerful, like a Ferdinand Marcos or a Papa Doc Duvalier or even Donald Trump, then you can pretty much ignore the dictates of conscience and safely live in self-indulgence.
-p. 34

Or like Pope Pius XII or Ted Haggard or Jim Bakker.  Hmm.  It would seem you can find hideous characters on either side of the argument.  Interesting.

But the problem becomes even worse.  For, regardless of immortality, if there is no God, then there is no objective standard of right and wrong.
-p. 34

Not true.

After all, on the atheistic view, there’s nothing special about human beings.
-p. 35

Richard Dawkins’ assessment of human worth may be depressing, but why, given atheism, is he mistaken when he says, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference…. We are machines for propagating DNA…. It is every living object’s sole reason for being”?
-p. 35

Dawkins is correct.  And, as usual, makes his point in the starkest of terms.  But it is from this factually accurate statement that morality springs.  All life, by virtue of it being so rare and so fragile, is valuable.  We humans are special only in that we have the capacity to make ourselves subject to reason and therefore to concerns of morality.  What is ‘good’ is an action that helps aid the propagation of our genetic material.

Before someone accuses me of endorsing rape, which the more simple-minded reader might be inclined to do, I want to point out that rape doesn’t help humanity grow.  It can help a single individual propagate their DNA.  I say ‘may’ here because women have been known to go to great lengths to prevent bearing their rapist’s offspring.  Those that choose to carry the pregnancy to term still carry heavy emotional burdens as a result of the assault that prevent them from parenting their child as well as they might have otherwise.

In a world without God, who’s to say whose values are right and wrong?  There can be no objective right and wrong, only our culturally and personally relative, subjective judgments.  Think of what that means!  it means it’s impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil.  Nor can you praise generosity, self-sacrifice, and love as good.  To kill someone or to love someone is morally equivalent.  For in a universe without God, good and evil do not exist–there is only the bare, valueless fact of existence, and there is no one to say you are right and I am wrong.
-p. 35

I’m here.  I can say that.  I’m right.  You’re wrong.  So easy.

Just like scientific theories, moral theories have been continually improved, getting closer and closer to what can only be considered an objective morality.  War, oppression and crime (or most crime, at any rate.  I have yet to see a rational argument that says smoking pot is inherently as harmful as smoking or drinking alcohol) hinder the growth of individuals, communities, and at times the species as a whole.  Conversely, generosity, self-sacrifice (if no other option is available and it is done in pursuit of moral ends) and love all help foster growth at every level of society.  So suck it.

And what of man?  Is there no purpose at all for the human race?  Or will it simply peter out someday, lost in the oblivion of an indifferent universe?
-pp. 35-36

Faster, if you get your way, William.  Trust me.

When as a non-Christian I first read Wells’ book [the Time Machine], I thought, No, no!  It can’t end that way! But if there is no God, it will end that way, like it or not.  This is reality in a universe without God:  There is no hope; there is no purpose.
-p. 36

Except that we clearly are capable of leaving our planet and our solar system for younger stars and suitable planets.  We will have to one day, yes.  We will have no other choice.  Either because we have used up our Earth or because the Sun will die.  Get used to it.  What is impressive is that the death of our star does not have to mean the death of our species.  That is a staggering fact.  And it had nothing to do with religion.  Take away the Enlightenment and secularization in Western Europe and United States during the 19th and 20th Centuries and humanity would be truly doomed.

If there is no God, then your life is not qualitatively different from that of an animal.
-p. 36

We are animals, so my life is no different from that of an animal since it, in fact, is exactly the life of an animal.

After quoting from Ecclesiastes at length:

If life ends at the grave, then we have no ultimate purpose for living.
-p. 37

Only if you have conscience; no concerns for the lives of others.  Propagation of the species, remember?

So if God does not exist, that means that man and the universe exist to no purpose–since the end of everything is death–and that they came to be for no purpose, since they are only blind products of chance.  In short, life is utterly without reason.
-p. 37

We have in each of our lives whatever purpose we give ourselves.  Seriously, Billy, stop your constant appeals to an imaginary father figure to help guide you.  We have the ability to reason.  We use it or we die.  Consider for a moment, the converse: If the Christian God exists, then 1) we will never rely on ourselves, 2) we will live out our lives and, really, the entire span of human existence under constant fear of punishment for eternity for having bad thoughts, eating the wrong food, wearing the wrong clothing, speaking back to our parents, being jealous…., and 3) why bother making an effort at it at all if God already knows everything and has predetermined the outcome for every one of us?  Are you an abject failure?  Oh well.  God works in mysterious ways.

Living in Denial & The Practical Impossibility of Atheism

Craig spends a few pages arguing that atheists live an inherently self-contradictory lifestyle.

Camus said that we should honestly recognize life’s absurdity and then live in love for one another.
-p. 39

Frankly, I think that sounds nice.  If only the teachings of Christ weren’t diametrically opposed to that ideal.

The fundamental problem with this solution, however, is that it’s impossible to live consistently and happily within the framework of such a worldview.  if you live consistently, you will not be happy; if you live happily, it is only because you are not consistent.
-p. 39

That is quite a statement and Craig expends a considerable amount of energy trying to back it up.  What he accomplishes is a sort of half-assed refutation of nihilism which isn’t the same thing.  I’m an atheist and I could honestly not give a rat’s ass what Sartre, Nietzsche or Camus think about anything.

Meaning of Life

We saw that without God, life has no meaning.  Yet philosophers continue to live as though life does have meaning.  For example, Sartre argued that one may create meaning for his life by freely choosing to follow a certain course of action.  Sartre himself chose Marxism.

Now this is totally inconsistent.  It is inconsistent to say life is objectively absurd and then to say you may create meaning for your life.
-p. 40

Well, we’ve already thrown out your initial premise, but let me reiterate: Life, broadly, as in “the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones,” has no meaning, aside from as a word with that dictionary definition.  Individual lives, on the other hand, can be and often are quite meaningful.  This is in no way inconsistent.  I have a question for little Billy, here:  What is the ultimate meaning of life if there is a God?  I’m dying to know what you think.  And why does it matter that Sartre was a Marxist?

Sartre’s program is actually an exercise in self-delusion.  For the Universe doesn’t really acquire a meaning just because I happen to give it one.
-pp. 40-41

Of course.  Leave it to a Christian apologist to confuse himself with all of life and even the Universe in its entirety.  He’s got that whole meek and humble thing down!

The point is this: If God does not exist, then life is objectively meaningless; but man cannot live consistently and happily knowing that life is meaningless; so in order to be happy he pretends life has meaning.  But this is, of course, entirely inconsistent–for without God, man and the universe are without any real significance.
-p. 41

I do not pretend that all life has meaning.  I imbue my own life with meaning by virtue of the choices I make and the causes I try to advance.  And, by the way, nothing can be considered ’significant’ without there being someone to make such judgments.  The whole concept of significance is predicated on the idea of subjectivity.  So yes, without a god, life and the universe have no “real significance”.  They simple are.

Craig fails completely to demonstrate even that nihilism is internally inconsistent and certainly never even comes close on the broader subject of atheism.  Even if he had thoroughly debunked Sartre’s contentions, it would not matter one whit to me, since I live by my own philosophy, arrived at independently of any one philosophical idea that came before.  Craig does not have that freedom.  If the philosophy outlined in the Bible (if we really want to call it that, since it contains nothing even close to an internally consistent framework) the whole thing collapses.

Value of Life

Craig’s problem in dealing with life’s meaning is exactly the same as the problem he creates when dealing with values.  Despite the section heading “Value of Life,” what he really means is the “Moral Values of Life.”  The value of life is a result of life being precious; life is scarce and therefore has great worth.  That’s not what Craig is talking about.  (See the photograph above.)

In his discussion of ‘objective’ or ‘ultimate’ or ‘real’ morality, Craig continuously fails to distinguish between universal moral values and personal ones:

First of all, atheistic humanists are totally inconsistent in affirming the traditional values of love and brotherhood.  Camus has been rightly criticized for inconsistently holding both to the absurdity of life and the ethics of human love and brotherhood.  The view that there are no values is logically incompatible with affirming the values of love and brotherhood.  Bertrand Russell, too, was inconsistent.  For though he was an atheist, he was an outspoken social critic, denouncing war and restrictions on sexual freedom.  Russell admitted that he could not live as though ethical values were simply a matter of personal taste, and that he therefore found his own views “incredible.”  “I do not know the solution,” he confessed.

The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist.
-p. 41

For what it’s worth, I disagree with Russel and Camus in that I believe that there are, in fact, moral truths to be arrived at though the application of reason.  (Before I get lumped in with the Rand-ites, let me say that I do not think we have arrived at them yet and I freely admit that while we will continue to inch closer and closer to them, we may never be truly aware of objective morality.)

These philosophers believed that there is no true morality at work in the Universe, but that certain values were worthy of being maintained because they provided clear benefits for those who applied them in their day-to-day lives.

It’s important to make note of the fact that, on both the values question and the meaning question, Craig makes no attempt to prove that objective values and morals cannot exist without a God.  He simply states this as fact.  I believe that there are objective moral truths, and I can at least begin the work of backing that up:

Life as we have defined it includes 1) any ordered entity 2) which takes in energy and transforms it to do work, 3) such as growth, development, and healing, 4) in order to reproduce and 5) adapt and change in response to the environment and other stimuli.  Life is reasonably rare throughout the universe (though not necessarily vanishingly so) and is the only vehicle for intelligence of which we are aware.  For these two reasons, life is worth preserving.  Therefore, actions which foster the growth of life in general should be considered moral.  Acts that cause life to decline or to perish are immoral.

There.  It’s not perfect, but I think that is a reasonable place from which to begin a search for objective moral truths.  Mr. Craig: Why am I wrong?  How is your God, or any other supernatural being, necessary for that task?

He digresses for a bit into an anecdote from Auschwitz and how Dr. Mengele was a sadistic little fuck with no concern for the value of human life.

My heart was torn by these stories.  One rabbi who survived the camp summed it up well when he said that at Auschwitz it was as though there existed a world in which all the Ten Commandments were reversed.  Mankind had never seen such a hell.

And yet, if God does not exist, then in a sense, our world is Auschwitz:  There is no right and wrong; all things are permitted.
-p. 43

Wow.  Really, wow.  So is Craig saying that without God as sole arbiter of right and wrong, he himself might be so inclined as to follow in Mengele’s footsteps?

If Sartre and Russell (and Dawkins, to whom Craig later points, saying he “vigorously condemns such actions as the harassment and abuse of homosexuals, religious indoctrination of children, the Incan practice of human sacrifice [never mind that the Bible is full of that, too] and prizing cultural diversity over the interests of Amish children.”) have had trouble reconciling their belief that there are no objective moral truths in the Universe with their “desire to affirm the value of human persons,” then that is their problem, not mine.  I have made no such claim.  Frankly, I would be hard-pressed to find an atheist so short-sighted as to truly believe what Craig has created here.  By erasing the distinction between personal meaning and values and universal ones, he tries to make the whole thing appear unsound.

Purpose of Life

He next spends a couple pages making the exact same mistake with life’s purpose.  We can take it for granted that there can be no objective purpose or significance to life because these concepts require relative judgments.  An objective purpose of the self would be a complete contradiction in terms.

Toward the end of the ‘purpose’ blather, Craig asks, “why, given atheism, should the pursuit of science be any different from slouching about doing nothing?”  The answer is simple:  Greater scientific understanding fosters growth and helps to alleviate death, disease and decline.

The Human Predicament

The dilemma of modern man is thus truly terrible.  That atheistic worldview is insufficient to maintain a happy and consistent life.
-p. 45

No, it’s not.

Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose.
-p. 45

Yes, we can.

If we try to live consistently within the atheistic worldview, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy.
-p. 45

No, we won’t.

In instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving lie our worldview.
-p. 45

No, it isn’t.

My Story

Finally, Craig decides we all want know how he “came to Christ.”  He describes much of his teenage years:

I began to grow very bitter toward the institutional church and the people in it.

In time this attitude spread toward other people.  Nobody is genuine, I thought.  They are all just a bunch of phonies, holding up a plastic mask to the world, while the real person is cowering down inside, afraid to come out and be real.
-p. 47

I think Craig read way too much Salinger as a kid.  Or misread way too much Salinger.

And yet, in moments of introspection and honesty, I knew deep down inside that I really did want to love and be loved by others.  I realized in that moment that I was just as much a phony as they were.
-p. 47

Yeah, that comes from the biological need to procreate.  Check out Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, you  ass.

One day when I was feeling particularly crummy, I walked into my high school German class and sat down behind a girl who was one of those types who is always so happy it just makes you sick!  So I tapped her on the shoulder, and she turned around, and I growled, “Sandy, what are you always so happy about, anyway?”

“Well, Bill,” she said, “it’s because I’m saved!”

I was stunned.  I had never heard language like this before.

“You’re what?” I demanded.  [Tiiinnnn roof!  Rusted!]

“I know Jesus Christ as my personal savior,” she explained.

“I go to church,” I said lamely.

“That’s not enough, Bill,” she said.  “You’ve got to have Him really living in your heart.”

That was the limit.  “What would he want to do a thing like that for?” I demanded.

“Because he loves you, Bill.”

That hit me like a ton of bricks.  Here I was, so filled with anger and hate, and she said there was someone who really loved me.
-pp. 47-48

Oh, happy day, Billy.  A couple questions.  First, please tell me that you managed to get laid somehow from going through this, because that’s really all you needed.  Second, where in the hell had you been living that this was all totally foreign to you?  Was it in the United States?  Because you Evangelical nutjobs are all over the goddamned place.  Believe me.  So all that time all you needed to hear to set everything right was that some guy who never met you and lived two thousand years ago (assuming…) loved you anyway?  And you weren’t able to fix that problem somehow on your own?  Oh, but this girl in German class made everything right.  How weak-willed are you?  Seriously.

I remember I rushed outdoors–it was a clear Midwestern summer night, and you could see the Milky Way stretched from horizon to horizon.  As I looked up at the stars, I thought, God!  I’ve come to know God!
-pp. 48-49

Wow.  Sit back and bask in the irony.

That moment changed my whole life.  I had thought enough about this message during those six months to realize that if it were really the truth–really the truth–then I could do nothing less than spend my entire life spreading this wonderful message among mankind.
-p. 49

That’s a really big ‘if’ in there, Billy.

For many Christians, the main difference they find in coming to know Christ is the love or the joy or the peace it brings.
-p. 49

Craig, what do you say to all the Muslims who are brought peace and joy and love by the Koran?  Is their’s somehow less than yours?  And if so, how can you possibly know that?

The Success of Biblical Christianity

He makes a number of crazy-ass statements in wrapping up:

Biblical Christianity thus challenges the worldview of modern man.  For according to the Christian worldview, God does exist, and life does not end at the grave.  Biblical Christianity therefore provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life: God and immortality.
-p. 49

Just for clarification, so do:

• Buddhism
• Islam
• Judaism
• Hinduism
• countless others

If God does not exist, then life is futile.
-p. 49

No, it’s not.  And, what’s more, you have completely failed in your effort to back up that claim.

…it makes a huge difference whether God exists.
-p. 50

I actually agree with that statement, though I see no need for italics.

As Pascal said, we have nothing to lose and infinity to gain.
-p. 50

Oh my god.  In this day and age, for someone to seriously point to Pascal’s Wager with a straight face…  Tell me which god, Craig?  Which of the literally thousands of gods should we believe in?  And keep in mind that for most of them, if you picked wrong, you’re going to be punished and it will be very unpleasant.  You arrogant ass of a man-child.

Lastly, to his apologetic audience:

By sharing the absurdity of life without God, I only hope to have gotten you to think about these issues, to realize that the question of god’s existence has profound consequences for our lives and that therefore we cannot afford to be indifferent about it.  if we can achieve that much in sharing with an unbeliever, we are well on our way.
-p. 50

…To making me think you are a moron thoughtlessly parroting what you are told without examining the underlying claims you are making.

Well, it took about a full day to go through and read and notate a chapter and then transfer all of that onto the site, so don’t expect these to be a daily occurrence.  I hope was at least enjoyable and perhaps even somehow helpful to anyone reading it.