Podcasts about Christopher Hitchens

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Send us a textWhat do Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Alex O'Connor, Matt Dillahunty, Rationality Rules and Genetically Modified Skeptic have in common? They've all commented on Pascal's Wager. And they've all misunderstood him. It's easy to do. Most people misunderstand the French Mathematician and Philosopher (1622-1666).In this podcast, Glen Scrivener discusses common misconceptions of the Wager and, with the help of Rev Dr Graham Tomlin and Tim Keller, brings out Pascal's original intention.Graham Tomlin's book: Pascal, The Man Who Made the Modern World… https://amzn.eu/d/djuoGRjGraham Tomlin's excellent website: https://www.seenandunseen.com/Glen's full conversation with Graham Tomlin (SLP594): https://www.buzzsprout.com/1202891/episodes/17409006Book your place at Responding to the Rebirth: http://rebirthconference.netCheck out the 321 course and The 321 Podcast at: 321course.comSubscribe to the Speak Life YouTube channel for videos which see all of life with Jesus at the centre:youtube.com/SpeakLifeMediaSubscribe to the Reformed Mythologist YouTube channel to explore how the stories we love point to the greatest story of all:youtube.com/@ReformedMythologistDiscord is an online platform where you can interact with the Speak Life team and other Speak Life supporters. There's bonus content, creative/theological discussion and lots of fun. Join our Discord here:speaklife.org.uk/discordSpeak Life is a UK based charity that resources the church to reach the world.Learn more about us here:speaklife.org.ukSupport the show

Kevin Roberts, Kellyanne Conway, Ben Rhodes and I battled it out a few weeks ago on a stage in Toronto. This was for a Munk Debate on the motion: “Be it resolved, this is America's Golden Age.” It might not surprise you that I was arguing the negative, alongside Rhodes, a former senior adviser to Barack Obama and the co-host of “Pod Save the World.” Roberts and Conway were on the other side. Roberts is the president of the Heritage Foundation and an architect of Project 2025. Conway was Donald Trump's senior counselor in his first term. The Munk Debates organization has kindly let us share the audio of that debate with you. If you haven't heard of the Munk Debates, you should really check it out. It's a Canadian nonprofit that, for more than 15 years, has been hosting discussions on contentious, thought-provoking topics. If you go to its site and become a supporter, you can watch the entire video archive. A classic I recommend: “Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world” with Tony Blair debating Christopher Hitchens.Note: This recording has not been fact-checked by our team. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Esta semana, temos na estante um breve guia da literatura portuguesa desde as origens: Iniciação à Literatura Portuguesa, de António José Saraiva; viajamos por duas obras de banda desenhada, com histórias de irmãos: “Eu, Fadi - O Irmão Raptado”, de Riad Sattouf, e “O meu irmão”, de JeanLouis Tipp; folheamos as “Cartas a um Jovem Dissidente”, de Christopher Hitchens; e aprendemos com Robert Musil, muito apropriadamente, “Como reconhecer um estúpido (num mundo cheio deles)”.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Get bonus content at wickedproblems.earth! Mic Wright is the madman media survivor behind one of this show's second-favourite newsletter, Conquest of the Useless . So when we heard he has a new book out in a couple of weeks we were delighted he could give us a few minutes to talk meeja matters in the age of AI and climate consequences.Breaking: How the Media Works, When it Doesn't and Why that Matters - despite my inability to stop obsessing about whether it is missing an Oxford comma in the title - is the magnum opus of Britain's best observer of all things media since Christopher Hitchens went from Trot to Neocon.Two years before the Brexit referendum, a year long inquiry by a UK parliamentary select committee concluded that BBC news teams consistently engaged in false balance when reporting on climate change stories. So for a senior news journalist to suggest that they weren't familiar with the concept felt like a very stark confession.Head back even further to the misty, almost unimaginable, past of 2006, and you find Rob Corddry on the Daily Show, parodying journalists who bent over backwards to establish balance where there is none:“How does one report the facts? When the facts themselves are biased from the names of our fallen soldiers to the gradual withdrawal of our allies to the growing insurgency, it's become all too clear that the facts in Iraq have an anti-Bush agenda.”Meatless speech was rightly praised for highlighting the influence of Conservative Party appointees on the BBC, but it also contained a series of confessions about missing the elephant in the room. Even as the stench of dung must have been stifling.In Conversation00:35 Introducing Mic Wright01:31 Technical Challenges and Interview Preview03:13 Mic Wright's Dramatic Reading04:16 Discussion on False Balance in Journalism13:07 The Rise of Churnalism15:14 Media Ownership and Influence19:39 Tech Enthusiasm and AI in Journalism32:14 Conclusion and Final ThoughtsGet the Books at the Wicked Problems Bookshop.org ShopWe like writers. Buy books from authors we talk to or talk about via Bookshop.org - helps the author, helps local booksellers near you, and we get a couple of pennies in the begging bowl:Wicked Problems Bookshop Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

John Lennox is a Northern Irish mathematician, bioethicist, and Christian apologist originally from Northern Ireland. He has written many books on religion, ethics, the relationship between science and God, and has had public debates with atheists including Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

SHOW NOTES: The odds were better for the biggest longshot in the Kentucky Derby. An American has become Pope. It was said that no American could become Pope because the church wouldn't vest its power in someone with a Super Power. I would think, however, that there is no greater Super Power than God, so we shouldn't worry. Many people are pointing out that he spend twenty years in Peru so he's actually Peruvian. No, he's American, born here, but with a dual citizenship. Others, especially non-Catholics, panic when he's called a "missionary," thinking of the Colonialist/Imperialist times when the clergy were sent as missionaries to convert any non-Christian in sight. Today, missionary work is about caring for the poor, providing for the less fortunate, helping after natural disasters. The clergy as a whole are highly educated and learned men. There is no theological justification for a celibate, male clergy. Jesus never spoke of it, God never mentioned it. This was created by the church in the 12th Century because of the wealth of local churches passing on the priest's death to his wife. With celibacy, the wealth remained for the priest's successors and for the Vatican. For the record, about 4% of priests have been found guilty of sexual misconduct over the last 60 years of a total of about 3,500. Of 3,200,000 teachers over that period, between 11 and 14% were found guilty of sexual misconduct over the period (depending on the source you consult). Today, one of five humans is Catholic with varying degrees of commitment, and about 33% of humans are Christian. It's often occurred to me that the loudest atheists, such as the late Christopher Hitchens and the current Richard Dawkins, are "religious" in their attacks on religion! If you think about it, sooner or later everyone says a prayer when they are overcome with grief, or hope, or uncertainty. Let's give this new guy a chance. God knows, apparently, we need someone to bring us together in an angry world.

Are you missing 'The Rush Limbaugh Show'? You're not alone! Rush didn't just comment on the news--he inspired millions, entertained countless listeners, and was a refuge for conservatives during some of the most turbulent times in recent history. But what made Rush such a towering figure in conservative media? Who better to answer that question than someone who knew him best—his brother!This week, New York Times best-selling author David Limbaugh joins Frank to celebrate Rush's incredible legacy, reflect on his faith journey up until his passing in 2021, and discuss how David's own dive into apologetics and the Bible led him to Christ. Together, they'll tackle questions like:Why did some people disagree with Rush--and why might that actually be a compliment?What made Rush a masterful broadcaster and sharp political commentator?What role did faith play in the Limbaugh household growing up?Was Rush a Christian when he passed away?What surprising trait did Rush Limbaugh and Christopher Hitchens share?How can we see Jesus throughout the Old Testament?What ultimately convinced David Limbaugh to embrace Christianity?How do the Old and New Testaments fit together as one story?Join Frank and David for an engaging conversation filled with humor, memories, and powerful insights into Rush's life, career, and faith. Though Rush's voice is no longer on the airwaves, his influence and wit live on. And don't forget to pick up David's book, 'Finding Jesus in the Old Testament', to dig deeper into how the entire Bible ultimately points to Christ!Resources mentioned during the episode:Finding Jesus in the Old Testament by David Limbaugh: https://a.co/d/9KDUa7Q

This is our 2025 Mother's Day special.  We didn't plan it that way, but that's what it become. As we've noted in the past, Jennifer and I don't plan any aspect of our podcast other than asking Luana Anders, my pal on the flipside, who wants to come forward and speak with us. Jennifer and I have been doing this weekly for ten years, the past five on our podcast.  In today's episode Mother Teresa came forward to talk about Mother's day - and how women are built like Gaia - the mother earth - for compassion and empathy and whether they have or had children, they should be honored as mothers. I made a fun suggestion to invite Christopher Hitchens to chat with us - we've spoken with both Mother Teresa and Hitchens in the past - both transcripts are in the books BACKSTAGE PASS TO THE FLIPSIDE - but interesting to note that Mother Teresa nixed that idea. As I note in the podcast he was in denial about their being an afterlife - she said she had met him on the flipside, and no she didn't want to invite him to speak. She wanted to talk about the loving energy that people share and should focus on.  I asked her about the story of "Pope Joan" and I was startled to hear her confirm that it occurred.  That's mind bending - because the Church claims it did not, but if one has ever lived in Rome, they know that some streets are blocked off permanently - and no one is allowed to go down them.  According to legend, Via Papalis - between St John Lateran the old Vatican and the city - Pope Joan fainted from loss of blood, either from a miscarriage or from her period - and she was erased from the history of the church. Jennifer didn't know the story, but Mother Teresa does - and said it was true, and is "one of the greatest stories in history."  Mind bending because one could argue it presages the story of the film "Conclave" - I asked questions about the new Pope Leo, and we were told it was "meant to be" that he is the "Pope that is needed in this time." They won't alter our future with info - but this was mind bending to say the least. I invited the philosopher St. Augustine to share his opinion because the New Pope is from the Augustinian order - and he said "drink the wine." (Referring to his book "Confessions" and Jennifer's recent post about a client on the flipside who regretted he didn't drink the wines he had collected.  Jennifer's father Jim stopped by, and then when asked who wanted to speak, Jesus showed up.  Unlike most podcasts, I didn't edit any of the pauses between questions. So if one is listening there will be long periods of silence - if they're watching they will see Jennifer's face go through various emotions when hearing the answers. The answer is love. And Jesus repeats that in his answers to my questions. It's all about love - and "everything is always okay." Happy Mom's day.

In this episode of Thinking Out Loud, Cameron McAllister and Nathan Rittenhouse perform an intellectual autopsy of the New Atheist movement, reflecting on its cultural rise and current irrelevance. They unpack why arguments from figures like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Sam Harris no longer resonate—especially in light of Christianity's enduring philosophical and moral foundations. With references to current debates, including a dismantling of Lawrence Krauss's secular claims, this episode provides Christians with a robust understanding of how to engage secular critiques with grace and intellectual rigor. Whether you're interested in apologetics, cultural commentary, or the intersection of theology and modern society, this conversation is for you.DONATE LINK: https://toltogether.com/donate BOOK A SPEAKER: https://toltogether.com/book-a-speakerJOIN TOL CONNECT: https://toltogether.com/tol-connect TOL Connect is an online forum where TOL listeners can continue the conversation begun on the podcast.

There are a couple of religious leaders I begrudgingly admire despite their association with the cults of organized religion. Or, as Christopher Hitchens calls them and others of their ilk, the enemy. My admiration comes from a single utterance unique to each of them but are closely related in essence. The first of the leaders, Pope Francis, currently struggling to stave off his end of life, when he proclaimed, much to the dismay of the zealotry, who fear losing personal power above all, that all religions are a path to God. I cheered on his proclamation with as much vim and vigor as I did when Sínead ripped Pope John Paul II, protector of pedophile priests, picture in twain on live TV.

It's official. The American Dream is dead. And it's been resurrected in Europe where, according to the FT columnist Simon Kuper, disillusioned Americans should relocate. Compared with the United States, Kuper argues, Europe offers the three key metrics of a 21st century good life: “four years more longevity, higher self-reported happiness and less than half the carbon emissions per person”. So where exactly to move? The Paris based Kuper believes that his city is the most beautiful in Europe. He's also partial to Madrid, which offers Europe's sunniest lifestyle. And even London, in spite of all its post Brexit gloom, Kuper promises, offers American exiles the promise of a better life than the miserable existence which they now have to eek out in the United States. Five Takeaways* Quality of Life.:Kuper believes European quality of life surpasses America's for the average person, with Europeans living longer, having better physical health, and experiencing less extreme political polarization.* Democratic Europe vs Aristocratic America: While the wealthy can achieve greater fortunes in America, Kuper argues that Europeans in the "bottom 99%" live longer and healthier lives than their American counterparts.* Guns, Anxiety and the Threat of Violence: Political polarization in America creates more anxiety than in Europe, partly because Americans might be armed and because religion makes people hold their views more fervently.* MAGA Madness: Kuper sees Trump as more extreme than European right-wing leaders like Italy's Meloni, who governs as "relatively pro-European" and "pro-Ukrainian."* It's not just a Trump thing. Kuper believes America's declining international credibility will persist even after Trump leaves office, as Europeans will fear another "America First" president could follow any moderate administration.Full TranscriptAndrew Keen: Hello everybody. It's Monday, April the 21st, 2025. This conversation actually might go out tomorrow on the 22nd. Nonetheless, the headlines of the Financial Times, the world's most global economic newspaper, are miserable from an American point of view. US stocks and the dollar are sinking again as Donald Trump renews his attack on the Fed chair Jay Powell. Meanwhile Trump is also attacking the universities and many other bastions of civilization at least according to the FT's political columnist Gideon Rachman. For another FT journalist, my guest today Simon Kuper has been on the show many times before. All this bad news about America suggests that for Americans it's time to move to Europe. Simon is joining us from Paris, which Paris is that in Europe Simon?Simon Kuper: I was walking around today and thinking it has probably never in its history looked as good as it does now. It really is a fabulous city, especially when the sun shines.Andrew Keen: Nice of them where I am in San Francisco.Simon Kuper: I always used to like San Francisco, but I knew it before every house costs $15 million.Andrew Keen: Well, I'm not sure that's entirely true, but maybe there's some truth. Paris isn't exactly cheap either, is it? Certainly where you live.Simon Kuper: Cheaper than San Francisco, so I did for this article that you mentioned, I did some research on house prices and certainly central Paris is one of the most expensive areas in the European Union, but still considerably cheaper than cities like New York and San Francisco. A friend of mine who lives here told me that if she moved to New York, she would move from central Paris to for the same price living in some very, very distant suburb of New York City.Andrew Keen: Your column this week, Americans, it's time to move to Europe. You obviously wrote with a degree of relish. Is this Europe's revenge on America that it's now time to reverse the brain drain from Europe to America? Now it's from America to Europe.Simon Kuper: I mean, I don't see it as revenge. I'm a generally pro-American person by inclination and I even married an American and have children who are American as well as being French and British. So when I went to the US as firstly as a child, age 10, 11, I was in sixth grade in California. I thought it was the most advanced, wonderful place in the world and the sunshine and there was nowhere nice than California. And then I went as a student in my early 20s. And again, I thought this was the early 90s. This is the country of the future. It's so much more advanced than Europe. And they have this new kind of wise technocratic government that is going to make things even better. And it was the beginning of a big American boom of the 90s when I think American quality of life reached its peak, that life expectancy was reached, that was then declined a long time after the late 90s. So my impressions in the past were always extremely good, but no longer. The last 20 years visiting the US I've never really felt this is a society where ordinary people can have as good a life as in Europe.Andrew Keen: When you say ordinary people, I mean, you're not an ordinary person. And I'm guessing most of the people you and your wife certainly isn't ordinary. She's a well known writer. In fact, she's written on France and the United States and parenthood, very well known, you are well known. What do you mean by ordinary people?Simon Kuper: Yeah, I mean, it's not entirely about me. Amazingly, I am not so egomaniac as to draw conclusions on some matters just looking at my own situation. What I wrote about the US is that if you're in the 1% in the US and you are pursuing great wealth in finance or tech and you have a genuine shot at it, you will achieve wealth that you can't really achieve in Europe. You know, the top end of the US is much higher than in Europe. Still not necessarily true that your life will be better. So even rich Americans live shorter than rich Europeans. But OK, so the 1% America really offers greater expansion opportunities than Europe does. Anywhere below that, the Europeans in the bottom 99%, let's say, they live longer than their American equivalents. They are less fat, their bodies function better because they walk more, because they're not being bombarded by processed food in the same way. Although we have political polarization here, it's not as extreme as in the US. Where I quote a European friend of mine who lives in the American South. He says he sometimes doesn't go out of his house for days at a time because he says meeting Trump supporters makes him quite anxious.Andrew Keen: Where does he live? I saw that paragraph in the piece, you said he doesn't, and I'm quoting him, a European friend of mine who lives in the American South sometimes doesn't leave his house for days on end so as to avoid running into Trump supporters. Where does he live?Simon Kuper: He lives, let me say he lives in Georgia, he lives in the state of Georgia.Andrew Keen: Well, is that Atlanta? I mean, Atlanta is a large town, lots of anti-Trump sentiment there. Whereabouts in Georgia?Simon Kuper: He doesn't live in Atlanta, but I also don't want to specify exactly where he lives because he's entitled.Andrew Keen: In case you get started, but in all seriousness, Simon, isn't this a bit exaggerated? I mean, I'm sure there are some of your friends in Paris don't go outside the fancy center because they might run into fans of Marine Le Pen. What's the difference?Simon Kuper: I think that polarization creates more anxiety in the US and is more strongly felt for a couple of reasons. One is that because people might be armed in America, that gives an edge to any kind of disagreement that isn't here in Europe. And secondly, because religion is more of a factor in American life, people hold their views more strongly, more fervently, then. So I think there's a seriousness and edge to the American polarization that isn't quite the same as here. And the third reason I think polarization is worse is movement is more extreme even than European far-right movements. So my colleague John Byrne Murdoch at the Financial Times has mapped this, that Republican views from issues from climate to the role of the state are really off the charts. There's no European party coeval to them. So for example, the far-right party in France, the Rassemblement National, doesn't deny climate change in the way that Trump does.Andrew Keen: So, how does that contextualize Le Pen or Maloney or even the Hungarian neo-authoritarians for whom a lot of Trump supporters went to Budapest to learn what he did in order to implement Trump 2.0?Simon Kuper: Yeah, I think Orban, in terms of his creating an authoritarian society where the universities have been reined in, where the courts have been rained in, in that sense is a model for Trump. His friendliness with Putin is more of a model for Trump. Meloni and Le Pen, although I do not support them in any way, are not quite there. And so Meloni in Italy is in a coalition and is governing as somebody relatively pro-European. She's pro-Ukrainian, she's pro-NATO. So although, you know, she and Trump seem to have a good relationship, she is nowhere near as extreme as Trump. And you don't see anyone in Europe who's proposing these kinds of tariffs that Trump has. So I think that the, I would call it the craziness or the extremism of MAGA, doesn't really have comparisons. I mean, Orban, because he leads a small country, he has to be a bit more savvy and aware of what, for example, Brussels will wear. So he pushes Brussels, but he also needs money from Brussels. So, he reigns himself in, whereas with Trump, it's hard to see much restraint operating.Andrew Keen: I wonder if you're leading American liberals on a little bit, Simon. You suggested it's time to come to Europe, but Americans in particular aren't welcome, so to speak, with open arms, certainly from where you're talking from in Paris. And I know a lot of Americans who have come to Europe, London, Paris, elsewhere, and really struggled to make friends. Would, for Americans who are seriously thinking of leaving Trump's America, what kind of welcome are they gonna get in Europe?Simon Kuper: I mean, it's true that I haven't seen anti-Americanism as strong as this in my, probably in my lifetime. It might have been like this during the Vietnam War, but I was a child, I don't remember. So there is enormous antipathy to, let's say, to Trumpism. So two, I had two visiting Irish people, I had lunch with them on Friday, who both work in the US, and they said, somebody shouted at them on the street, Americans go home. Which I'd never heard, honestly, in Paris. And they shouted back, we're not American, which is a defense that doesn't work if you are American. So that is not nice. But my sense of Americans who live here is that the presumption of French people is always that if you're an American who lives here, you're not a Trumpist. Just like 20 years ago, if you are an American lives here you're not a supporter of George W. Bush. So there is a great amount of awareness that there are Americans and Americans that actually the most critical response I heard to my article was from Europeans. So I got a lot of Americans saying, yeah, yeah. I agree. I want to get out of here. I heard quite a lot of Europeans say, for God's sake, don't encourage them all to come here because they'll drive up prices and so on, which you can already see elements of, and particularly in Barcelona or in Venice, basically almost nobody lives in Venice except which Americans now, but in Barcelona where.Andrew Keen: Only rich Americans in Venice, no other rich people.Simon Kuper: It has a particular appeal to no Russians. No, no one from the gulf. There must be some there must be something. They're not many Venetians.Andrew Keen: What about the historical context, Simon? In all seriousness, you know, Americans have, of course, fled the United States in the past. One thinks of James Baldwin fleeing the Jim Crow South. Could the Americans now who were leaving the universities, Tim Schneider, for example, has already fled to Canada, as Jason Stanley has as well, another scholar of fascism. Is there stuff that American intellectuals, liberals, academics can bring to Europe that you guys currently don't have? Or are intellectuals coming to Europe from the US? Is it really like shipping coal, so to speak, to Newcastle?Simon Kuper: We need them desperately. I mean, as you know, since 1933, there has been a brain drain of the best European intellectuals in enormous numbers to the United States. So in 1933, the best university system in the world was Germany. If you measure by number of Nobel prizes, one that's demolished in a month, a lot of those people end up years later, especially in the US. And so you get the new school in New York is a center. And people like Adorno end up, I think, in Los Angeles, which must be very confusing. And American universities, you get the American combination. The USP, what's it called, the unique selling point, is you have size, you have wealth, you have freedom of inquiry, which China doesn't have, and you have immigration. So you bring in the best brains. And so Europe lost its intellectuals. You have very wealthy universities, partly because of the role of donors in America. So, you know, if you're a professor at Stanford or Columbia, I think the average salary is somewhere over $300,000 for professors at the top universities. In Europe, there's nothing like that. Those people would at least have to halve their salary. And so, yeah, for Europeans, this is a unique opportunity to get some of the world's leading brains back. At cut price because they would have to take a big salary cut, but many of them are desperate to do it. I mean, if your lab has been defunded by the government, or if the government doesn't believe in your research into climate or vaccines, or just if you're in the humanities and the government is very hostile to it, or, if you write on the history of race. And that is illegal now in some southern states where I think teaching they call it structural racism or there's this American phrase about racism that is now banned in some states that the government won't fund it, then you think, well, I'll take that pay cost and go back to Europe. Because I'm talking going back, I think the first people to take the offer are going to be the many, many top Europeans who work at American universities.Andrew Keen: You mentioned at the end of Europe essay, the end of the American dream. You're quoting Trump, of course, ironically. But the essay is also about the end of the America dream, perhaps the rebirth or initial birth of the European dream. To what extent is the American dream, in your view, and you touched on this earlier, Simon, dependent on the great minds of Europe coming to America, particularly during and after the, as a response to the rise of Nazism, Hannah Arendt, for example, even people like Aldous Huxley, who came to Hollywood in the 1930s. Do you think that the American dream itself is in part dependent on European intellectuals like Arendt and Huxley, even Ayn Rand, who not necessarily the most popular figure on the left, but certainly very influential in her ideas about capitalism and freedom, who came of course from Russia.Simon Kuper: I mean, I think the average American wouldn't care if Ayn Rand or Hannah Arendt had gone to Australia instead. That's not their dream. I think their American dream has always been about the idea of social mobility and building a wealthy life for yourself and your family from nothing. Now almost all studies of social ability say that it's now very low in the US. It's lower than in most of Europe. Especially Northern Europe and Scandinavia have great social mobility. So if you're born in the lower, say, 10% or 20% in Denmark, you have a much better chance of rising to the top of society than if you were born at the bottom 10%, 20% in the US. So America is not very good for social mobility anymore. I think that the brains that helped the American economy most were people working in different forms of tech research. And especially for the federal government. So the biggest funder of science in the last 80 years or so, I mean, the Manhattan Project and on has been the US federal government, biggest in the world. And the thing is you can't eat atom bombs, but what they also produce is research that becomes hugely transformative in civilian life and in civilian industries. So GPS or famously the internet come out of research that's done within the federal government with a kind of vague defense angle. And so I think those are the brains that have made America richer. And then of course, the number of immigrants who found companies, and you see this in tech, is much higher than the number percentage of native born Americans who do. And a famous example of that is Elon Musk.Andrew Keen: Yeah, and you were on the show just before Christmas in response to your piece about Musk, Thiel and the shadow of apartheid in South Africa. So I'm guessing you don't want the Musks and Thiels. They won't be welcome in Europe, will they?Simon Kuper: I don't think they want to go. I mean, if you want to create a tech company, you want very deep capital markets. You want venture capital firms that are happy to bet a few billion on you. And a very good place to do that, the best place in the world by far, is Silicon Valley. And so a French friend of mine said he was at a reception in San Francisco, surrounded by many, many top French engineers who all work for Silicon Valley firms, and he thought, what would it take them to come back? He didn't have an answer. Now the answer might be, maybe, well, Donald Trump could persuade them to leave. But they want to keep issuing visas for those kinds of people. I mean, the thing is that what we're seeing with Chinese AI breakthroughs in what was called DeepSeek. Also in overtaking Tesla on electric cars suggests that maybe, you know, the cutting edge of innovation is moving from Silicon Valley after nearly 100 years to China. This is not my field of expertise at all. But you know the French economist Thomas Filippon has written about how the American economy has become quite undynamic because it's been taken over by monopolies. So you can't start another Google, you can start another Amazon. And you can't build a rival to Facebook because these companies control of the market and as Facebook did with WhatsApp or Instagram, they'll just buy you up. And so you get quite a much more static tech scene than 30 years ago when really, you know, inventions, great inventions are being made in Silicon Valley all the time. Now you get a few big companies that are the same for a very long period.Andrew Keen: Well, of course, you also have OpenAI, which is a startup, but that's another conversation.Simon Kuper: Yeah, the arguments in AI is that maybe China can do it better.Andrew Keen: Can be. I don't know. Well, it has, so to speak, Simon, the light bulb gone off in Europe on all this on all these issues. Mario Draghi month or two ago came out. Was it a white paper or report suggesting that Europe needed to get its innovation act together that there wasn't enough investment or capital? Are senior people within the EU like Draghi waking up to the reality of this historical opportunity to seize back economic power, not just cultural and political.Simon Kuper: I mean, Draghi doesn't have a post anymore, as far as I'm aware. I mean of course he was the brilliant governor of the European Central Bank. But that report did have a big impact, didn't it? It had a big impact. I think a lot of people thought, yeah, this is all true. We should spend enormous fortunes and borrow enormous fortunes to create a massive tech scene and build our own defense industries and so on. But they're not going to do it. It's the kind of report that you write when you don't have a position of power and you say, this is what we should do. And the people in positions of power say, oh, but it's really complicated to do it. So they don't do it, so no, they're very, there's not really, we've been massively overtaken and left behind on tech by the US and China. And there doesn't seem to be any impetus, serious impetus to build anything on that scale to invest that kind of money government led or private sector led in European tech scene. So yeah, if you're in tech. Maybe you should be going to Shanghai, but you probably should not be going to Europe. So, and this is a problem because China and the US make our future and we use their cloud servers. You know, we could build a search engine, but we can't liberate ourselves from the cloud service. Defense is a different matter where, you know, Draghi said we should become independent. And because Trump is now European governments believe Trump is hostile to us on defense, hostile to Ukraine and more broadly to Europe, there I think will be a very quick move to build a much bigger European defense sector so we don't have to buy for example American planes which they where they can switch off the operating systems if they feel like it.Andrew Keen: You live in Paris. You work for the FT, or one of the papers you work for is the FT a British paper. Where does Britain stand here? So many influential Brits, of course, went to America, particularly in the 20th century. Everyone from Alfred Hitchcock to Christopher Hitchens, all adding enormous value like Arendt and Ayn Rand. Is Britain, when you talk of Europe, are you still in the back of your mind thinking of Britain, or is it? An island somehow floating or stuck between America, the end of the American dream and the beginning of the European dream. In a way, are you suggesting that Brits should come to Europe as well?Simon Kuper: I think Britain is floating quite rapidly towards Europe because in a world where you have three military superpowers that are quite predatory and are not interested in alliances, the US, China and Russia, the smaller countries, and Britain is a smaller country and has realized since Brexit that it is a small country, the small countries just need to ally. And, you know, are you going to trust an alliance with Trump? A man who is not interested in the fates of other countries and breaks his word, or would you rather have an alliance with the Europeans who share far more of your values? And I think the Labor government in the UK has quietly decided that, I know that it has decided that on economic issues, it's always going to prioritize aligning with Europe, for example, aligning food standards with Europe so that we can sell my food. They can sell us our food without any checks because we've accepted all their standards, not with the US. So in any choice between, you know, now there's talk of a potential US-UK trade deal, do we align our standards with the US. Or Europe? It's always going to be Europe first. And on defense, you have two European defense powers that are these middle powers, France and the UK. Without the UK, there isn't really a European defense alliance. And that is what is gonna be needed now because there's a big NATO summit in June, where I think it's going to become patently obvious to everyone, the US isn't really a member of NATO anymore. And so then you're gonna move towards a post US NATO. And if the UK is not in it, well, it looks very, very weak indeed. And if UK is alone, that's quite a scary position to be in in this world. So yeah, I see a UK that is not gonna rejoin the European Union anytime soon. But is more and more going to ally itself, is already aligning itself with Europe.Andrew Keen: As the worm turned, I mean, Trump has been in power 100 days, supposedly is limited to the next four years, although he's talking about running for a third term. Can America reverse itself in your view?Simon Kuper: I think it will be very hard whatever Trump does for other countries to trust him again. And I also think that after Trump goes, which as you say may not be in 2028, but after he goes and if you get say a Biden or Obama style president who flies to Europe and says it's all over, we're friends again. Now the Europeans are going to think. But you know, it's very, very likely that in four years time, you will be replaced by another America first of some kind. So we cannot build a long term alliance with the US. So for example, we cannot do long term deals to buy Americans weapons systems, because maybe there's a president that we like, but they'll be succeeded by a president who terrifies us quite likely. So, there is now, it seems to me, instability built in for the very long term into... America has a potential ally. It's you just can't rely on this anymore. Even should Trump go.Andrew Keen: You talk about Europe as one place, which, of course, geographically it is, but lots of observers have noted the existence, it goes without saying, of many Europe's, particularly the difference between Eastern and Western Europe.Simon Kuper: I've looked at that myself, yes.Andrew Keen: And you've probably written essays on this as well. Eastern Europe is Poland, perhaps, Czech Republic, even Hungary in an odd way. They're much more like the United States, much more interested perhaps in economic wealth than in the other metrics that you write about in your essay. Is there more than one Europe, Simon? And for Americans who are thinking of coming to Europe, should it be? Warsaw, Prague, Paris, Madrid.Simon Kuper: These are all great cities, so it depends what you like. I mean, I don't know if they're more individualistic societies. I would doubt that. All European countries, I think, could be described as social democracies. So there is a welfare state that provides people with health and education in a way that you don't quite have in the United States. And then the opposite, the taxes are higher. The opportunities to get extremely wealthy are lower here. I think the big difference is that there is a part of Europe for whom Russia is an existential threat. And that's especially Poland, the Baltics, Romania. And there's a part of Europe, France, Britain, Spain, for whom Russia is really quite a long way away. So they're not that bothered about it. They're not interested in spending a lot on defense or sending troops potentially to die there because they see Russia as not their problem. I would see that as a big divide. In terms of wealth, I mean, it's equalizing. So the average Pole outside London is now, I think, as well off or better than the average Britain. So the average Pole is now as well as the average person outside London. London, of course, is still.Andrew Keen: This is the Poles in the UK or the Poles.Simon Kuper: The Poles in Poland. So the Poles who came to the UK 20 years ago did so because the UK was then much richer. That's now gone. And so a lot of Poles and even Romanians are returning because economic opportunities in Poland, especially, are just as good as in the West. So there has been a little bit of a growing together of the two halves of the continent. Where would you live? I mean, my personal experience, having spent a year in Madrid, it's the nicest city in the world. Right, it's good. Yeah, nice cities to live in, I like living in big cities, so of big cities it's the best. Spanish quality of life. If you earn more than the average Spaniard, I think the average income, including everyone wage earners, pensioners, students, is only about $20,000. So Spaniards have a problem with not having enough income. So if you're over about $20000, and in Madrid probably quite a bit more than that, then it's a wonderful life. And I think, and Spaniards live about five years longer than Americans now. They live to about age 84. It's a lovely climate, lovely people. So that would be my personal top recommendation. But if you like a great city, Paris is the greatest city in the European Union. London's a great, you know, it's kind of bustling. These are the two bustling world cities of Europe, London and Paris. I think if you can earn an American salary, maybe through working remotely and live in the Mediterranean somewhere, you have the best deal in the world because Mediterranean prices are low, Mediterranean culture, life is unbeatable. So that would be my general recommendation.Andrew Keen: Finally, Simon, being very generous with your time, I'm sure you'd much rather be outside in Paris in what you call the greatest city in the EU. You talk in the piece about three metrics that show that it's time to move to Europe, housing, education, sorry, longevity, happiness and the environment. Are there any metrics at all now to stay in the United States?Simon Kuper: I mean, if you look at people's incomes in the US they're considerably higher, of course, your purchasing power for a lot of things is less. So I think the big purchasing power advantage Americans have until the tariffs was consumer goods. So if you want to buy a great television set, it's better to do that out of an American income than out of a Spanish income, but if you want the purchasing power to send your kids to university, to get healthcare. Than to be guaranteed a decent pension, then Europe is a better place. So even though you're earning more money in the US, you can't buy a lot of stuff. If you wanna go to a nice restaurant and have a good meal, the value for money will be better in Europe. So I suppose if you wanna be extremely wealthy and you have a good shot at that because a lot people overestimate their chance of great wealth. Then America is a better bet than Europe. Beyond that, I find it hard to right now adduce reasons. I mean, it's odd because like the Brexiteers in the UK, Trump is attacking some of the things that really did make America great, such as this trading system that you can get very, very cheap goods in the United States, but also the great universities. So. I would have been much more positive about the idea of America a year ago, but even then I would've said the average person lives better over here.Andrew Keen: Well, there you have it. Simon Cooper says to Americans, it's time to move to Europe. The American dream has ended, perhaps the beginning of the European dream. Very provocative. Simon, we'll get you back on the show. Your column is always a central reading in the Financial Times. Thanks so much and enjoy Paris.Simon Kuper: Thank you, Andrew. Enjoy San Francisco. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit keenon.substack.com/subscribe

Larry Alex Taunton is an American author, columnist, and cultural commentator known for his work in Christian apologetics. He is the founder and former executive director of the Fixed Point Foundation, a nonprofit focused on defending and proclaiming the Gospel in secular contexts. Taunton has authored several books, including The Grace Effect and The Faith of Christopher Hitchens, the latter exploring his friendship with the famous atheist. He is a frequent media guest, appearing on outlets like CNN, Fox News, and BBC, and his columns have been published in The Atlantic, USA Today, and other platforms. We discuss his reporting on the WEF, USAID and an attempt on his life when SWAT showed up to his house. Cornerstone Forum ‘25https://www.showpass.com/cornerstone25/Get your voice heard: Text Shaun 587-217-8500Substack:https://open.substack.com/pub/shaunnewmanpodcastSilver Gold Bull Links:Website: https://silvergoldbull.ca/Email: SNP@silvergoldbull.comText Grahame: (587) 441-9100Bow Valley Credit UnionWebsite: www.BowValleycu.comEmail: welcome@BowValleycu.com Use the code “SNP” on all ordersProphet River Links:Website: store.prophetriver.com/Email: SNP@prophetriver.com

This week we are airing a special edition of the Munk Debates Podcast—a rebroadcast of a classic debate that launched our series on the world stage. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair and the late Christopher Hitchens - an avowed atheist - debating the motion Be it resolved, religion is a force for good in the world. To support civil and substantive debate on the big questions of the day, consider becoming a Munk Member at https://munkdebates.com/membership Members receive access to our 15+ year library of great debates in HD video, a free Munk Debates book, and ticketing privileges at our live events. This podcast is a project of the Munk Debates, a Canadian charitable organization dedicated to fostering civil and substantive public dialogue - https://munkdebates.com/ Senior Producer: Ricki Gurwitz Editor: Kieran Lynch

This is our unabridged interview with Francis Collins. Francis Collins has led some of the most significant scientific initiatives of our time, including the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health under three U.S. presidents. In his new book, The Road to Wisdom, Collins grapples with the erosion of public trust in science, the polarization of society, and the challenge of discerning truth in the modern age. In this conversation, Collins shares insights from his experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, his journey from atheism to Christian faith, and the importance of humility in the pursuit of knowledge. He reflects on his unlikely friendship with the late atheist Christopher Hitchens, the philosophical roots of truth skepticism, and the need for genuine dialogue across divides. Join us as we explore how wisdom, truth, science, and faith intersect—and why curiosity and compassion might just be the antidote to our age of distrust. Show Notes Resources: "The Road to Wisdom" by Francis Collins  Similar NSE episodes: Quincy Byrdsong: Tuskegee, Healthcare, Justice Jennifer Wiseman: How Science Produces Wonder David Wilkinson: The (Not Really) War Between Science and Faith Rachel Held Evans, Francis Collins, and Ed Larson: Faith, Science, Humility PDF of Lee's Interview Notes Transcript of Abridged Episode  Want more NSE? JOIN NSE+ Today! Our subscriber only community with bonus episodes designed specifically to help you live a good life, ad-free listening, and discounts on live shows Great Feeling Studios, the team behind No Small Endeavor and other award-winning podcasts, helps nonprofits and brands tell stories that inspire action. If your organization has a message that deserves to be heard, start your podcast at helpmemakeapodcast.com. Subscribe to episodes: Apple | Spotify | Amazon | Google | YouTubeFollow Us: Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | YouTubeFollow Lee: Instagram | TwitterJoin our Email List: nosmallendeavor.com See Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy Amazon Affiliate Disclosure: Tokens Media, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn adverti… Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Francis Collins has led some of the most significant scientific initiatives of our time, including the Human Genome Project and the National Institutes of Health under three U.S. presidents. In his new book, The Road to Wisdom, Collins grapples with the erosion of public trust in science, the polarization of society, and the challenge of discerning truth in the modern age. In this conversation, Collins shares insights from his experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic, his journey from atheism to Christian faith, and the importance of humility in the pursuit of knowledge. He reflects on his unlikely friendship with the late atheist Christopher Hitchens, the philosophical roots of truth skepticism, and the need for genuine dialogue across divides. Join us as we explore how wisdom, truth, science, and faith intersect—and why curiosity and compassion might just be the antidote to our age of distrust. Show Notes Resources: "The Road to Wisdom" by Francis Collins Similar NSE episodes: Quincy Byrdsong: Tuskegee, Healthcare, Justice Jennifer Wiseman: How Science Produces Wonder David Wilkinson: The (Not Really) War Between Science and Faith Rachel Held Evans, Francis Collins, and Ed Larson: Faith, Science, Humility PDF of Lee's Interview Notes Transcription Link Want more NSE? JOIN NSE+ Today! Our subscriber only community with bonus episodes designed specifically to help you live a good life, ad-free listening, and discounts on live shows Great Feeling Studios, the team behind No Small Endeavor and other award-winning podcasts, helps nonprofits and brands tell stories that inspire action. If your organization has a message that deserves to be heard, start your podcast at helpmemakeapodcast.com. Subscribe to episodes: Apple | Spotify | Amazon | Google | YouTubeFollow Us: Instagram | Twitter | Facebook | YouTubeFollow Lee: Instagram | TwitterJoin our Email List: nosmallendeavor.com See Privacy Policy: Privacy Policy Amazon Affiliate Disclosure: Tokens Media, LLC is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sit… Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

Norman Finkelstein received his PhD from the Princeton University Politics Department, and is best known for his research on Israel and Palestine. In this episode, Norman and Robinson sit down for a discussion about Donald Trump, the latest from Israel, Palestine, and Gaza, and the dying Left. Norman also appeared on episode 192, where he and Robinson discussed allegations of genocide and apartheid, Hamas and Hezbollah, and connections between the war and the Holocaust. Norman was also featured on episode 218, where he addressed the facts and fictions generated by the Israel-Hamas War, and episode 228, which was all about October 6th. Norman and Robinson also discuss Mehdi Hassan, Noam Chomsky, Christopher Hitchens, the Holocaust, Apartheid, Joan Peters, Julia Sebutinde, the Mossad, Sheryl Sandberg, Destiny, Lex Fridman, Bill Ackman, Alan Dershowitz, and more. Norman's most recent book is I'll Burn That Bridge When I Get to It! Heretical Thoughts on Identity Politics, Cancel Culture, and Academic Freedom (Sublation Media, 2023).Norman's Website: https://www.normanfinkelstein.comOUTLINE00:00:00 Introduction00:07:25 Mehdi Hassan: The Working Class is Stupid00:12:59 How Far Will the Supreme Court Go with Donald Trump?00:21:49 Why Bernie Sanders Appeals to the Common Man00:38:12 How Did Identity Politics Help Trump Win?00:46:02 The Joy of Stereotypes01:01:23 Why the People Loved Bernie Sanders and Trump01:06:16 Noam Chomsky, Philosopher King01:11:16 Christopher Hitchens Was Not a Serious Intellectual01:20:58 Norman's Parents Hate For Religion After the Holocaust01:34:06 A Lex Fridman and Destiny Conspiracy01:37:12 Norman's Family and the Holocaust01:45:43 Why Jews Stopped Caring About the Holocaust01:54:43 Why Norman Never Had a Bar Mitzvah02:02:52 Why Norman's Parents Hated Germans and Poles02:11:22 Comparing Gaza to the Holocaust02:16:48 Comparing Gaza to Apartheid South Africa02:24:41 Corruption Over Genocide in Palestine02:27:05 On the Colossal Joan Peters Palestine Hoax02:30:16 On Norman's Time as a Maoist02:39:35 The Corruption of Julia Sebutinde at the International Court of Justice02:42:25 Does the Mossad Blackmail Public Figures?02:52:49 Sheryl Sandberg and the War Crime “Israeli Propaganda Machine”03:05:19 On Accusations of Sex Crimes on October 6th03:18:12 On His Mortal Feud With Alan Dershowitz03:31:19 On Bill Ackman and the Pro-Israel American Billionaire ClassRobinson's Website: http://robinsonerhardt.comRobinson Erhardt researches symbolic logic and the foundations of mathematics at Stanford University.

In this episode, Rabbi David Wolpe joins us for a thought-provoking conversation about the challenges and opportunities facing the Jewish people today. In the wake of October 7th, intra-faith dialogue is as critical as interfaith dialogue. The Jewish community must find ways to foster understanding, break down barriers, and build unity among diverse perspectives. Rabbi Wolpe reflects on the enduring influence of Maimonides, whose teachings continue to resonate across Jewish movements and explores how his philosophy shapes modern Jewish thought. We discuss the evolution of New Atheism, from Christopher Hitchens to Alex O'Connor, and what this shift means for conversations about faith within the Jewish context. The conversation also delves into culturally religious figures like Dennis Prager and Jordan Peterson, examining whether a meaningful religious message can be upheld without traditional observance. Rabbi Wolpe addresses the hardest questions raised by atheists—about evil, belief, and God's hiddenness—and shares his vision for making faith relevant and compelling in a skeptical world. This episode challenges us to think deeply about faith, unity, and the future of Judaism. Don't miss this essential conversation.---• Bio: Named The Most Influential Rabbi in America by Newsweek and one of the 50 Most Influential Jews in the World  by The Jerusalem Post, and twice named one of the 500 Most Influential People in Los Angeles by the Los Angeles Business Journal, David Wolpe is the Max Webb Emeritus Rabbi of Sinai Temple. He serves as the ADL's inaugural rabbinic fellow and a scholar in residence at the Maimonides Fund. Rabbi Wolpe has taught at Harvard, the Jewish Theological Seminary, the American Jewish University, Hunter College, and UCLA. Rabbi Wolpe has published widely, including in The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, Time, Newsweek and The Atlantic. He has been featured on The Today Show, Face the Nation, ABC This Morning, and CBS This Morning as well as series on PBS, A&E, History Channel, and Discovery Channel, and has engaged in widely watched public debates with Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Steven Pinker and many others about religion and its place in the world. Rabbi Wolpe is the author of eight books, including the national bestseller Making Loss Matter: Creating Meaning in Difficult Times (Riverhead). His latest is titled David, the Divided Heart (Yale U Press). It was a finalist for the National Jewish Book Awards, and has been optioned for a movie by Warner Bros.---• Welcome to JUDAISM DEMYSTIFIED: A PODCAST FOR THE PERPLEXED | Co-hosted by Benjy & Benzi | Thank you to...Super Patron: Jordan Karmily, Platinum Patron: Craig Gordon, Gold Patrons: Dovidchai Abramchayev, Lazer Cohen, Travis Krueger, Vasili Volkoff, Rod Ilian, Silver Patrons: Ellen Fleischer, Daniel Maksumov, Rabbi Pinny Rosenthal, Fred & Antonio, Jeffrey Wasserman, and Jacob Winston! Please SUBSCRIBE to this YouTube Channel and hit the BELL so you can get alerted whenever new clips get posted, thank you for your support!

In his new book Why We Believe: Finding Meaning in Uncertain Times, Prof Alister McGrath rejects the notion that belief is a relic of the past and takes aim at the ‘new atheists' who attack religion without even knowing what it is. Prof McGrath, emeritus Andreas Idreos Professor of Science and Religion at Oxford University, has had a unique journey to religion. A former Marxist atheist with a doctorate in molecular biology, he's now a world-renowned theologian and Anglican priest.  In this lively discussion with Damian Thompson he talks about the boundary between science and religion, something poorly understood by aggressive atheists such as Richard Dawkins and the late Christopher Hitchens. He suggests that, while we all look for meaning, the safety of science doesn't provide the sense of belonging that we all crave.  Produced by Patrick Gibbons.

Sign Up for the Boston Listener Meet Up For Ross Douthat, phenomena like UFO sightings and the simulation hypothesis don't challenge religious belief—they demonstrate how difficult it is to escape religious questions entirely. His new book, Believe: Why Everyone Should Be Religious makes the case for religious faith in an age of apparent disenchantment. In his third appearance on Conversations with Tyler, Ross joined Tyler to discuss what getting routed by Christopher Hitchens taught him about religious debate, why the simulation hypothesis resembles ancient Gnostic religion, what Mexican folk Catholicism reveals about spiritual intermediaries, his evolving views on papal authority in the Francis era, what UFO sightings might tell us about supernatural reality, why he's less apocalyptic than Peter Thiel about the Antichrist, and why he's publishing a fantasy novel on Substack before AI potentially transforms creative writing. Read a full transcript enhanced with helpful links, or watch the full video. Recorded January 16th, 2025. Help keep the show ad free by donating today! Other ways to connect Follow us on X and Instagram Follow Tyler on X Follow Ross on X Sign up for our newsletter Join our Discord Email us: cowenconvos@mercatus.gmu.edu Learn more about Conversations with Tyler and other Mercatus Center podcasts here. Photo Credit: Abigail Douthat ©

Outgoing President Joe Biden granted Dr. Anthony Fauci a “full and unconditional” pardon for “any offenses against the United States” committed after 2014 that were related to his position as Director of the NIH. Dr. Fauci insists he “committed no crime” but accepted the pardon anyway. “Right before, 20 minutes before the Inauguration, Joe Biden announced preemptive pardons of his own family… James Biden, Sara Jones Biden, Valerie Biden, John T. Owens, and Francis ‘Frank' Biden,” reports Alex Marlow for Breitbart. Larry Alex Taunton is an award-winning author, columnist, and producer. He has written multiple books including “The Grace Effect” and “The Faith of Christopher Hitchens”. Taunton writes regularly for major publications and has been featured in The New York Times, The Times of London, and The Wall Street Journal. Find more at at https://larrytaunton.com and follow him at https://x.com/LarryTaunton Alex Marlow is the Editor-in-Chief of Breitbart News Network and a NYT bestselling author of “Breaking the News” and “Breaking Biden”. At age 21, he was the first employee at Andrew Breitbart's media network. Marlow hosts a national talk radio show and podcast, has been featured on Time and Newsweek covers, and was named in Forbes's 30 Under 30. Find him at https://alexmarlow.com and https://x.com/alexmarlow 「 SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS 」 Find out more about the brands that make this show possible and get special discounts on Dr. Drew's favorite products at https://drdrew.com/sponsors  • FATTY15 – The future of essential fatty acids is here! Strengthen your cells against age-related breakdown with Fatty15. Get 15% off a 90-day Starter Kit Subscription at https://drdrew.com/fatty15 • PALEOVALLEY - "Paleovalley has a wide variety of extraordinary products that are both healthful and delicious,” says Dr. Drew. "I am a huge fan of this brand and know you'll love it too!” Get 15% off your first order at https://drdrew.com/paleovalley • THE WELLNESS COMPANY - Counteract harmful spike proteins with TWC's Signature Series Spike Support Formula containing nattokinase and selenium. Learn more about TWC's supplements at https://twc.health/drew 「 MEDICAL NOTE 」 Portions of this program may examine countervailing views on important medical issues. Always consult your physician before making any decisions about your health. 「 ABOUT THE SHOW 」 Ask Dr. Drew is produced by Kaleb Nation (https://kalebnation.com) and Susan Pinsky (https://twitter.com/firstladyoflove). This show is for entertainment and/or informational purposes only, and is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Richard Dawkins makes his final ever tour appearance - and has the indignity of doing so with interviewer Andrew Gold. His thoughts on Elon Musk, Douglas Murray and Jordan Peterson are fascinating and controversial, while he speaks brilliantly about Ayaan Hirsi Ali and the late Christopher Hitchens. He explains why Islam is so different to Judaism & Christianity - and defies cancel culture and trans lunacy.  Get his brilliant new book The Genetic Book of the Dead: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Genetic-Book-Dead-Richard-Dawkins/dp/1804548081  Check out my new documentary channel: https://youtube.com/@andrewgoldinvestigates  Support Heretics: http://andrewgoldheretics.com  Andrew on X: https://twitter.com/andrewgold_ok  Insta: https://www.instagram.com/andrewgold_ok Heretics YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@andrewgoldheretics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Happy New Year! As we hurtle toward our 200th episode, the Shed Dogs wish you all a very happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year! Here in Episode 191, we are once again enjoying letters from faithful listeners, thrashing our way towards understanding obscure words and phrases in Snappers, and getting the latest on how the PNE was feeling last September. Spoiler alert: it was feeling pretty good again. We also manage to fit in a surprisingly complicated approach to bifocals from RJ, and a short exposé on several of Ticketmaster's super-seedy business practices. Just like we hope the New Year will be, this episode is familiar and comfortable but still new and informative, so put on a comfy sweater and settle in!Links: Shed Dogs; Foster Grant bifocals; Frank Sinatra sings Fly Me to the Moon; we could not care less, seriously we couldn't, irregardless!; Wikipedia's excellent list of social generations includes references to other countries; Gene at Home Depot; The Antisocial Network; oblast; John and Jane Doe; haskap berries; Official Stick Reviews; Christopher Hitchens on free speech; the PNE; Ginsu knives live on; Veg-O-Matic (it slices! it dices!); Playland; this year's Super Dogs (YouTube); news report on Daryl Hall's aborted PNE show, with footage; the US DOJ's lawsuit against Ticketmaster.Theme music is Escaping like Indiana Jones by Komiku, by permission.

A year ago, John Richards the head of the Atheist UK approached me about the idea of celebrating Christopher Hitchens with a Hitchmas event, near Christmas, and on or about the anniversary of Christopher's death, on Dec 15, 2011. I realized that to do it right would require time and organization, and the proper panelists. I was thrilled that Christopher's friends and mine, Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins, and Douglas Murray agreed to be part of the event, and that the HowTo Academy, which organizes wonderful events in London, several of which I had done before, agreed to coordinate the logistics with The Origins Project Foundation. A year later, the sold-out event happened, and we decided in advance to record it appropriately, with 5 cameras, and to have Gus and Luke Holwerda, who directed and filmed The Unbelievers, and with whom I began The Origins Podcast, edit the final product.As a special Holiday gift, we are making the advert free video version available to both paid and free subscribers here on Critical Mass. This post has the audio version for those who prefer that. If you want to watch the video, open the other Critical Mass post we are releasing this morning. Our YouTube channel will also host the video, and I encourage you to subscribe to that channel as well if you wish. No matter how you watch it, or listen to it (we will make the audio available on iTunes etc), we hope you find this set of reminiscences and the ensuing discussion a wonderful reminder of a remarkable man, and that it inspires you as much as Christopher inspired us. Happy Holidays to you all. Lawrence M. Krauss Get full access to Critical Mass at lawrencekrauss.substack.com/subscribe

Are science and belief in God incompatible? Dr. Francis S. Collins, renowned for having led the Human Genome Project and the former Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), says science and faith are two different ways of understanding God's creation.   We dove right in and had so much to explore! His father's folk music collection that is a true national treasure;  Connecting music with the mysteries of the universe both as a scientist and a person of faith;  An encounter with a heart patient that led Dr. Collins to his faith in Christ;  How he got the job to lead the Human Genome Project (no, it wasn't an answer to an ad on Craigslist);  Leading the NIH during a worldwide pandemic;  The ongoing harrassment and even death threats he and his colleagues at NIH have had to endure;  Struggling to understand the emergence of the anti-vax movement;  Nurturing relationships with folks who hold very different views such as the late Christopher Hitchens;  The BioLogos Foundation;  And the most interesting book club in the world!   Dr. Francis Collins is the former director of the National Institutes of Health. And was the longest serving director of NIH — spanning 12 years and three (very different) presidencies. Dr. Collins is a physician-geneticist noted for his landmark discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the international Human Genome Project, which culminated in April 2003 with the completion of a finished sequence of the human DNA instruction book. Dr. Collins' research laboratory has discovered a number of important genes, including those responsible for cystic fibrosis, Huntington's disease, a familial endocrine cancer syndrome and, most recently, genes for type 2 diabetes among others. Dr. Collins was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in November 2007 and the National Medal of Science in 2009.   We're on YouTube!  https://www.youtube.com/@politicsandreligion     Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   We're on Patreon! Join the community:  https://www.patreon.com/politicsandreligion   It would mean so much if you could leave us a review:  https://ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics    Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   Please support our sponsor Meza Wealth Management: www.mezawealth.com   You can find Corey on all the socials @coreysnathan such as bsky.app/profile/coreysnathan.bsky.social   biologos.org/

Clay welcomes University of North Texas historian Geoffrey Wawro for a discussion of the War in Vietnam (1961–1975), which cost more than 58,000 American lives and hundreds of thousands of deaths in North and South Vietnam. Wawro, the author of seven books on the history of war, explains how a superpower got into a quagmire in a small Asian country. Why did Lyndon Johnson escalate the war between 1964 and 1968, when President John F. Kennedy made it clear that he would wind down America's involvement after he was re-elected in 1964? As the British essayist Christopher Hitchens insisted, is Henry Kissinger a war criminal? What was Richard Nixon's role in prolonging the agony? How should we assess Secretary of War Robert McNamara? Absent politics, could the war theoretically have been won by the United States and its reluctant allies?

Ken welcomes back professor, author, and activist Dr. David Dark to discuss his new book, We Become What We Normalize. David shares the recent tragedy on Belmont University's campus in the shooting of the popular freshman, accomplished musician Jillian Ludwig . He tells us about the impact of this horrible incident on his students. The entire nation took note - raising the issue of gun control. David asks a provocative question: "Am I responsible for the lies that other people voice in my presence unchallenged?" When we are silent, we normalize. The conversation picks up Part I - discussing David's assertion that all of us -because we are human - are "religious." There exists good and bad/toxic and healthy religion. We must apply critical thinking to discern. Dr. Dark agrees with Christopher Hitchens that there is a form of religion that "poisons everything." To illustrate, they consider a diverse collection of individuals including Colin Kaepernick, Howard Thurman, Rush Limbaugh, and Donald Trump. In conclusion, David shares his long-time work in the Tennessee prison system - regrettably, a for-profit enterprise.David Dark Part ISHOW NOTES | Become a PatronSupport the showSupport the show

This is one of the most popular debates on YouTube ever! But what's really going on in this debate? This is John Lennox vs. Christopher Hitchens. Who really wins in the exchange? It might not be who you think! Let's get right into it :)Join my awesome Patreon community: www.patreon.com/WiseDiscipleAccess exclusive discounts to Logos Bible Software: www.logos.com/WiseDiscipleUse WISEDISCIPLE10 for my discount at Biblingo: https://biblingo.org/pricing/?ref=wisediscipleGet my 5 Day Bible Reading Plan here: https://www.patreon.com/collection/565289?view=expandedGet your Wise Disciple merch here: https://bit.ly/wisediscipleWant a BETTER way to communicate your Christian faith? Check out my website: www.wisedisciple.orgOR Book me as a speaker at your next event: https://wisedisciple.org/reserve/​​​Got a question in the area of theology, apologetics, or engaging the culture for Christ? Send them here: https://wisedisciple.org/ask/​

Go to www.LearningLeader.com for full show notes The Learning Leader Show with Ryan Hawk Codie Sanchez is an entrepreneur and investor known for founding Contrarian Thinking, a media and business education company. She has a diverse background, including entrepreneurship, finance, and journalism. Through her book "Main Street Millionaire," she advocates for wealth-building by acquiring small businesses and shares her insights on financial independence and business success. Codie emphasizes practical, contrarian approaches to wealth and leadership. Notes: Her dad always said to her: ‘You're not going to be a princess, you're going to be the president'  – It's a great reminder of the power we have as leaders to believe in someone and raise their level of expectations because you see something special in them. Codie was glowing while talking about her dad.  How Codie earned a job at Vanguard. She went to conferences. She met people. She got IN THE ROOM and took action. And then when she got her opportunity, she led with her curiosity, asked questions from the woman she met with, learned, read the books she told her to read, and followed up. Showing up, doing extra, and following up are a great way to earn a job that you might not be qualified for. How you start and end your meetings. What type of energy do you bring to the space? Remember, you no longer get to be energy-neutral as a leader. You're either lifting the room up or taking it away. We want to add energy additives to the rooms we enter. One of Codie's favorite books – Letters to a Young Contrarian by Cristopher Hitchins. “What I like about Christopher Hitchens, he pushed back against the common narrative in a time where to be an activist was really frowned upon” “He was what the people these days that say they're activists actually are. He really had no loyalty to any type of thought; he was simply trying to find the truth. He was the inspiration for contrarian thinking” Career Path – “I don't believe that humans have linear paths ever. Anyone who has had an interesting career in my opinion has had a completely divergent set of experiences. High Performers: They hate small talk. Are not okay with wasting your time. Do what they say they're going to do. Do it with urgency. Are obsessed, not just interested. Goal Setting: “If you want to be a person who hits your goals: Skip setting goals and set sacrifices. What are you willing to give up to get what you want? That is the missing piece to winning. Every one of your goals has a price." Codie's Anti-Goals: Being an employee/work for others, Selling other people's products, Speaking for free, Coffee meetings. The richest self-made woman in the US is… Diane Hendricks (co-founded the largest wholesale roofing, siding, and window distribution company). There are billions in the boring. Writing = Clarifying Your Thinking Writing helps Codie think clearly and organize her thoughts. The process of writing demands coherence and structure, unlike verbal communication. 4 Parts to buy a business -  Cover debt, Cash to have an operator, Money to make a salary, Operating cash. 3, 9, 12 method - Learn the 10 steps in the first 3 months. Get in on a deal. Stabilize. Boring Businesses - Laundromats, car washes, and port-a-potty services can be very profitable. They are less glamorous but have a higher success rate compared to sexier industries. Advice - Meet with a small business owner. Ask to shadow them. Get curious. 42% of the population works for or in a small business.

English novelist Anthony Quinn has met and interviewed Martin Amis on several occasions. Their first encounter followed the publication of London Fields in 1989, the second during the publicity storm that came with Amis's 1995 novel The Information.In this episode, he and Jack discuss Amis's last novel, Inside Story, published in 2020. Although Anthony struggled with it in his first reading, he later came to consider it a masterful valedictory that encompasses all the best and worst of Amis as a man, and as a writer. Described by some as 'The Big Book of Mart', Inside Story is part memoir, part novel, and part writing manual. As well as revising Amis's final words of wisdom and warning to writers, Anthony and Jack cover the great romantic and literary loves of Amis's life, from Saul Bellow and his godfather Phillip Larkin, to the inimitable Christopher Hitchens. Crucially, Anthony reveals who he believes Amis loved most of all the people in his life. FOLLOW US ON TWITTER/ X: @mymartinamis

This week we look at the world through the mirror of the four horsemen of the apocalypse (Revelation 6) - 1) War - Israel, Lebanon and Gaza; Russia and Ukraine - 2) Famine, the Economy - Keir Starmer and Blackrock; the Great Reset; Climate Change; Blockading Newcastle; Ice cover and Oceans rising; Paying for COP29; Blackouts in Australia; -  3) Death - Euthanasia;  The London Tube; The World's Oldest Man;  4) The Anti-Christ  - Jordan Peterson; German Judges; The Scottish Government and What is a Woman, court case; Norway churches rebel against state indoctrination; a banana taped to a wall gets $6.2 million; Jacinda Ardern and free speech; Free speech in Australia; Tariq Ali fulfills the prediction of Christopher Hitchens;  and Feedback with music from Joe South, Bob Dylan, Louis Armstrong, Tool, The Bee Gees, Iron Maiden and the Psalms Project

Decades ago, I escaped the Islamic world and came to the West. Many don't know how good the West is, or how fragile. I fight for the restoration of what made the West great.' – Ayaan Hirsi Ali Ever since writer and activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali publicly disavowed Islam, controversy has followed her every step. For many years the Somali-born former Muslim was a fierce critic of religion – particularly Islam – and became famous worldwide after publishing her controversial bestselling autobiography 'Infidel'. In the first decade of this century she was a pioneer of the New Atheist movement alongside the so-called ‘Four Horsemen': Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett. And then late last year Ali stunned many of her own supporters and allies when she wrote an article ‘Why I am now a Christian,' in which she announced her conversion to Christianity and argued that the Christian belief system — not atheism — is the only means to preserve Western values. Many atheists felt that she had betrayed her life's work and many Christians felt she had politicised their religion. In September 2024 Ali came to the Intelligence Squared stage where, in conversation with Editor-in-Chief of UnHerd Freddie Sayers, she discussed her complicated history — from escaping an arranged marriage in her early 20s to becoming a Dutch MP aged 33 and going into hiding when death threats were made against her for alleged apostasy. And she explained her conviction that Christian values are the best hope for preserving Western society. … Subscribe to our newsletter here to hear about our latest events, discounts and much more. https://www.intelligencesquared.com/newsletter-signup/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

I happened upon an old clip of Christopher Hitchens on Charlie Rose, offering his thoughts on Israel and Palestine. I play it and offer my brief commentary. As always...thanks for listening!   https://www.patreon.com/theweekindoubt http://palbertelli.podbean.com http://www.facebook.com/TheWeekInDoubtPodcast https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-week-in-doubt-podcast/id510160837 www.audibletrial.com/theweekindoubt Twitter: @theweekindoubt Also available on Stitcher

Ashley Lande is an author who shares her story and reflections about her journey from psychedelic new age culture into Christianity. We mention Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Athanasius, Origen, Ram Dass, Paul Vanderklay, Terence McKenna, Timothy Leary, Bob Dylan, George Harrison, Eric Clapton, Jimi Hendrix, CS Lewis, Lewis Ungat, Jim Wilder, and many more. Ashley's book : https://www.amazon.com/Thing-That-Would-Everything-Forever/dp/1683597605 "The Thing that would make everything okay forever"

In this post-print age, does the written word still hold power? During his decades-long career in publishing, Steve Wasserman has worn nearly every possible hat in the industry—editor, agent, reviewer, literary festival co-founder, publisher—serving as a midwife to the art and ideas of some of the most influential cultural juggernauts of recent decades, from Linda Ronstadt to the late Christopher Hitchens. This fall, this literary tastemaker joins us in his new role as an author to discuss the provocative people and events in his new memoir, Tell Me Something, Tell Me Anything, Even If It's a Lie. Hear Wasserman's hot takes, ranging from the frontlines of progressive politics to the higher gossip of the literati. The intellectual terrain within his orbit is as capacious as its geography—with deep-dives into the readerly culture of Los Angeles to the art of the Russian avant-garde and featuring cameos from a constellation of extraordinary cultural figures—Susan Sontag, Orson Welles, Barbra Streisand, and Gore Vidal among them. With his trademark wit, Wasserman reflects on the vitality of activism, journalism, and the world of books. As a man of letters presiding over the twilight of the Age of Print, he interrogates the hegemony of Amazon, the collapse of newspapers, and the consequences of both for our civic discourse. Learn about his life lived on the crest of major cultural turning points for both medium and message. See why, throughout all of the highlights and lowlights, Wasserman has maintained a stalwart conviction of the transformative potential of the written word. Organizer: George Hammon   A Humanities Member-led Forum program. Forums at the Club are organized and run by volunteer programmers who are members of The Commonwealth Club, and they cover a diverse range of topics. Learn more about our Forums. This program is part of our Good Lit series, underwritten by the Bernard Osher Foundation. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Fewer people in the world had access to the personal moments experienced by Steve Wasserman, Heyday Books publisher, former LA Times Book Review editor and former editor at several of the nation’s most prominent book publishing houses. In his latest book, “Tell Me Something, Tell Me Anything, Even If It's a Lie,” he details his close encounters with a handful of some of the most significant people in the 20th century, including Jackie Kennedy, Susan Sontag, Christopher Hitchens, Gore Vidal, Barbra Streisand, Huey Newton and others. Wasserman describes these accounts, or portraits, as focusing on people who “inspired me to do what I could, however modestly, to live a life of passionate engagement.” From the intimate details of a lunch with Jackie O to a deathbed conversation with writer and journalist Hitchens, Wasserman features a multitude of essays that cover a range of issues from politics to literature to culture and life. One memory of Wasserman included how he “never experienced Susan Sontag as a hostage to nostalgia.” Wasserman found inspiration in that and thought “it was a great, great lesson not to become pickled in your own prejudices such that you couldn't be open to the world.” Scheer attests that these portraits are brilliant, especially when dealing with controversial figures. He tells Wasserman, “These are famous intellectuals, but you humanize them, and you involve your own criticism.”

Stephanie Baker is a journalist whose been writing between the intersection of business and politics for almost 30 years with Bloomberg. Stephanie's just published her first book and it is just amazing and the consequence of covering these topics for a lifetime. The network, the knowledge, the weird language of sanctions of financial opacity. It's a book about the global economic war with Russia post Ukrainian invasion. The fallout of the sanctions, why it has and hasn't crippled the Russian economy as intended, and everything in and around Russian capital flight, Russian sanctions and the global economic war underwriting Russia's physical threat. We start with Stephanies experience covering Russia from Moscow in the 90s, her stumbling across a murder scene and then between that and the book, Stephanie working as Christopher Hitchens fact checker at The Nation, the details behind putting a book like this together then the details about western businesses who withdrew substantial Russian operations, the oil markets chicanery to skirt sanctions, Oligarchs, Minigarchs, Euroclear and frozen Russian capital, what the sanctions did where they've been effective and where they haven't and a whole lot more.Subscribe To The Curious Worldview NewsletterStephanie Baker - Punishing PutinEpisodes Similar To This- Bill Browder- Oliver Bullough- Nicholas Shaxson----00:00 - Who Is Stephanie Baker03:21 - Moscow In The 90s & Fact Checking Christopher Hitchens09:01 - How Oligarchs Were Created17:07 - Hermitage Capital & Bill Browder19:00 - Debut Book After 30 Years Of Journalism27:46 - Economic Chaos From Sanctions31:21 - Commodity Markets & Oil Chicanery36:26 - Cannibalising Goods For Repurposing As Weapons38:45 - McDonalds, Renault & Unilever Huge Russian Operations54:50 - Euroclear's Role1:00:11 - Capital Flight, Offshore Plumbing & Financial Opacity1:20:16 - Liquid wealth of Putin1:21:36 - The Role Of Serendipity In Stephanies Life

Curtis and Christopher take on the malaise of the 2024 election which brings "Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail" to a new level. But worry not. Suicide is not the result. We explore some craziness along the way, and compliment "Colonel" Johnny Depp on his new art exhibit in NYC which features quite a lot of Hunter Thompson. We talk about drinking with Christopher Hitchens and the upcoming Gonzofest in New Orleans in May 2025.

Dave Rubin of “The Rubin Report” talks about Jordan Peterson shocking “Piers Morgan Uncensored” host Piers Morgan by telling him whether he trusts Trump, what Elon Musk's support of Trump really means, and why he would vote for Trump; Whitley Yates telling MSNBC's Jonathan Capehart and Meghan Hays why Oprah Winfrey's interview with Kamala Harris seems to be backfiring with working-class voters; CNN's failed attempt to shame a Trump supporter for owning a boat while being frustrated by inflation and the high cost of living; Dana Bash admitting to Donny Deutsch that ABC News made a massive mistake by letting debate moderator David Muir do a one-sided fact-check during the presidential debate; Megyn Kelly ripping into Hillary Clinton for what most are too afraid to say; Keir Starmer making Christopher Hitchens' warning about Islamophobia come true; and much more. WATCH the MEMBER-EXCLUSIVE segment of the show here: https://rubinreport.locals.com/ Check out the NEW RUBIN REPORT MERCH here: https://daverubin.store/ ---------- Today's Sponsors: Contagion Emergency Kit - This prescription Contagion Emergency Kit from The Wellness Company provides you with a carefully selected assortment of effective medications for bird flu, COVID-19, and other respiratory illnesses. Rubin Report viewers save $45 at checkout PLUS free shipping when they use code: RUBIN. Kits are ONLY AVAILABLE IN THE USA. Go to: https://TWC.health/RUBIN and use CODE: RUBIN PDS Debt- PDS Debt has customized options for anyone struggling with credit cards, personal loans, or medical bills. Everyone with $10,000 or more in eligible debt qualifies and there is no minimum credit score required. Go to: https://PDSDebt.com/RUBIN PrizePicks - Play PrizePicks alongside Druski, Joe Budden and MMA Champ Suga Sean O'Malley? PrizePicks puts their members first, so all withdrawals are fast, safe and secure. Download the PrizePicks app today and use code RUBIN and get $50 instantly when you play $5! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

What do our genes reveal about our past?  Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most influential and thought-provoking scientists, explored the most profound principles of evolutionary history in his new book, The Genetic Book of the Dead.  Dawkins is a renowned evolutionary biologist, zoologist, and author. He is also a prominent figure in New Atheism alongside Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and is well known for his criticisms of creationism and intelligent design.  I had the extraordinary privilege of discussing his new book in our two-part interview. In addition to judging his book, we explored the evolution of sex drive and aesthetic appreciation, genetics, the intersection of theoretical and experimental science, the potential of artificial intelligence, and more.  Tune in to learn about genes from one of the most prominent evolutionary biologists of our time! P.S. Don't forget to check out part one of our interview: https://youtu.be/BdiOFaMUASU Key Takeaways: 00:00 Intro 01:30 Judging a book by its cover 06:01 Do genes die?  07:53 Can genes predict the future?  11:26 The extended phenotype  22:42 The hypothetical scientist of the future  28:53 A colony of symbiotic vertical viruses 32:51 Final exit to the future 36:10 What evolutionary purpose does music serve?  43:25 The palimpsest  49:38 AI, pain, and evolutionary processes  56:25 Outro Additional resources: ➡️ Learn more about Richard Dawkins: ✖️ Twitter: https://x.com/RichardDawkins/ 

Dennis and Julie ponder whether it's harder to come out as gay or as conservative in 2024.  Conservatives are mischaracterized as racist and homophobic… but there is great diversity on the Right side of the aisle.  Do you know the origin of Dennis and Julie's unlikely and unique friendship?  Conservatives are mischaracterized as simple-minded religious zealots… but the Right is more intellectually formidable than the Left.  Other topics include: Jonathan Haidt's study – conservatives know liberals better than liberals know conservatives; The Humanist Manifesto; Atheism versus Belief; Dennis' question to Christopher Hitchens; Uncomfortable reality; Clarity, accuracy, and honesty are paramount; Lies are the root of evil; The writing process behind Prager U's five minute videos; The definition of prayer in Hebrew.Music: Straight to the Point c 2022Richard Friedman Music Publishing 100%Richard Friedman Writers 100%ASCAP (PRO)IPI128741568RichardFriedmanMusic.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Senate recently received testimony from the bipartisan co-chairs of the Commission on the National Defense Strategy, who were tasked with creating a report to Congress with recommendations needed to adapt our National Defense Strategy to current threats. In this episode, hear the testimony about that completed report during which they discuss preparations for a possible world war and the need for more American kids to fight and die in it. Please Support Congressional Dish – Quick Links Contribute monthly or a lump sum via Support Congressional Dish via (donations per episode) Send Zelle payments to: Donation@congressionaldish.com Send Venmo payments to: @Jennifer-Briney Send Cash App payments to: $CongressionalDish or Donation@congressionaldish.com Use your bank's online bill pay function to mail contributions to: Please make checks payable to Congressional Dish Thank you for supporting truly independent media! Background Sources Recommended Congressional Dish Episodes The Report Jane Harman et al. July 2024. Senate Committee on Armed Services. Jane Harman: Warmonger Open Secrets. October 10, 2002. Clerk of the U.S. House of Representatives. September 14, 2001. GovTrack. Iridium Communications April 2, 2024. wallmine. GuruFocus Research. March 8, 2024. Yahoo Finance. December 29, 2023. Market Screener. Bing. Iridium. Iridium. Iridium. Retrieved from the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine version archived November 11, 2022. Axis of Aggression or Axis of Resistance? Angela Skujins. June 8, 2024. euronews. Nikita Smagin. June 15, 2023. Carnegie Politika. Defense Innovation Unit Defense Innovation Unit. Military Service Kristy N. Kamarck. December 13, 2016. Congressional Research Service. Christopher Hitchens. October 3, 2007. Vanity Fair. Mark Daily. Feb. 14, 2007. Los Angeles Times. Israel-Palestine Shay Fogelman. August 16, 2024. Haaretz. Steven Scheer and Ali Sawafta. August 14, 2024. Reuters. July 2, 2024. Al Mayadeen English. Steve Crawshaw. January 26, 2024. The Guardian. Patreon August 12, 2024. Patreon. C-SPAN Fundraiser C-SPAN. Bills: NDAA 2025 Audio Sources July 30, 2024 Senate Committee on Armed Services Witnesses: Jane M. Harman, Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Eric S. Edelman, Vice Chair, Commission on the National Defense Strategy Clips 26:20 Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): The document details the way in which the 2022 National Defense Strategy and Assessment, completed just two years ago, did not adequately account for the threat of simultaneous and increasingly coordinated military action by our four primary adversaries. A group which I have come to call the Axis of Aggressors. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS): I appreciate the Commission's recommendation that national security spending must return to late Cold War levels — a goal which matches my plan to spend 5%, eventually, of GDP on defense. That level of investment would be temporary. It would be a down-payment on the rebuilding of our national defense tools for a generation. Tools that have sharpened can reduce the risk that our adversaries will use military force against US interests. 33:10 Jane Harman: The threats to US national security and our interests are greater than any time since World War II, and more complex than any threats during the Cold War. 34:00 Jane Harman: Sadly, we think, and I'm sure you agree, that the public has no idea how great the threats are and is not mobilized to meet them. Public support is critical to implement the changes we need to make. Leaders on both sides of the aisle and across government need to make the case to the public and get their support. Eric Edelman: There is potential for near-term war and a potential that we might lose such a conflict. The partnership that's emerged among China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea is a major strategic shift that we have not completely accounted for in our defense planning. It makes each of those countries potentially stronger militarily, economically, and diplomatically, and potentially can weaken the tools we have at our disposal to deal with them. And it makes it more likely that a future conflict, for instance, in the Indo-Pacific, would expand across other theaters and that we would find ourselves in a global war that is on the scale of the Second World War. Eric Edelman: The 2022 NDS identified China as the pacing challenge. We found that China is, in many ways, outpacing the US. While we still have the strongest military in the world with the farthest global reach, when we get to a thousand miles of China's shore, we start to lose our military dominance and could find ourselves on the losing end of a conflict. China's cyber capabilities, space assets, growing strategic forces, and fully modernized conventional forces are designed to keep us from engaging in the Taiwan Strait or the South or East China seas. China, as has been testified to before Congress, has infiltrated our critical infrastructure networks to prevent or deter US action by contesting our logistics, disrupting American power and water, and otherwise removing the sanctuary of the homeland that we have long enjoyed. 38:00 Eric Edelman: For its part, Russia has reconstituted its own defense industrial base after its invasion of Ukraine much more rapidly than people anticipated. Vladimir Putin seeks to reassert Russia as a great power and is happy to destabilize the world in order to do so. 38:15 Eric Edelman: Our report describes the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, and terrorism as well. Clearly, Iran and North Korea both feel emboldened by the current environment, and terrorism remains a potent threat fueled by the proliferation of technology. As the DNI has said, the current war in the Middle East is likely to have a generational impact on terrorism. 39:20 Jane Harman: First finding: DoD cannot and should not provide for the national defense by itself. The NDS calls for an integrated deterrence that is not reflected in practice today. A truly all elements of national power approach is required to coordinate and leverage resources across DoD, the rest of the Executive branch, the private sector, civil society, and US allies and partners. We agree with the NDS on the importance of allies, and we commend the administration for expanding and strengthening NATO and building up relationships and capabilities across Asia. We also point out ways for the United States to be better partners ourselves, including by maintaining a more stable presence globally and in key organizations like NATO. We call for reducing barriers to intelligence sharing, joint production, and military exports so we can better support and prepare to fight with our closest allies. 40:25 Jane Harman: Second recommendation is fundamental shifts in threats and technology require fundamental change in how DoD functions. This is particularly true of how DoD works with the tech sector, where most of our innovation happens. We say that DoD is operating at the speed of bureaucracy when the threat is approaching wartime urgency. DoD structure is optimized for research and development for exquisite, irreplaceable platforms when the future is autonomy, AI and large numbers of cheaper and attritable systems. I know this because I represented the Aerospace Center of Los Angeles in Congress for so many years, where exquisite, irreplaceable satellite platforms were built. And now we know that there is a plethora of commercial platforms that can do many of the same things and offer redundancy. DoD programs like Replicator and the Defense Innovation Unit and the Office of Strategic Capital are great, but they're essentially efforts to work around the larger Pentagon system. 42:00 Eric Edelman: Mr. Wicker, you raised the issue of the foresizing construct in your opening statement, and we, as you noted, found that it is inadequate. I mean, it was written actually before the invasion of Ukraine and before the emergence of this tightening alliance between Russia and China. And we propose that the force needs to be sized, the joint force, in conjunction with US allies and partners, to defend the homeland, but simultaneously be able to deal with threats in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, and the Middle East. These are not all the same fights, so different elements of the force would be required in different parts of the globe, but US global responsibilities require a global military response as well as a diplomatic and economic one. 43:20 Eric Edelman: The DoD workforce and the all-volunteer force provide us with a kind of unmatched advantage, but recruiting failures have shrunk the force and have raised serious questions about the sustainability of the all-volunteer force in peacetime, let alone if we had to mobilize for a major conflict or a protracted conflict. 44:30 Jane Harman: Additionally, we think that Congress should revoke the 2023 spending caps and provide real growth — I know Senator Wicker loves this one — for fiscal year 2025 defense and non-defense national security spending that, at a bare minimum, falls within the range recommended by the 2018 NDS Commission. That range was never achieved. Subsequent budgets will require spending that puts defense and other components of national security, other components jointly across government and the tech sector and partners and allies, on a glide path to support efforts commensurate with the US national efforts seen during the Cold War. Jane Harman: We agree on a unanimous basis that the national debt is its own national security challenge. If we want to approach Cold War levels of spending, we need to increase resources and reform entitlement spending. 45:40 Jane Harman: During the Cold War, top marginal income tax rates were above 70% and corporate tax rates averaged 50%. We don't call for those numbers, but we are calling for an increase in resources and point out that interest on the debt is higher than our total top line of defense spending. 49:55 Jane Harman: The notion of public service isn't new as you know, Mr. Chairman, it's been around for years. It was around when I served in Congress, and Congress did not act on any of the proposals that I saw. It is still a way to get all of the public, at the proper age, engaged in understanding the requirements of citizenship. A lot of our young people have no earthly idea, sadly, because they have no civic education, what our government really is and what are the ways to serve. And surely one of the most honorable ways to serve is as a member of the military, you did it, and other members of this committee have done this. And I think that is the way to revive a kind of sense of coherence and patriotism that we are lacking right now. Eric Edelman: We have not really, as a society, talked about the need for national mobilization, but if the worst were to happen and some of the worst scenarios we discuss in our report were to come to pass and were we to face a global conflict, it would require mobilization on the scale of what we did as a nation during World War II. And we haven't done that in a long time. We haven't thought about that in a long time. There are a lot of elements to it, including stockpiling strategic materials, but being able to rapidly bring people into the military, et cetera, I just don't think we are prepared to do it. I think we have to have a national discussion about this, and I think it goes hand in hand with the earlier discussion you had with my colleague about public service and serving the nation. 52:05 Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI): We had in World War II, two years, essentially from September 1st, 1939 to December 7th, 1941, to prepare. And I doubt we'll have two years to prepare in this environment. Eric Edelman: President Putin, in some ways, has done us a bit of a favor by having invaded Ukraine and exposed, as a result, some of the limitations of US defense industrial production, and shown that it's grossly inadequate to provide the equipment, technology, and munitions that the US military and our allies and partners need today, let alone given the demands of a potential future conflict, which might be even more taxing. Jane Harman: I remember being a member of the Defense Policy Board when Jim Mattis was Secretary of Defense, and his piece of advice to us was, let's do everything we can to keep Russia and China apart. Well, oops, that has not happened. And there is this close friendship and collaboration between them. You asked how is it manifested? Well, we see it most at the moment in Ukraine, where Russia was the aggressor violating international law and invading Ukraine, and China is a huge help to Russia in evading our sanctions by buying Russian gas and by its efforts to ship into China material for the war. And then you add in, as you mentioned, Iran and North Korea, which are suppliers of drones and other lethal material to Russia. And this unholy alliance, or I think you call it Alliance of Aggression, is extremely dangerous. Let's remember that both North Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran is at breakout for nuclear weapons, and the other two countries are nuclear countries. And where this goes is, it seems to me, terrifying. And that is, again, why we need to leverage all elements of national power to make sure we deter these countries from acting against us. Eric Edelman: Ukraine offered to give up, and I was involved in some of the diplomacy of this back in the nineties, the nuclear weapons that were left on its territory after the end of the Soviet Union. As a result of that, Ukraine gave them up, but in exchange for assurances from the United States, Russia, Great Britain and France, that its territorial integrity would be recognized along the borderlines that existed before the 2014 seizure of Crimea by Putin, which was a violation of those undertakings. If our assurances in the non-proliferation realm in this instance are shown to be hollow, it will raise questions in the minds of all of our allies about the assurances we've given them, our extended deterrent assurances, whether it's for our allies in Europe, part of our multilateral NATO alliance, or our bilateral allies in East Asia, or our partners, parts of special relationships we've developed in Middle East with Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt and others. So the whole fabric, frankly, of the international order is at risk here, depending on the outcome in Ukraine. And to your point, if Putin is successful in Ukraine, the lesson that Xi Jinping is likely to draw is that he too can be successful in Taiwan or in the East China Sea or the South China Sea. Eric Edelman: Nuclear deterrence, Senator Fisher, is the fundamental on which everything else is built in terms of our national security. It's operating every day. It's not visible to American citizens, but the fact of our nuclear deterrent force, all three legs of the triad being available is the most powerful deterrent that we have to conflict. It's not sufficient, but it is the absolute basis, and we really, I think, agreed with the conclusion our colleagues on the Strategic Posture Commission reached, which is that we have to move forward with alacrity on all the elements of modernization of the nuclear triad. That's the GBSD Sentinel Program, that is the B-21, that is the Ohio replacement class. All of those things have to be accomplished and there are problems. One of the reasons we highlighted education is that some of the problems that GBSD are running into have to do with lack of skilled workers to be able to pour the kind of special reinforced concrete that you need for the new silos for missiles, the new control systems for missiles. We lack welders in the submarine industrial base, as Senator Wicker knows well. So there's a lot that has to be done across the board in order to move forward with nuclear modernization, but it is absolutely fundamental to our ability to deter aggression against our allies and of course against the homeland. Eric Edelman: The force right now is too small, and so we have to grow the force, and that's in the face of the recruiting challenges that we've highlighted in the report that the Army in particular, but also the Navy and the Air Force have faced. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE): And I'm going to interrupt you. Please. Why is it too small? Can you explain in this setting the threats that we are facing when we look at the adversaries that we face and how that has changed over the last decade? Eric Edelman: It's too small, in part because the Department was sizing itself for one conflict. But if you have to be present in three theaters, as we are now, we've got conflicts in two theaters now, if we have a third conflict in the third theater, it's going to require a lot more forces. People talk, for instance, about the Indo-Pacific being largely a Navy and Air Force fight. That's correct, but the logistics that support the Navy and the Air Force will largely be manned by the Army. And so we have to have an Army that is sufficiently large that it can operate in all of these places, potentially simultaneously, because honestly, it is very hard to imagine today a conflict in the Indo-Pacific that doesn't become a global conflict very quickly. Someone asked earlier in the hearing about cooperation between Russia and China. The last time I testified before this committee was two years ago about the so-called "Three Body Problem," Russia and China being both nuclear peers of the United States. And one of the criticisms that was leveled at my colleague, Frank Miller and me, was that, well, there's no evidence that Russia and China are collaborating in the nuclear area. Well, we just saw them flying strategic bombers together up near Alaska, so I don't know what more evidence you want that they're beginning to collaborate in that strategic area. Eric Edelman: If we got into some kind of conflict in the Indo-Pacific, whether it be over Taiwan or the South China Sea or East China Sea, what might Russia do? One thing that comes to mind is take advantage of the separatist movement in Moldova to move on Moldova, a country that's trying to move closer to the European Union and to the West, which would then precipitate additional conflict in Europe, or take advantage of the ethnic Russian speaking minorities in the Baltic states, say Latvia, to initiate a conflict there. How would we manage that? When you raise that question with Department [of Defense] leaders, they basically say, well, that — to go back to the chairman's point earlier — well that would be sort of like World War II or would require national mobilization, and that's correct, but we haven't really taken the next steps to really focus on what that and what a protracted conflict would actually look like. We're optimized to fight very short wars. 1:21:00 Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): There are five different domains in which our country will be attacked in the future. Air, land, and sea, most people would understand, but space and cyberspace are the new domains, which will precede any attack on the first three. Jane Harman: On cyber, it's a huge threat and I don't think we minimize it in any way. One of the things we might anticipate, for example, is if China decides to annex Taiwan, or whatever euphemism they might use, they might engage in a major cyber attack here first, for which we are under-prepared, a cyber attack of our infrastructure. When I was in Congress, I represented the Port of Los Angeles, which with the Port of Long Beach is the largest container port complex in the country. 50% of our container traffic enters and exits through those ports. There are cranes on the port to move the cargo, and those cranes have Chinese technology. So guess what? Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): All of which are subject to the possibilities of cyber attack. Jane Harman: Absolutely. We should anticipate that our ports could go down. Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD): Throughout our entire society, we find that to be the case though. Jane Harman: I'm agreeing with you and this is devastating. Does the American public understand this? No. Jane Harman: You also mentioned space. Again, something I know something about, since I used to call my district the aerospace center of the universe, where most of our intelligence satellites were made. We are more dependent on space as a country and more vulnerable in space because of that dependency than any other country. Shoring up space, which is one of the threats we address, is absolutely crucial. And it's not just military space, but commercial space. You talked about communication. A lot of how we communicate is through commercial space and think how inconvenienced the public would be if all of a sudden their little devices, which we're all dependent on, didn't work. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL): What's hurting us too is a lot of our government schools, I call 'em government schools because I went in thousands of them while I was coaching, recruiting, and the problem we have is hate that's being taught in a lot of our government schools, towards our country. Why would any young man or woman want to fight for a country that they don't believe in, that they're being taught to hate? It's absolutely amazing to me the direction this country is going. So is there any agreement there, Representative Harman? Jane Harman: There is agreement there. I think hate on both sides is totally destructive. I think the absence of civics education and the absence of institutions that help people understand what patriotism means. We had a conversation about national service, which might be a way to get all of our youth back together. I mean, this country sadly, is in a point where many people say our biggest enemy is us fighting each other. 1:33:35 Jane Harman: One of the problems is the kind of deployments the military does every two years. Moving somewhere where in many cases the spouse works and having to change his or her job every two years is very burdensome. It's also hard on kids, and so that could change. 1:36:20 Eric Edelman: The BRICS was actually kind of an invention of Goldman Sachs. It's not really a serious military organization. Jane Harman: But I think that Congress is somewhat complicit in the way the budget process doesn't work, and this insistence on requirements and oversight rather than on what is the problem set we are solving for, which is how the tech sector thinks. I've been making a comment about DIU, the Defense Innovation Unit, that was set up by the late Secretary Ash Carter, that maybe we should outsource the Pentagon to DIU, which is ably headed by someone named Doug Beck, who had 11 years experience in the private sector, because they know how to think about this. I couldn't agree with you more. The budget of DIU is $1 billion out of $850 billion. Doug Beck says he can leverage that. Sen. Angus King (I-ME): It's technologies that win wars, new technology, right? Jane Harman: I'm in violent agreement with you. He says he can leverage that into $50 billion of commercial investment, but that's still a pittance compared to the kind of change we need to undergo. Not just at the Pentagon, but at the Pentagon lashed up with other government agencies, with the tech sector, and with partners and allies. That is our point about all elements of national power, which will win the next war. 1:42:55 Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): Ambassador Edelman, you spoke with Senator Fischer about the multiple theater force construct. Basically the kind of threats we're planning for, and there's a time when this nation planned to fight two major wars at a time, and I think now we're down to a force that can fight one conflict and protect our homeland, and hopefully scare bad guys everywhere else around the world and not starting war. Is that right? Eric Edelman: That is correct. That's what the 2022 NDS describes. Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR): So that's what our national Defense Strategy says. Is the current force even capable of doing that, in your opinion? Putting aside what it should be capable of doing, which I'll come to momentarily. Can it even do that? Eric Edelman: I think there are very serious questions about whether the force in being could actually execute the strategy. Jane Harman: The word pivot probably should be retired. I don't think we can leave anywhere. I think we have to have an understanding of the threats against us, not just against regions, everywhere. The whole idea of this multiple force construct is flexibility and having an adequate deterrence so we don't engage in more wars. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): In your report you talked about the current force structure that we have, and I think you had identified that the Marines are only ones meeting that. We agree with that. What you failed to do is basically identify why we have not, or why you all did not, take up women being in selective service or joining selective service, because women make up 74% of the healthcare and education industry, 52% of financial activities. They're a tremendously strong force. And there's a lot of women I don't want to go up against. I can tell you that in so many ways. I guess my question is simple. Does the commission support women registering for selective service? Jane Harman: Well, I'll speak for myself. I do. I think that women are, a majority of our population, a majority of the talent pool, many of the most talented women serve on this committee. So yes, they should be. We should be. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): I'll make it clear that what we talked about does not require women to participate in military draft. Jane Harman: I understand. It's registering. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV): Yeah, registering, that's all. Jane Harman: And my answer to that is yes. Eric Edelman: Our view was that you have to be able to deter and potentially defeat adversaries in all three of the main theaters that we have been engaged in since the end of the Second World War, and which we repeatedly engaged in. I mean, there's been no shortage of efforts to try and extricate the United States from the Middle East. The last NDS in 2018 said we should be willing to run risk in the Middle East. I think on October 7th we got a sense, and then again on April 13th, of what running additional risk means in the Middle East. So it's our view that we have to be able to manage to do all of those things. Eric Edelman: The homeland, if there's a conflict, is not going to be a sanctuary anymore. And the first attacks will likely be in the cyber domain, and they will be incredibly disabling for our society, but also for the department. But getting all of the agencies of government that would have a role in all this, because it goes beyond just DoD, it goes beyond just DHS, I mean, it goes to the Department of Transportation, it goes to Commerce. I mean, it's an unbelievably complex issue. And we're only now wrapping our minds around it and it needs a lot more work and attention from the department. Jane Harman: The public is essentially clueless about the massive cyber attacks that could be launched any day by our adversaries, not just nation states, but rogue actors as well. Music by Editing Production Assistance

Why are men's sex drives so strong? Can genetic information be destroyed? And why does the desert lizard have such intricate patterns?  I had the extraordinary privilege of exploring these topics with Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most influential and thought-provoking scientists! Dawkins is a renowned evolutionary biologist, zoologist, and author. He is also a prominent figure in New Atheism alongside Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens and is well known for his criticisms of creationism and intelligent design.  In our wide-ranging conversation, we explored the evolution of sex drive and aesthetic appreciation, genetics, the intersection of theoretical and experimental science, the potential of artificial intelligence, and more.  Tune in! — Key Takeaways:  00:00 Intro 01:56 Why is the sex drive in men so strong? 04:44 DNA, origin of life and panspermia  10:28 Is there life elsewhere in the universe? 14:58 Memes and their evolution  21:13 Homage to Daniel Dennett  23:20 Natural selection and evolution  26:59 The threats and opportunities of AI 31:05 A shifting moral zeitgeist  35:15 Science communication  43:02 Audience questions  47:01 Technology, magic, and time capsules 56:22 Outro — Additional resources:  ➡️ Learn more about Richard Dawkins: ✖️ Twitter: https://x.com/RichardDawkins/ 

America will soon have a president who laughs easily and a humorous vice president, leading what will be the most progressive and joyful administration in American history. Kamala Harris made a strong choice by selecting beloved football coach, former teacher, and Minnesota governor Tim Walz as her running mate. This move unites the Democrats' Big Tent coalition, which has historically won them the White House. Walz's heartfelt and straightforward approach won him a U.S. House seat in a rural Republican district and re-election as governor of Minnesota, where he used a slim Democratic majority to achieve bold progressive victories: strengthening LGBTQ+ protections to make Minnesota a refuge for trans people; committing to decarbonization by 2040; protecting reproductive healthcare; significantly reducing child poverty; implementing automatic voter registration; strengthening gun safety laws; signing into law free school meals and free public college; banning forever chemicals known as PFAS; calling for a ceasefire and hostage deal early; and much more.    Harris reportedly chose Walz to collaborate on advancing a progressive national agenda, and his humor is an added bonus. Walz won hearts across America by labeling MAGA as “weird,” because it is. His famous charm will destroy J.D. Vance, a fascist tool of dark lord Peter Thiel. Harris and Walz are roughly the same age, which means, if we hold on tight, we could have eight years of President Harris followed by eight years of President Walz, strengthening America's future as we build a sustainable economy for all, especially for the planet.   ***   You think modern women have it tough now? Not too long ago, in 2007, Christopher Hitchens wrote an essay for Vanity Fair titled, “Why Women Aren't Funny.” In it, he argued, “Whereas women, bless their tender hearts, would prefer that life be fair, and even sweet, rather than the sordid mess it actually is. Jokes about calamitous visits to the doctor or the shrink or the bathroom, or the venting of sexual frustration on furry domestic animals, are a male province.” In his view, women are precious baby-making machines, and that power forces them into being a solemn presence–a reserved audience for men, who have evolved with the purpose of making society laugh.     Today, a woman vice president of the United States is the second most powerful person in the world. And the most that her enemies can come up with is that she laughs too much and has never given birth. The slim pickings of criticism of Kamala Harris by MAGA are as thin as Hitchens' arguments, and they all boil down to misogyny that will be relegated to history books.    That era was defined by the reign of “the rape joke king” Tucker Max, bestselling author of the book I Hope They Serve Beer in Hell, in case you've blocked him out of your memory. Coming of age during that time, a group of childhood girlfriends decided to create their own satire of this misogynistic hellscape, Betches Media. Joining us this week on Gaslit Nation to make sense of the war on women, past and present, and what to do about it is Sami Sage, co-founder of Betches Media and co-author, along with Emily Amick of the popular civic-action Instagram account Emily in Your Phone, Democracy in Retrograde: How to Make Changes Big and Small in Our Country and Our Lives.    This conversation was recorded during one of the darkest weeks in American democracy: the Republican National Convention. As they say, it's aways darkest before the dawn. Much has changed since then, but this conversation with Sami Sage remains as current as ever as we celebrate the opening words of the Gaslit Nation Action Guide: Democracy is a lifestyle. That's the only way we ensure the first Black woman president, and secure our democracy in the critical years to come.    Book Launch Reception for In the Shadow of Stalin: The Story of Mr. Jones – Sept 16 Monday September 16th 7pm at the Ukrainian Institute of America join us for a wine reception and live taping of Gaslit Nation with Terrell Starr for the launch of the graphic novel adaptation of Andrea's film Mr. Jones! Get in free by subscribing at the Truth-teller level or higher on Patreon! RSVP here: https://ukrainianinstitute.org/event/books-at-the-institute-chalupa/ Indivisible x Gaslit Nation Phonebank Party! — August 15 at 7pm ET Every third Thursday through election day and on election eve in November we're calling voters in Republican-hostage states in the Midwest with Indivisible to ensure a Democratic Senate. Sign up here to join us: https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/628701/ Sister District x Gaslit Nation Phonebank Parties! – Every Wednesday in October!  Every Wednesday through October, we're phone-banking with Sister District, calling voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia. Sign up here to join us: https://www.mobilize.us/sisterdistrictnyc/event/642096/ Show Notes:   Casablanca clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOeFhSzoTuc   Why Women Aren't Funny  https://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2007/01/hitchens200701   Betches Media https://betches.com/  

Patrick delves into the alarming state of global unrest. He discusses the recent crash of the US stock market, with over $1.93 trillion wiped out, and touches on Israel's tensions with Iran. He also explores the disturbing situation in the UK, where systemic failures have led to horrific crimes against children, and the ensuing public outcry. Patrick Madrid unravels these critical issues impacting our world today.   Patrick comments on the stock market crashing, Israel bracing for an attack from Iran, and the breaking news of unrest and riots in the UK (00:45) Rotherham sex abuse: Shock report reveals 1400 children were sexually exploited over 16-year period. The report found that children in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, were raped by "multiple perpetrators" and trafficked to other towns and cities Audio: Irish politician Hermann Kelly: “The Left is happy to say ‘Palestine belongs to the Palestinians', but if we say ‘Ireland belongs to the Irish', they start crying. So we'll say it clearly: Ireland belongs to the Irish!” (11:06) Audio: 25 years ago Christopher Hitchens warned about the dangers of those trying to censor criticizing Islam. Days ago, Sadiq Khan urges Keir Starmer to criminalize those who speak out against Islam (13:08) Audio: Sunil Sharma: How to stop the UK Riots (17:34) Audio: Shia Imam - Does Islam have a problem or is it the west that has a problem? There is no crisis in Dubai. No crisis in Bahrain. There is a crisis in the UK and France. Want to know why? Because they import the worst garbage of radical Islam. (23:01) Rick - Unrest in England: Little girls were murdered and many others were injured by a stabbing attack? (26:02) Sam - I am a Christian from the Middle East. Islam is Evil. I lived through what they do. Rape and slavery are allowed in Islam. (29:40) Patrick responds to an angry email claiming he is pro-illegal immigrants (37:26) Miles - One solution would be for any Islamic person to denounce publicly anything in the Koran about Jihad. (43:53) Walter (9-years-old) - My godfather doesn't pray for me. Can I change who my godfather is? (46:48)

--{ "Communitarianism, Ukrainian Genocide"}-- Nature - Are we born good? Christopher Hitchens and Peter Hitchens, Journalism, Marxism, Materialism - Archbishop Vigano Excommunicated - Man-Made Famine in the Ukraine - 10 Million Deaths, Soviet System, World War II, Horrors of War - Hindu Philosophy - Freemasonry, Government Genocide, Joseph Stalin - Force Peasants to Give Up Private Farms and Join Collectives, New Communitarianism, CollectHIVE, USSR - Moscow, Mass Starvation - Genocide, Sovietization - Lives Planned by Experts, Taxation, Grain Quotas (Tax) Exceeded Production in Ukraine = Famine, War, Oaths of Secrecy - Blood Oaths - Death Oaths, Freemasonry's Charity Front - Freemasonic World System, "Rite" Connections, A Religion Encompassing All Religions, Secret Services and Intelligence, Trade Unions, Masters Over "The Masters of the World" - Manly P. Hall, Spokesperson for Freemasonry - Freemasonry is a Religion, Social Change and Guidance, Hidden Masters, Theosophy, Lawyers Wit and Terminology, Knights Templars, Uniform - One Form One Shape, Oneness Doctrine, Capstone for the Elect, Controlling Minds - Massive Indoctrination and Conditioning. (Credits: Poem - "The Box" by John Denver, Song - "Try To Remember" by Nana Mouskouri)

Can Lewis still speak to us today? Following the death of his father as a child, Afrikaner pastor Johan Erasmus struggled to find a place where he could ask sceptical questions about faith, God and the Universe. During this time he discovered CS Lewis, but also Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. You can hear more of his story in Coming To Faith Through Dawkins. To hear more of Johan's story, check out Unapologetic: https://www.premierunbelievable.com/shows/unapologetic + Subscribe to The CS Lewis podcast: https://pod.link/1560959545 + For more shows, free ebook and newsletter visit our new website + For online learning https://www.premierunbelievable.com/training + For our Premier Unbelievable? Live events + Support the podcast from the USA + Support the podcast from UK and rest of the world

(2:00) VICTORY: $15,000 fine per day, bank account confiscated, facing jail. After 4 years, NY gym owner who refused to shut down has all charges (over 80) dismissed.  Here's his story and what he says we need to do to fight (12:02) Pandemic Part DeuxThe tribal element of the hoax and fascism on the left2nd human case of "bird flu"? Not so fast.  And you won't guess who's hyping "bleeding eyes" lieThere's nothing special or dangerous about "conjunctivitis" — 8 common myths (now we add a 9th)The "climate vaccine" is NOT JUST FOR COWS.  Major vaccine companies are talking about it for humans(34:00) Congressional transcript shows that Francis Collins (NIH head in 2020) questioned on where the magic 6 foot "social distance" rule came from (43:26) Wall Street BETS BIG on Bird Flu Vaccines Being Pushed Unbelievable spike in Pharma vaccine stocks after second case of — pink eye.  Several million doses already lined up (50:33) Transgenic Cows: Mammary Glands Genetically Modified to Produce Insulin, Not Milk (58:02) Musk's SpaceX begins launching a new "constellation" of spy satellites for US government presumably for weapon systems since the internet and Twitter (X) is, like all social media, for surveillance of the population (1:03:44) WATCH The epic failures of Cybertruck.  At least one person believes it could bring the company down in a bigger failure than Enron (already the losses are bigger) (1:11:56) Signal CEO says AI is about surveillance.  Yes, and one more thing (1:20:12) DEI Causes Famous Medical School to DIE (1:29:45) Jesse Watters infatuation with the occult — tarot cards, astrology, and now screaming witches in the woods being pushed on his show (1:34:43) Jesuits attack Harrison Butker for promoting family but WATCH the MOST ANNOYING feminist you've ever seen — an AWFUL (Affluent White Female Ultra Liberal) NFL cheerleader (1:39:45) CRU - formerly known as "Campus Crusade for Christ" - has become one of the most LGBT heretical "Christian" organizations (1:42:45) WATCH Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Doug Wilson on what should or can be saved of Christianity (1:53:04) US House passes bill to stop creation of CBDC.  Will it become law? And Visa credit card company brags it has the "one card to rule them all".  Does "all" refer to people?  It's based on biometric data of course. (2:05:43) INTERVIEW Eric Peters - The Delusion of "Devolution" and Government Saviors Eric Peters, EricPetersAutos.com joinsThe delusion of the "devolution"Left & right are getting more and more polarized and authoritarianResisting the climate & pandemic liesWhy cheap EVs (and other cars) aren't coming to AmericaWhy you can't pay cash for a chargeFarewell Camaroand moreFind out more about the show and where you can watch it at TheDavidKnightShow.comIf you would like to support the show and our family please consider subscribing monthly here: SubscribeStar https://www.subscribestar.com/the-david-knight-showOr you can send a donation throughMail: David Knight POB 994 Kodak, TN 37764Zelle: @DavidKnightShow@protonmail.comCash App at: $davidknightshowBTC to: bc1qkuec29hkuye4xse9unh7nptvu3y9qmv24vanh7Money is only what YOU hold: Go to DavidKnight.gold for great deals on physical gold/silver

In the election year of 2004, an ultraviolent subtitled right-wing Christian movie became a genuine cultural phenomenon and political lightning-rod. We finally discuss THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST (2004) and theology according to Mel Gibson. PLUS: the White House Correspondents Dinner, the Columbia encampment, and the one optimistic takeaway of a discouraging week."This Is How Power Protects Itself" by Jack Mirkinson - https://www.thenation.com/article/activism/columbia-ccny-cuny-protest-nypd-police-brutality/"Mel Gibson's Martyrdom Complex" by Frank Rich - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/03/movies/mel-gibson-s-martyrdom-complex.html"The Gospel According to Mel" by Christopher Hitchens - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/03/hitchens-201102The Mel Gibson/Diane Sawyer interview - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ecnfe530IEMichael and Us is a podcast about political cinema and our crumbling world hosted by Will Sloan and Luke Savage. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Douglas Wilson, Calvinist Theologian and Minister at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho, joins us to discuss the role of a Christian in today's fallen culture, his well-documented theological rivalry and friendship with prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, and how Christians can effectively make headway in the arts by being moral rather than moralistic.       #DouglasWilson #ChristopherHitchens #Christianity