 I think for our purposes here, a crucial approach or a good headway into this discussion is probably essentially anthropological. Who is the person? Who is the human being, the human person? I think we are very sincere and a very deep appreciation of who the human person is, probably without initially even referring to God. But how do we understand the human person? If we're about to talk about the ethics of how well he or she must behave or must not behave, I think a very decent point of departure is, you know, but what's our understanding of the human being? Who is man? Or who is woman? Who is the human person that I regard? And probably trying to formulate that, we can gradually then get into the thing about the type of thing which happened to it, which gets interpreted or presented as evil, not good or less good and all of that. And then also the type of thing which happened to the human person that gets referred to as good or, you know, excellent. So I think that's where I would start. I would start with trying to understand, you know, who we are. And I suppose if we put the question to the audience, we'll probably get a million answers about the human person. But I think that's a point of defile without immediately referring to God. I mean, probably from my point of view, people probably would expect the answer that I probably would have started by, you know, a clear sense of the human person as one creator by God. But I leave that for later. But the initial thing is, what is man? Let us try to understand who man is and then try to then get into the very many manifestations of man and what therefore is good, what is evil, what's not, and all of that. I think this is fascinating. You have the cardinal here speaking from a humanist perspective. And showing the question of a divine initial starting point over here. I'm not a religious person, I should start by saying that. But I like what the cardinal said because he answered your question with another question. And I think what is dangerous in this world is that too often we think we own the truth. That was what happened during the totalitarian 20th century. And we have moved from that to a situation where we don't think there is any truth. That's why, in a way, fake news replace propaganda. In propaganda, you believe you're going to impose your truth. Fake news, you create the impression that truth is not worth pursuing. And my only religion as a non-religious person is to think that the pursuit of truth is what should define us. But the idea, the illusion that at some point we find it, that's when we begin to go wrong. That's the danger. Is this where science comes in? Well, science is trying to, in some sense, make good models of the world which hopefully converge towards better and better and more and more accurate descriptions. Is that the truth? Well, that is of course something that keeps the philosophers of science very busy. So this conversation got me thinking a bit about the link also between spirituality and human dignity. So one of my favorite thinkers is Pico della Mirandola, who during the Renaissance wrote Oration to the Dignity of Man, the Portal Document for Humanism. And it's a very interesting document. In the large, it's a defense that Christians could totally do alchemy and cabala, banana technology and AI of its era. But the core part is that section where he let God talk to Adam and say, I gave particular properties to all the other animals. Fishes can swim in water, lions are brave, but you, oh Adam, has this wonderful property of not having any particular property. You can become whatever you want. You can become like a beast or like an angel. And that is of course the foundation for a humanistic idea of a dignity. We are self-creating beings. We are in some sense autonomous and responsible for ourselves. And I think what we're seeing in modern science is this interesting realization that, yeah, we are to some degree able to change our programming. You can speak a single sentence to a person and change their life. That doesn't happen to a cat. You can't convince a cat by a sentence, however solemnly you pronounce it. There are still limits. And the anthropology of what kind of creatures we are, I think that is where science can tell us a lot of valuable things. But when we need to filter it through a more richer philosophical, maybe spiritual understanding of what kind of beings we are.