How Biola Made Her a Presupper!

Welcome back to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host, Eli Ayala. And today I have another guest. I've been doing a lot with guests and I've been putting out a lot of short videos just to kind of make good use out of a lot of the content that I have and that I've been involved with.

And so I hope you guys are enjoying that. But today we have another guest and we have a bunch of interesting guests in the lineup in the near future. And I'll just share that with you guys in just a moment.

But today I have Scarlett Clay with me to talk about her experience at Biola University taking the apologetics program there. But before we get into the details of that, I want to give folks a heads up.

On June 11th, I'm very excited to have Anthony Rogers on to talk about how we could apply presuppositional apologetics to Islam. So one of the things that we hear from folks who are very critical of the presuppositional approach to apologetics is that, yeah, maybe a transcendental argument, that presupp kind of apologetic works great with the atheist, the metaphysical naturalist.

But how do you use that method against someone who believes in a God, who apparently has a grounding for logic and morality and things like that. And of course, the presuppositional apologetic methodology, it is very relevant to that question.

Indeed, Bonson himself, Van Til, spoke about the different ways that you can do this and it can be done. And so I'm very excited to have Anthony Rogers to kind of walk us through that. Also on Monday, if all goes well, I'll be having the one minute apologist on, Bobby Conway.

Perhaps you guys are familiar with his, well, his one minute videos where he does very brief interviews with some noted Christian apologists. And so we may have him on on Monday. I'm just gonna double check in terms of the schedule there.

All right, well, with all of that out of the way, I would like to invite onto the screen with me, Scarlett. How are you doing?

Hi.

Hi, Eli. Thanks for having me on. I'm doing well.

Well, it's a great pleasure to have you on. We were, I didn't tell folks this, but we were having some technical difficulties towards the beginning there, but right there at 8 .59, things just came together, right?

Right on time.

That's awesome.

Well, for folks who may not know who you are, who are you? And then I'm gonna share people, I'm gonna share with people why I have you on. Because it's pretty cool, but go ahead. Who are you?

Yeah, my name is Scarlett Clay. I'm an apologist, blogger, and artist. I'm also a mom. I've been homeschooling. This was my 18th year that we just finished up, so we're longtime homeschoolers. Yeah, I have a lot of different interests.

I especially love art. I love theology. I'm still a student. I've been in seminary now for six straight years and went from Biola, getting my master's, to getting the MDiv at Southern. And so, yeah, when I'm not doing my responsibilities around the house, I'm usually studying for class.

So basically, you're just accruing thousands of dollars in debt?

Yeah.

Thankfully, no, not any debt. Hey, we're Dave Ramsey fans around here.

Okay, very good, very good. Well, it's a pleasure to have you. For folks who don't know, I don't know Scarlett very well, but I've seen her on Facebook. I've interacted and read some of the posts and interactions, and so I kind of was aware of who she was, generally speaking.

But she had written an article that really captured my attention that I, Scarlett's gonna read a portion of it here in just a moment, but it really captured my attention and it deals with the topic that we're gonna be addressing today, and that's the issue of her experience at Biola University and the apologetics program and how that led her to presuppositional apologetics.

So it was interesting because what she covers in that article, I think is something that's so important to apologetics and presuppositional apologetics more specifically. And this is the idea of having God as our foundation.

I mean, it's very simplistic in the way that it sounds. It's not as philosophically fancy if we were to use all of the terminology, but just in a basic sense, having our apologetic and not just our apologetic, all of life grounded on the firm rock of God's word.

And with her mindset going into school and learning apologetics, this basic assumption seemed to be challenged by the way apologetics was being taught. And so what she wrote there, I highly recommend folks take a look at, and perhaps in a moment, she can tell us the website there and could walk people through as to how they might find that.

And then I want her to read a short portion. So Scarlett, why don't you tell folks how they might find that article, your website and things like that.

Yeah, my website is bluepurpleandscarlett .com. And I guess I've had it up for about 11 years, almost 12 years or so. For the first eight or nine, it was just an art blog. But then when I started studying apologetics, it became an art and apologetics blog.

I think that's super creative. That's super creative. And I think someone like Greg Bonson would be very proud. I don't know if you follow David Bonson, his son.

I do.

Well, he's very big in the financial world, right? And every now and then he'll talk about the importance of just doing what you do, whether it's art, whether it's finances, whether it's, to the glory of God, being all in.

And that doing, if you're learning from Greg Bonson and Van Til, the emphasis wasn't only apologetics, but rather it was all of life. And so to live to the fullest as Christ is your foundation in these areas that we don't usually think of, like art, I think that's super cool.

And so I think that's a wonderful, consistent application of a presuppositional way of thinking about things. So I appreciate that.

Yeah, thanks.

All right, well, why don't you, I might as well share the screen actually, because you're just gonna read a portion here, but I want folks to follow along, because I think it's super cool.

Yeah, and if it's okay, I wanted to mention how I came to go ahead and publish it, because I had the article sort of in draft form for a good two years. I'm just sitting there, I'd add to it, edited a bit.

I never could quite bring myself to publish it for a few reasons, but one day I had posted something that was very precept on Facebook, very, very precept. And I don't know if you're familiar with Vishal Mangalwadi, the author of the book that changed your world.

He's a very well-known scholar and theologian and apologist for the Bible. Anyways, so he saw the post and messaged me and said, can we talk by phone? And of course I was like, wow, Mr. Mangalwadi wants to talk to me by phone, because I've been a fan of his for quite some time.

And so we talked, I guess it was that afternoon for a good 45 minutes. And really what he did was affirm what I was saying and say, keep going. And he said, have you written anything about this? And I said, you know, I have, but I just haven't had maybe the courage or the, yeah, the courage to publish it.

And he said, well, I think you should. And if you do, I'll share it. And so that was really great to, the apologetics field can be really intimidating even when you've been through a program like Biola.

And so you hesitate because you know what's gonna come. And so to have that affirmation by him and encouragement by him, that's why I went ahead and I finished it up the day after that and published it.

So I'm very thankful to him. And yeah, so then that's why I love you and others that are trying to get this method out there, because there are a lot of people that I think if they'll just have a little bit more encouragement, right, to follow maybe their conscience or scriptures where they're leading in their own personal Bible study, then yeah, they'll come to some different conclusions.

Yeah, well, that's super cool. And yeah, sometimes we just gotta step out in faith and courage and speak our minds. And I know you are 100 correct. Even for seasoned apologists, the apologetics field can be intimidating, not just externally, because we're interacting with unbelieving intellectuals, but internally, we can be intimidated by others within the fields.

We tend to bite each other's heads off, unfortunately, discussing different methods and theological differences and things like that. So it can get pretty ugly, unfortunately. But before you read that portion, let me kind of preempt it with asking you, so when you enrolled in Biola, what was your expectation?

I mean, you're a believer, you're telling yourself, hey, I wanna learn how to defend the faith. And so you enroll in the apologetics program. And folks who are listening, I highly recommend Biola University, and I'm sure Scarlett would as well.

So this is by no means bashing Biola. There are some great men of God there. Yeah, I was appreciative of the fact that you even mentioned that in your article. But there is this key little thing here that we do need to pay attention to, and I think you hit it right on the nail.

So what was your expectation going into Biola when you enrolled?

Well, I went to Biola and entered the program to study the problem of evil, specifically, because my youngest son had died at age three and a half from a genetic syndrome. And I had a very difficult time with his diagnosis and his death.

In fact, I was able to publish a little bit of that story on Desiring God, if anyone wants to check that out. It's an article called Kicked Out of Church, because I actually got so angry at the Lord for my son's suffering that I stopped going to church and was disfellowshipped from my Reformed Baptist Church.

And the article actually agrees with that decision. So it's not in any way trying to oppose that decision. So when I went to the apologetics program, I was desperate for some answers. I mean, I had been a Christian a long time, and I had been through some hard things already.

You know, my firstborn had had brain cancer as a baby. So I had already been through difficult things, but there was something different about this particular level of suffering that I had a difficult time with.

And so that's why I enrolled, because I was kind of desperate to find some answers and hear what some other people had to say. So I didn't have a lot of experience in apologetics at all. I would say my experience was limited to a few Ravi Zacharias lectures that I had listened to in college.

And really, when I had heard some of his lectures, I didn't know a lot of what he was talking about. You know, I knew it was something profound, but I wasn't quite sure what he was getting at, you know, on every point.

But I didn't have a lot of experience. And so I went kind of, you know, like a blank slate, at least as far as apologetics was concerned.

Sure, sure.

The Problem of Evil and a Search for Answers

Okay, and so what did you begin? I mean, when you went, you obviously were a believer.

Yes.

You obviously love the Lord. What was your mindset and what happened in terms of your experience taking the classes. That began to kind of, things began to kind of, they didn't feel right. And you were beginning to say, hey, you know, I don't know what's going on here, but something kind of seems a little off here.

Why don't you talk a little bit about how that kind of went through your head?

Okay, so well, it happened fairly early on because I noticed in, I think it was, I think it was the first semester where I was taking ethics with Dr. Smith. And he's a wonderful, one of my favorite professors.

He is incredible. I love Dr. Smith, but I noticed on the canvas, you know, we were having to interact with one another. And I noticed the way they were speaking about God was just something I'd never heard.

And, you know, and my background is in English and literature. And so maybe I noticed these things more than the typical person, but I began to notice even the verb forms, like the mood of the verbs was in the subjunctive.

And I would think, well, that's odd because Jesus, you know, when he makes claims about himself, it's in the indicative. There's no doubt. There's no really room for any other option.

Sure.

And it's not expressing probability. And so, but hey, I was the new kid on the block. You know, everyone seemed to know more than me. I was still kind of intimidated at that point. And so I thought this is the way it's done.

Sure.

And so I altered my language and I adopted the vocabulary and the way of speaking. And because I thought that's the way this is done. This is the right way to do this.

Well, why don't you unpack that a little more? What were the ways in which they were speaking about God. That kind of seemed like, okay, why don't you express what you said that they were speaking in the subjunctive?

Is that where you were saying?

Right, so it would be, you know, a lot of if, you know, probably, possibly, plausibly, you know, a lot of this kind of language that didn't seem to line up with a lot of the claims made in the New Testament as I had read them.

Yeah.

You know, and again, I was coming fresh, just, you know, here I am, homeschool mom, bereaved, you know, wanting to try to get some answers. But that's something I noticed really early. And it just, I didn't know what it was.

I couldn't put my finger on what it was. Like I said, I just thought to myself, this is the way this is done. This is the new field. I'm learning all this new vocabulary, and this is part of it.

Sure.

This is the way you speak and the types of phrases you use. And so I did my best to follow along. I adopted it and got good grades.

She's like, I mean, I passed.

I mean, I mean, I disagreed in the end, but I did my work.

Yeah.

And to their credit, you know, the one class of course that, you know, I was most anxious to take was with Dr. Clay Jones, who teaches why God allows evil.

Oh, okay.

At Biola. And that was a pivotal class too, because I actually wound up disagreeing at the end for our final papers, because the class was, you know, the gist of the whole class was a free will defense of sorts with, you know, different strains of arguments.

And, you know, I disagreed in my paper and he was so gracious. And I even sent him an email. I was like, I don't agree with this. And he said, he said, just support your position with scripture. And he was very fair and I was never penalized.

And that wasn't the only class I disagreed in. I mean, I was never penalized for disagreeing as long as I had scriptural support to back it up.

And that's the mark of a good institution and a good teacher. Now that's interesting though, because I too recognize a lot of this language of uncertainty. So that when you come, you know, placing your faith in Jesus Christ, reading the scriptures and seeing how Jesus, I mean, even his audience recognize this is not like any other rabbi.

He speaks with authority.

Yes, exactly. It's like, I am not, you know, it's like, it's almost like, you know, if you were to plug in those subjunctives every time he makes the claim, you can see the error. You know, I am plausibly the way, possibly the truth, probably the life.

No, not at all. Right, there's a, you just don't hear that.

Yeah, there's definitely something that's kind of like, especially when you, when you come to apologetics from kind of that very simple, saving faith at the beginning, and you're immersed in scripture, and then you go into apologetics and you confront all of this language that you're referring to, even for myself, it just doesn't seem to mesh.

I mean, what your, even what your teacher says, if you disagree, support your view with scripture. I wonder if those who use this language of probably the best explanation, these sorts of things, do they support those, that type of phraseology with scripture?

It seems like the language they use to speak of God is inconsistent with what the Bible seems to, how the Bible seems to describe God. So there seems to be an incongruity there. But while I was reading your article, there was a portion of it that really caught my attention that I'd like you to share with folks.

And let me just get it up on the screen here. And I just thought it was very powerful. And I know folks will be blessed by it. Let's see here.

All right. Okay.

There we go. Let me get out of Facebook. When you have that awkward moment and you have like 50 windows open. Yeah, here we go. All right. So it's that portion of there. Folks might not be able to see it, but that's okay.

I mean, they could, I don't know how big their screens are, but let's see here.

You wanted to talk about that awesome artwork right there.

Well, you know what?

I'm gonna go all the way back to the beginning and why don't you share a little bit before you share the quote. This is Scarlet's website, blue, purple, and Scarlet, which by the way, I think is super creative.

And that's your artwork.

You did that yourself, right?

Yeah, over time as I was processing through this, thinking about the article, like I said, I had it in draft form for a long time. Yeah, just thinking about it. And that's how I processed a lot of things is through art.

What does the Hebrew there say?

It says man of water, ish mine.

Ish mine. And a man of water is a reference to something Cornelius Van Til used to talk about, right?

Right, yeah. That's where that came from. So that was heavily on my mind as I was sort of sketching and water coloring in my sketchbook.

Let's try to find that water quote. Actually, that might be fun to read for folks. Van Til was interesting in that he always had these little ditties to make a point. He was really good at that. Here we go.

Let me just read this little quote here and then you could read the portion. I'm excited for folks to hear. Here's what Van Til says about a man made of water. He says, suppose we think of a man made of water in an infinitely extended and bottomless ocean of water.

Desiring to get out of water, he makes a ladder of water. He sets this ladder upon the water and against the water and then attempts to climb out of the water. So hopeless and senseless a picture must be drawn of the natural man's methodology based as it is upon the assumption that time or chance is ultimate.

On his assumption, his own rationality is a product of chance. On his assumption, even the laws of logic which he employs are products of chance. The rationality and purpose that he may be searching for are still bound to be products of chance.

I thought that was super cool.

And here

Yeah, it is.

He was so brilliant.

Yes, yes. And really he's speaking about the foundation that man sets for himself when he removes himself from the authority of God. His reasoning really is reduced to, it's kind of like a man made out of water trying to get out of the water.

Right.

So, well, let's get to that little quote here, right here. I'd like you to read that for folks. I think that's a powerful little segment there. Why don't you go and read it for us?

All right.

It says, shortly before graduation, I discovered a method of defending the Christian faith that presupposed the certainty of God's existence. Presuppositional apologetics. I also discovered a well-known apologist, Dr. Greg Monson, had taught this method.

And in a lecture posted to YouTube, he said, the key to having an ability to answer anyone who asks you a reason for the hope that's within you, the key to being able to confront any challenge to your Christian faith, is found in 2 Corinthians 10, four through five, by bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.

And that was a turning point. And I realized that the thought, we can't be certain God exists, was itself not brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ. It conflicted with the certainty declared in the Bible.

The idea that God is the best explanation for the available evidence was another thought not submitted to Christ's authority. And I began to read more about this apologetic method and soon found that the concerns that presuppositional apologists were addressing were the same ones I had struggled with in my classes at Biola.

Yeah, right there, that is what really got me, is that statement where, you know, we speak about these uncertainties, that thought itself is not submitted to the authority of Christ. Something else is our authority.

Why don't you go into and kind of work out for us, in what sense are we not allowing Christ to be our ultimate authority when we speak of the words of Christ, the truth of what he's saying as probabilities?

The existence of God is probabilities or the best explanation. Why don't you unpack for us how is it that we are not really maintaining the Lordship of Jesus Christ even over our thoughts? How does that work?

Well, I think it does not align with scripture. And I think those claims and that method dies the death of a thousand verses when you start looking into it. You know, we usually go to Luke chapter one, right?

Very beginning of Luke where he's writing to Theophilus and he says that you may have certainty or know for certain, right? The things that you've been taught. And we can go to Hebrews and see the writer of the Hebrews communicates the same thing.

We can look at Paul's writings to the Colossians. My favorite is his letters to the Ephesians chapter 3, 18 and 19, where he says, you know, he's writing to them that they may have the strength to comprehend what is the breadth and length and height and depth and to know the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, right?

And to be filled with all the fullness of God. You see, when I hear that strength to comprehend, this isn't for the weak minded or those that haven't studied enough epistemology or gone to enough philosophy class.

This is like the strength of the power of God. It's the Holy Spirit. And so when he says, you know, the love of Christ, which surpasses knowledge, I believe it was Greg Bonson when he's talking about this particular verse that says, there it is, right?

In Christ, we surpass human probabilities, right? You know, adios, laws of immediate inference, right? We have gone past that. And I think that's a beautiful verse. And there's many others. You see it a lot.

You see it in Job. I love Job 18, or sorry, Job 19, 25, where he says, I know, right? That my redeemer lives, right? And then in the last day, he will stand on the earth. And then, you know, you see him contrast that with the unbelievers, you know, the certainty or confidence of the unbeliever in Job 8.

And so I think you see there where when you don't submit to the authority of Christ, that that's what you have. And he says that, you know, the confidence of the unbeliever, it's like it's cut. And then he says, the confidence is like a spider's web.

And I love that in the Hebrew, it's like, ooh, bait, nyakabish, mibkato, right? It even sounds negative when you say it.

Sounds like you said a bad word, but it's okay. We know you're good to go here, you're fine.

What a shaky foundation, a spider's web, right? That's nothing you would wanna stand on. So first and foremost, I would say that idea, it's not submitted to the Lordship of Christ because it's not submitted to the authority of his word.

The Bible doesn't teach it. It's just not there.

What I find interesting is, and I think what highlights the problem for a lot of, in the apologetic situation as I see it, is the opening words of Greg Bonson's book, Presuppositional Apologetics, State and Defend It, where he actually quotes John Calvin's commentary of 1 Peter 3, verse 15, where he speaks of us, not giving due credit, so to speak, to the wisdom of God.

Instead of relying on the wisdom of God, we move so quickly to adopt kind of the standards and elementary principles of the world. And Calvin's work there in his commentary in 1 Peter 3, verse 15, is not talking about unbelievers.

He's actually talking about believers. Like we move away from it because we don't have the sort of respect for the wisdom of divine, you know, I don't remember the quote exactly. Yeah, I had the, you know, the folks are saying, you know, why does my head look so big when I had the, this screen here.

People were funny. They were like, see, it's male dominant, something said.

But you have to understand,.

I actually set all my stuff up by myself. So I can only reach my camera. So I have to zoom it in so that I can see the focus.

But Emma.

I love that you brought up 1 Peter 3, verse 15. You know, that was the thematic verse for the Biola MACA program. We covered that verse in every class, you know, and we would always stress, you know, the point about always being ready.

Yes.

And always doing it with gentleness and respect. But what about that first part? See, that's what I kept getting hung up on. You know, in your heart, honor Christ as Lord. So if we're doing that, why are we speaking as if we don't?

Yes, yes. I think that's the key right there. There's an incongruity with how we speak of God in church and how we speak about God when we're doing apologetics and speaking with the unbeliever. I think it was, I think it was Saiten Bruggenkate used to always bring this up.

He's like, we'd lift our hands and we'd cry on Sunday, worshiping the God we know exists. And then when we share our faith with unbelievers, what are we doing? We're speaking of God as a hypothetical.

I think that

Right, yeah, I remember him. Yeah, I remember hearing that when I, the first time I watched How to Answer the Fool and yeah, that really hit me too. I was like, yep, that's, that felt like exactly what we were doing.

Yeah.

Well, why do you think people,.

I suppose believers who hear about presuppositional apologetics and some of the claims that we make with respect to all men knowing God and are without excuse, why do you think Christians are hesitant or maybe intimidated or afraid to simply just speak about the unbeliever the way the Bible speaks about the unbeliever as one who has a knowledge of God?

And we tend to be kind of timid to use that language.

Yeah, I think that's a great question. I tend to kind of look at the bigger picture, look at the world we're in, look at our culture. Wow, our world hates certainty.

Yes.

I mean, they don't like that at all. When you claim certainty, you're considered dangerous. Right, you're the kind of person that starts wars.

Yeah.

Right, when you're certain. But certainty is not the problem. The certainty of false beliefs is the problem, right? The certainty of true beliefs and the true living God is not the problem. But yeah, so I think a lot of it could be that our culture is so opposed to anything that says this is absolutely true and this is absolutely false because, hey, we know if the God of the Bible is certain, which he is, and his son is certainly the only way to heaven then we also know there's certainly going to be a day of judgment, okay?

And that's really where I think the certainty points to. And a lot of people don't, they just don't want to be, I guess, clear on that point.

Sure, sure.

I also think folks who are more philosophically inclined, who know the whole debates within epistemology, they'll say, hey, listen, we've tried all of the models that try to get to certainty. It can't be done.

You can't do it. The problem is the only model they're not relying upon is the model that most of the people throughout the history of philosophy are ignoring. And that's the philosophy of standing upon God as that firm foundation and the necessary precondition for intelligibility itself.

And I did an episode with a gentleman and we talked about transcendental arguments and something called the Stroudian objection, where

I'm not familiar with that.

No, no worries. But the point of what the critic of the transcendental argument tried to show that the transcendental argument didn't give us the sort of certainty about the reality of the argument that we're making.

The problem is that the critic of the transcendental argument was criticizing transcendental arguments in general, the sort of transcendental arguments that do not rely upon God, but are presuming autonomy with respect to man's reasoning.

You said something in your article where you said, if you start with, oh man, now I'm gonna forget it. You said something about starting with ourselves or something like that. I don't remember where it was.

But as you, thinking in terms of Bonson and Van Til, they spoke about the disadvantages of speaking, of starting our thinking with ourselves in the sense that we are the ultimate foundation, the ultimate authority.

All right.

And see, and this little piece of artwork behind me is Van Til's circles, right? Done with a little bit of artistic flair.

My head's gonna look big, but I wanna see. Oh, is there a way to move your camera or bring it over? I wanna see what it looks like.

I don't know. And let me see if I can get it. Oh yeah, I can take it out. You know, so it was, of course, he was making the creature creator distinction, but I love looking at this because it reminds me of how we escape that vicious circularity, right?

That we're so often accused of. You know, we're not confined to this level of being right here in the created universe, right? We go out, right? And we refer back to that, which is necessary to explain everything.

And so I, you know, did this so I could remember that.

That would look cool on a t-shirt, just saying.

I'm just saying.

Nobody would know what it meant, but yeah.

You could just put it in a t-shirt and just hashtag that precept.

People will know.

Yeah, but that's helped me think about that a little bit, a little bit more that, you know, human autonomy is a dead end.

Yes, yes. And the history of philosophy has shown that, I think quite clearly. Okay, so I wanna kind of, so you went to Biola, you began to notice that, you know, the way people were speaking about God with terms of uncertainty and things like that.

What did you do? Did you accidentally come across, you know, Greg Bonson and presuppositional apologetics? I mean, how did presuppositionalism come into play while you were at Biola or didn't it? Maybe it happened later on.

Well, yeah, the straw that sort of broke the camel's back was the class, the defense of the resurrection. And I think I mentioned this in the article. That was the class where I felt like I had to make a choice.

I had sort of two paths I was going to go down because in that class, and that's taught by Dr. Sean McDowell, we've read Michael Lacona's, you know, resurrection of Jesus, the historiographical approach.

And that book was challenging for me, you know, in a lot of ways because we had just come from philosophy of religion. And we talked a lot in that class about the fact value split, you know, that the sacred secular split of our tendency to always put values and spiritual things, you know, in the upper story, you know, as Nancy Piercy would say, following Francis Schaeffer, or we cram everything down into the lower story, right?

In the physical and material realm. And what I saw happening as we read that book, it seemed like the very thing we were learning not to do. Because what you do is you set aside the understanding that for the Christian, the word of God is true and authoritative.

You sort of put that upstairs and then you sort of settle downstairs and say, okay, well, we're going to approach this as a historical investigation using only those tools available to the secular historian.

And that to me seemed really exactly what we had just been taught not to do in the other class. And so that's, and of course he also, you know, draws some of Matthew 27, the saints rising out of the graves after the resurrection and to question some of the things that didn't sit well with me.

And I know he's a very distinguished scholar and everything, but yeah, I had some problems with that. So that was really the class when the resurrection was being talked about in those probabilistic terms.

That's when I felt like I had to make a decision. And that's where I kind of got on the internet and started like, okay, you know, well, is there anything else out here? Well, you know, why do I, cause I would even look around like, am I the only one that thinks there's something wrong here?