 Yeah, an interesting question. I'm a philosopher, so maybe you're expecting me to now, you know, denounce what these people are saying, because they're saying that philosophy doesn't have a whole lot to do with whether we should be atheists or not, which would, of course, make the hiddenness argument completely irrelevant. It's a philosophical argument, not a scientific argument, right? So how should we respond to this attitude? Well, I think most charitably, I'm a Canadian, so you know, I'm naturally inclined to be charitable right at the start, most charitably we might take their view as involving the idea that theism is a fairly detailed and dense claim. It includes, among other things, the idea that God has created and designed the world in a manner that is incompatible with some things that science claims, for example, evolution. So maybe they take theism to entail creationism, the idea, special creationism, the idea that God has specially created in a very short period of time everything that exists in the world. Now, if that's what theism were, as you can see, I'm going to say it's not, but if that's what it were, if that's what we take theism to be, then clearly we're going to say that we have conclusive scientific reasons to deny theism, to be atheists, all right? So we don't need philosophy, right? Because we can see that theism entails claims which science has conclusively falsified. But, okay, here ends my charity. That's not what theism is for anybody who's spent any time seriously thinking about studying issues about belief in God. No, I mean clearly there's some theists to hold that view, but that's a view that includes a whole lot more than just straight theism. You could be a straight theist believing in God, the creator of the universe, being that has all power, all knowledge, all goodness, and love, and you could pack into it all kinds of subtle philosophical content, and a lot of people do. And now you've got a conception of God that clearly requires some kind of philosophical response, some kind of philosophical analysis, first of all, so we can understand what's being claimed, philosophical arguments back and forth to see whether there's any good reason to think that such a being exists. Science might have some role to play, but it wouldn't all by itself be usable as a way of showing that this claim is false. Now, some of the people that are mentioned here, I expect some of these scientists who say that philosophy doesn't have much value, are inclined to say they're not terribly interested in that idea of God, okay? And I think now they show their true colors because I myself am inclined to think that these people, at least on matters of religion, are not thinkers. We shouldn't consider them as thinkers. They are activists. These are people who see how a certain form of religion, that sort of creationist religion I was talking about earlier, you know, special design and so on, and the belief in that sort of religion on the part of many people, especially in parts of North America, Europe too, stands in the way of the progress of science, okay? And these are people who are really, really frustrated at how, for example, belief in evolution doesn't just spread around the world, right? And they would like to make that possible, and so they naturally are inclined to resist this sort of belief. This is what they're interested in, this kind of belief. As activists, they want to get rid of this kind of belief. And of course, to do that, all that you really should need is science. But if we're thinking about theism and we're not just activists, we want to be taken seriously as thinkers on the matter, then immediately we're going to bump into issues about which only philosophy can really illuminate us, potentially. For example, for that more sophisticated idea of God that I was saying somebody might develop, how are you going to refute that using science? What's your best bet? Well, it's going to be something like this, using science, the progress, the great success of science to support the view that I've called naturalism, metaphysical naturalism, okay? To argue that given the success of science, we should be naturalists. Naturalism entails atheism, so we should be atheists. But now notice what you've done. You've started doing philosophy, okay? So it seems to me there's a kind of dilemma here. Either you're people like this, either they're going to be activists or thinkers. You have to decide. It's fine to be activists, you know, I'll jump on that bandwagon. But if they want to be taken seriously as thinkers, immediately, immediately for any discerning person, they're going to have to take philosophy seriously. They're going to have to do philosophy. So that's at least an initial response to this question.