Podcast appearances and mentions of Richard Dawkins

Tradicionalmente, la biología ha explicado que el genoma es el libro de la vida, el manual de instrucciones para la construcción del organismo. El ADN cobró una importancia capital tras el descubrimiento de su estructura por Watson y Crick. Pero frente al gen egoísta propuesto por Richard Dawkins, el investigador ICREA en la universidad Pompeu Fabra, Alfonso Martínez Arias, sostiene que lo que nos define son nuestras células. Hemos entrevistado a este destacado investigador ICREA en la universidad Pompeu Fabra, referencia internacional en el campo de la biología del desarrollo y autor del libro “Las arquitectas de la vida: Cómo la nueva ciencia celular está reescribiendo la historia del ser humano”, publicado por Paidós. Con Montse Villar hemos analizado el cometa interestelar 3I/Atlas que está cruzando nuestro vecindario cósmico, el tercero descubierto hasta la fecha. José Luis Trejo nos ha hablado de una investigación muy interesante que ha descubierto el crecimiento de nuevas neuronas en el hipocampo del cerebro humano adulto, una región crucial para la memoria y el aprendizaje. María González Dionis nos ha contado un estudio sobre la presencia en la Antártida de bacterias superresistentes, diseminadas por aves migratorias. En nuestra "Historia de la ciencia", Nuria Martínez Medina ha trazado la biografía del francés Romé de L'Isle, considerado el padre de la cristalografía, la ciencia que estudia los cristales y sus formas. Y con Eulalia Pérez Sedeño hemos recordado la figura de Laura Rodríguez Dulanto, la primera mujer que logró estudiar medicina en Perú y la primera médico cirujana del país andino., y Escuchar audio

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Nihal Arthanayake for a compelling conversation in London, England This episode was filmed as part of Richard Dawkins' tour. Nihal Arthanayake is an acclaimed multi-award winning broadcaster, journalist, podcaster and author. He currently presents the Headliners Podcast on the BBC in the UK.

Federated Farmers’ new national meat and wool chair farms in Marlborough. He discusses how Feds is keeping a close eye on flood-affected farmers in the region. Plus, he says the Save Our Sheep campaign is still going strong.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Hamish McKay talks to Chris Brandolino, Aaron Cruden, Sandra Matthews, Richard Dawkins, Emma Poole and Tim Dangen.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode: News Wrap | Emissions reduction and the profitable farm1:48 – DairyNZ head of data science and modelling Mark Neal tells Bryan about a newly released study that shows any farm in any region can be profitable and emissions efficient. The study drew on data from DairyNZ, Dairybase, Fonterra and LIC.Feature | Agroecology coach favours relationships over recipes7:56 – Nicole Masters, an agroecology coach, reckons that if we're going to improve environmental outcomes we need to stop focusing on data and rules and instead look to relationships and values. Masters says farmers tend to use intuition when making big decisions, rather than relying on facts and figures.Feds Focus | Richard Dawkins takes on sheep and beef challenge20:58 – We catch up with Federated Farmers meat and wool chair Richard Dawkins, a Marlborough farmer who was voted onto the national executive a few weeks ago. Richard talks about his farming life and what the meat and wool executive has planned for the months ahead.The Final Word29:15 – Nuffield scholar Hugh Ritchie has some advice for today's farmers – look up and look out. He says there's plenty of innovation out there that could transform NZ farm systems, if we're willing to find it.

Bryan meets the new Federated Farmers meat and wool chair Richard Dawkins, a Marlborough farmer who was voted onto the national executive a few weeks ago. Richard talks about his farming life and what the meat and wool executive has planned for the months ahead.

This is a preview — for the full episode, subscribe: https://newmodels.io https://patreon.com/newmodels https://newmodels.substack.com Our guest is American media theorist Douglas Rushkoff. He is the author of such seminal books on digital culture and networked communication as Cyberia (1994), Media Virus (1995), and Coercion (1999); and numerous further titles including, Program or Be Programmed (2010/2025) and Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires (2022). He is also the host of Team Human and a professor of Media Theory and Digital Economics as CUNY/Queens. On this episode, Doug speaks with us about the evolution (and devolution) of digital culture across web 1, 2, 3, and beyond via a synthesis of media theory, psychedelic thinking, and practical wisdom for navigating our contemporary networks. Names cited: Adam Curtis, Alex Garland, Allan Kaprow, Amazon, Art Bell, AT&T, Bernie Madoff, CNN, Cyberia, CVS, Dan Rather, Daniel Dennett, David Bowie, David Hershkovitz, David Lynch, Donna Haraway, Douglas Rushkoff, Elon Musk, Emmanuel Levinas, Francis Bacon, Genesis P-Orridge, Jake Tapper, Jeff Bezos, Jeffrey Epstein, Jesse Armstrong, Joe Rogan, John Brockman, John Perry Barlow, Joseph Chaikin, Kamala Harris, Lauren Sanchez, Louis Rossetto, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Madonna, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Marshall McLuhan, Martin Buber, Martin Heidegger, Media Virus, Michael Jackson, Milton Friedman, Naomi Klein, Naomi Wolf, Neil Simon, New Models, New York Times, Norbert Wiener, Orit Halpern, Paper Magazine, Peter Thiel, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, Present Shock, Ray Kurzweil, Richard Dawkins, Robert Anton Wilson, Ross Douthat, Skinny Puppy, Spinoza, Star Trek, Team Human, Temple of Psychic Youth, The Long Boom, The Process Church, The Simpsons, Vanessa Machado de Oliveira, Walter Benjamin, William S. Burroughs, Wired Magazine

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

This is a live recording from our recent show – The Future of Humanity – held on 3 June 2025 at London's Royal Institution Theatre. The event was a conversation between psychologist Steven Pinker and biologist Richard Dawkins – both previous guests on The Panpsycast – exploring the evolution of human beings and the challenges we face in the future. Richard leads the discussion, questioning Steve about his extensive catalogue of books and his contributions to psychology, sociology, and evolutionary theory. They focus a lot on the past but, eventually, get on to the future. It's a brilliant exchange, covering a wide range of topics and packed with some of Pinker's most important insights. The first part of this podcast special is their free-flowing conversation; the second is a Q&A with the audience, hosted by Jack. Thank you to everyone who came along and made the show possible. Without further ado, here's the audio from our live show – we hope you enjoy the conversation. Links Steven Pinker, Website Richard Dawkins, Website

In a surprise move, Federated Farmers meat and wool group recently ousted chair Toby Williams. Williams lost the chairmanship to Marlborough provincial vice president Richard Dawkins during the council annual meeting. The Country host Jamie Mackay explains further. LISTEN ABOVESee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dom talks with newly elected Federated Farmers Meat & Fibre Chair Richard Dawkins about why he contested Toby Williams for the position, the current state of meat and wool sectors and his vision for the future. Tune in daily for the latest and greatest REX rural content on your favourite streaming platform, visit rexonline.co.nz and follow us on Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn for more.

On today's REX Daily Podcast, Dom talks with newly elected Federated Farmers Meat & Fibre Chair Richard Dawkins about why he contested Toby Williams for the position, the current state of meat and wool sectors and his vision for the future... He talks with Rockit Apple CEO Grant McBeath about being part of the recent Prime Minister's trade delegation to China, its new strategic partnership agreement with fruit store chain giant Xian Feng and the continuing global expansion of the brand... And he talks with Belle Binder, founder of Tasmanian-based Left Field agricultural recruitment agency, about how she started in the ag recruitment industry, her NZ connections and the potential for more collaboration with Tasmania and NZ on the agriculture front. Tune in daily for the latest and greatest REX rural content on your favourite streaming platform, visit rexonline.co.nz and follow us on Instagram, Facebook and LinkedIn for more.

In 2009, famed atheist Richard Dawkins proposed a test for evolution. If Darwinism is correct, he claimed, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” On the other hand, if intelligent design is an accurate depiction of the origin of life, a designer would pick and choose the best proteins for the job, and genes would NOT all give the same tree of genetic resemblances. Join us as we ask Dr. Casey Luskin, a geologist, to tell us who won that challenge: Richard Dawkins or Intelligent Design?Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

En su libro, The Blind Watchmaker (El relojero ciego), el evangelista evolutivo Richard Dawkins declaró: "La Biología es el estudio de lo complicado que dan la apariencia de haber sido diseñado con un propósito"… To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1235/29

In 2009, famed atheist Richard Dawkins proposed a test for evolution. If Darwinism is correct, he claimed, every gene in a group of organisms will give “approximately the same tree of life.” On the other hand, if intelligent design is an accurate depiction of the origin of life, a designer would pick and choose the best proteins for the job, and genes would NOT all give the same tree of genetic resemblances. Join us as we ask Dr. Casey Luskin, a geologist, to tell us who won that challenge: Richard Dawkins or Intelligent Design?Become a Parshall Partner: http://moodyradio.org/donateto/inthemarket/partnersSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Scripture: Matthew 13:31-33 Key Takeaways:  + The Kingdom of God is humble in its start and unstoppable in its spread. Acts 6:7 Acts 12:24 Acts 19:20 + A Global Dimension   Ezekiel 17:22-24 Matthew 24:14 + A Societal Dimension  “I call myself a cultural Christian. I'm not a believer, but there is a distinction between believing in something and being steeped in the culture of it.” – Richard Dawkins, Atheist “You cannot take the fruit of Christianity and then say you don't want the tree.” – Douglas Murray, Atheist Cultural Critic + A Personal Dimension  Philippians 1:6

In this episode, Richard Dawkins reacts to a compilation of videos featuring arguments about religion, evolution, and science. This is the first video in the new series, Richard Dawkins Reacts, where Richard Dawkins watches clips from the internet ranging from creationist claims to debates on science and faith—and shares his unfiltered thoughts and insights. A straightforward look at how science is misunderstood—and why it matters. Join Substack: https://richarddawkins.substack.com/ Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmwfdgHA_R9fzr1L0_hxdVw Follow: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/richard_dawkins/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsBooks Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePoetryofReality

In this episode of Transfigured, I sit down with Dr. Jim to delve into a range of pressing intellectual and spiritual topics. We explore his recent writings on his Substack, "Around the Corner," his perspective on the "re-enchantment" narrative currently popular in some online spaces, and a critical engagement with modernism. Using Carlos Eire's book "They Flew" (about the levitating St. Joseph of Cupertino) as a springboard, we discuss the nature of evidence, the moral responsibilities tied to metaphysical claims, and the vital role of institutions (like those in science, medicine, and education) in fostering self-correction and upholding human values. Dr. Jim shares his thoughts on the "scientific image" versus the "manifest image," the limitations of evolutionary biology's common framing, and why he considers himself a "reactionary modern," wary of prematurely discarding the hard-won insights of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Join us for a deep and nuanced conversation! We mention Dr. Jim, Sam (Transfigured), David Bentley Hart, Paul Vander Klay, Jonathan Pageau, John Vervaeke, Carlos Eire ("They Flew"), St. Joseph of Cupertino, Ross Douthat, Bart Ehrman, David Hume, Sam Harris, Wilfrid Sellars (Scientific Image vs. Manifest Image), Richard Dawkins, Bach, Mozart, Galileo, Michael Servetus, John Calvin, Rod Dreher, Bethel McGrew, Benjamin Boyce, Jesus Christ, Hermes, Chad (the Alcoholic), Julian, Aristotle (Four Causes), and more.Dr. Jim's Substack "Around the Corner": https://substack.com/@aroundthecorner1Midwest Apologetics Conference (August 22-24, Chicago, IL): https://www.midwestuary.com/Email for scholarship inquiries: info@midwestuary.com

Welcome to Episode 144 (Part I of II), where Richard Dawkins interviews Steven Pinker on the past and future of humanity. This is a live recording from our recent show – The Future of Humanity – held on 3 June 2025 at London's Royal Institution Theatre. The event was a conversation between psychologist Steven Pinker and biologist Richard Dawkins – both previous guests on The Panpsycast – exploring the evolution of human beings and the challenges we face in the future. Richard leads the discussion, questioning Steve about his extensive catalogue of books and his contributions to psychology, sociology, and evolutionary theory. They focus a lot on the past but, eventually, get on to the future. It's a brilliant exchange, covering a wide range of topics and packed with some of Pinker's most important insights. The first part of this podcast special is their free-flowing conversation; the second is a Q&A with the audience, hosted by Jack. Thank you to everyone who came along and made the show possible. Without further ado, here's the audio from our live show – we hope you enjoy the conversation. Links Steven Pinker, Website Richard Dawkins, Website

Does the multiverse truly solve the mystery of our finely-tuned universe—or merely shift the question elsewhere? Join us as we tackle the controversial multiverse theory, question whether the designer itself needs a designer, and explore why an ultimate designing mind might actually be simpler, not more complex. From Alexander Vilenkin's admissions about the multiverse to critiques of Richard Dawkins' argument, discover if infinite universes truly eliminate the need for design.Equipping the believer defend their faith anytime, anywhere. Our vision is to do so beyond all language barriers in India and beyond!SAFT Apologetics stands for Seeking Answers Finding Truth and was formed off inspiration from the late Nabeel Qureshi's autobiography that captured his life journey where he followed truth where it led him. We too aim to be a beacon emulating his life's commitment towards following truth wherever it leads us.Connect with us:WhatsApp Channel: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029Va6l4ADEwEk07iZXzV1vWebsite: https://www.saftapologetics.comNewsletter: https://www.sendfox.com/saftapologeticsInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/saftapologetics/Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/saftapologetics/X: https://www.twitter.com/saftapologetics SAFT Blog: https://blog.saftapologetics.com/YouVersion: https://www.bible.com/organizations/dcfc6f87-6f06-4205-82c1-bdc1d2415398 Is there a question that you would like to share with us?Send us your questions, suggestions and queries at: info@saftapologetics.com

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins John McWhorter for a compelling conversation about Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including evolution, genetics, science, and the broader cultural forces that shape our understanding of truth. John McWhorter is a linguist, author, and professor at Columbia University, best known for his work in creole studies, sociolinguistics, and for his commentary on race, language, and politics in American society. Join Substack: https://richarddawkins.substack.com/ Subscribe to Poetry of Reality Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmwfdgHA_R9fzr1L0_hxdVw Follow: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/richard_dawkins/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsBooks Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePoetryofReality

Sign up for Dr. Jacobs' college course: https://myprofer.com/  

What happens when a Christian psychiatrist wants to marry a “spiritual” Richard Dawkins atheist—and then a medical crisis involving multiple organ failures and a medically induced coma changes everything? Join Frank as he sits down with Garrett & Aja Halweg, a married couple that formed a powerful union against all odds! Tune in as they share their story of Garrett's brush with death, Aja's testimony of becoming a Christian, and how both of these events ultimately led them to become powerful ambassadors for Christ (and appear on Animal Planet)! Tune in as they unpack their story and answer questions like:How did Garrett and Aja initially form a strong connection despite their opposing worldviews?Why did doctors misdiagnose Garrett and how did God providentially reveal the true cause of his life-threatening illness to Aja?What series of events led to Aja's conversion and baptism?Why did Aja experience a post-conversion crisis of faith and what role did apologetics play in strengthening her new belief in Christianity?Why does Garrett believe that God allowed him to get sick?How did Aja maintain peace throughout Garrett's time in the hospital?What troubling scenes did Garrett see during his near death experience, and how did Biola & Talbot professors help him to process this traumatic encounter with the unseen realm?Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction, and you definitely don't want to miss this amazing story of God's provision and providence!Resources mentioned during the episode:Garrett's website - https://www.braindochawaii.com/Garrett & Aja on 'Monsters Inside Me' - https://youtu.be/oD8Y_yODjjg

If you appreciate my work and would like to support it: https://subscribestar.com/the-saad-truth https://patreon.com/GadSaad https://paypal.me/GadSaad To subscribe to my exclusive content on Twitter, please visit my bio at https://twitter.com/GadSaad _______________________________________ This clip was posted on June 9, 2025 on my YouTube channel as THE SAAD TRUTH_1858: https://youtu.be/YcrQcdf5oO0 _______________________________________ Please visit my website gadsaad.com, and sign up for alerts. If you appreciate my content, click on the "Support My Work" button. I count on my fans to support my efforts. You can donate via Patreon, PayPal, and/or SubscribeStar. _______________________________________ Dr. Gad Saad is a professor, evolutionary behavioral scientist, and author who pioneered the use of evolutionary psychology in marketing and consumer behavior. In addition to his scientific work, Dr. Saad is a leading public intellectual who often writes and speaks about idea pathogens that are destroying logic, science, reason, and common sense.  _______________________________________

Many topics today! First: FDA tentatively approves Moderna's new mRNA shot for Covid. What? And also why? Bret has six main points, which include discussion of mucosal immunity, IgG4, auto-immunity, long-term consequences, statistical tricks, and homeopathy. Then: how do we know what is true, and how can we avoid jumping to conclusions when triggered by language or circumstances that seem familiar and frustrating?...As explored through the story of Algerian boxer Imane Khelif, who has a Disorder of Sexual Development, won Olympic gold for beating women, but is definitely male. Finally: brief discussions of Glenn Greenwald, and Richard Dawkins. No, Dawkins, religion is not a mental infection.*****Our sponsors:CrowdHealth: Pay for healthcare with crowdfunding instead of insurance. It's way better. Use code DarkHorse at http://JoinCrowdHealth.com to get 1st 3 months for $99/month.ARMRA Colostrum is an ancient bioactive whole food that can strengthen your immune system. Go to http://www.tryarmra.com/DARKHORSE to get 15% off your first order.Helix: Excellent, sleep-enhancing, American-made mattresses. Go to www.HelixSleep.com/DarkHorse for 20% Off sitewide.*****Join us on Locals! Get access to our Discord server, exclusive live streams, live chats for all streams, and early access to many podcasts: https://darkhorse.locals.comHeather's newsletter, Natural Selections (subscribe to get free weekly essays in your inbox): https://naturalselections.substack.comOur book, A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century, is available everywhere books are sold, including from Amazon: https://amzn.to/3AGANGg (commission earned)Check out our store! Epic tabby, digital book burning, saddle up the dire wolves, and more: https://darkhorsestore.org*****Mentioned in this episode:Moderna press release: https://investors.modernatx.com/news/news-details/2025/Moderna-Receives-U-S--FDA-Approval-for-COVID-19-Vaccine-mNEXSPIKE/default.aspxKennedy on FDA and Moderna shot: https://x.com/seckennedy/status/1930012848056365294Mary Talley Bowden MD on the shots: https://x.com/mdbreathe/status/1927899248575545501Heather on Imane Khelif: https://x.com/HeatherEHeying/status/1929920193771516423Greenwald on the situation: https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1928440222771015912Dawkins on religion: https://x.com/richarddawkins/status/1930184916190257320Support the show

Episode: 3245 Memes, Internet Challenges, and the Selfish Gene.  Today, memes.

Please join my mailing list here

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Peter Boghossian for a compelling conversation about Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including evolution, genetics, science, and the broader cultural forces that shape our understanding of truth. This episode was filmed as part of Richard Dawkins' tour. Peter Boghossian is an American philosopher, author, and educator best known for his work on critical thinking, atheism, and free speech.

Please join my mailing list here

Jane M has had a bumpy journey back from sipping champagne at Roland-Garros, while Fi's had a bumpy experience with some sub-par paving —naturally. The two chat tennis-induced wees, Lewes, and undoing life mistakes. Plus, put your feminist ears aside for this one: Tom Whipple, science editor at The Times, speaks with biologist Richard Dawkins about his book 'The Genetic Book of the Dead'. If you want to contribute to our playlist, you can do that here: Off Air with Jane & Fi: Official Playlist - https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3qIjhtS9sprg864IXC96he?si=9QZ7asvjQv2Zj4yaqP2P1Q If you want to come and see us at Fringe by the Sea, you can buy tickets here: www.fringebythesea.com/fi-jane-and-judy-murray/And if you fancy sending us a postcard, the address is:Jane and FiTimes Radio, News UK1 London Bridge StreetLondonSE1 9GFIf you want to contact the show to ask a question and get involved in the conversation then please email us: janeandfi@times.radio The next book club pick has been announced! We'll be reading Leonard and Hungry Paul by Rónán Hession. Follow us on Instagram! @janeandfiPodcast Producer: Eve SalusburyExecutive Producer: Rosie Cutler Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Historian Tom Holland narrowly escaped a career writing vampire novels to become the co-host of the wildly popular podcast The Rest Is History. At Steve's request, he compares President Trump and Julius Caesar and explains why the culture wars are arguments about Christian theology. SOURCES:Tom Holland, historian and host of The Rest is History. RESOURCES:Dominion: How the Christian Revolution Remade the World, by Tom Holland (2019).Rubicon, by Tom Holland (2005). EXTRAS:Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence, by Jens Ludwig (2025)."A Solution to America's Gun Problem," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2025)."Richard Dawkins on God, Genes, and Murderous Baby Cuckoos," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2024).

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Michael Shermer for a compelling conversation about Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including evolution, genetics, science, and the broader cultural forces that shape our understanding of truth. This episode was filmed at as part of Richard Dawkins' tour. Michael Shermer is a science writer and historian, founder of The Skeptics Society, and host of The Michael Shermer Show.

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

This is part two of a series about Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ) and John Verkvaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ) and their respective views on Spirit and pneumatology. I mention Jonathan Pageau, John Vervaeke, Paul Vander Klay, Elizabeth Oldfield, Kale Zelden, Rod Dreher, Grim Grizz, , Ed Hutchins, Tucker Carlson, St. Anthony of the Desert, Athanasius, David Sloan Wilson, John Calvin, Tanya Luhrmann, Charles Taylor, Chuck Colson, Will Barlow, Scott Alexander, Robert Falconer, Richard Schwarz, Chris Masterpietro (Vervaeke's collaborator), Jung (Carl Jung), Michael (Archangel), Jesus Christ, Satan, Andre Antunes, Daniel (prophet), Mary Harrington, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Meno, Gregory of Nyssa, Father John Bear, Hank (presumably Hank Green from a referenced conversation), Barack Obama, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, George Cybenko, Kurt Hornik, Jonathan Losos, Richard Dawkins, Jordan Peterson, Baldwin (James Mark Baldwin), Alex O'Connor, Nero Caesar, Adam, Plotinus, Spinoza (Benedict de Spinoza), Dan Wagenmaker, (Upton) Sinclair, Bishop VT Williams, Raphael (Raff), Anderson Day, William Desmond, Charles StangMidwestuary Info and Tickets - https://www.midwestuary.com/Part 1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMjEY3BOPPI&t=928sDavid Sloan Wilson Dialogue - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CAyvVdNSzIWill Barlow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DoIgcSWJnE&t=4065s

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Matt Ridley for an insightful conversation touching on evolution, genetics, science, and culture. They explore Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including Matt Ridley is a science writer and journalist whose work spans evolutionary biology, economics, and the role of innovation in human progress. Join Substack: https://richarddawkins.substack.com/ Subscribe to The Poetry of Reality Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmwfdgHA_R9fzr1L0_hxdVw Socials: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/the.poetry.of.reality/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/RichardDawkinsBooks Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/ThePoetryofReality

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.

The evolutionary biologist challenges modern dogmas, defends scientific objectivity, and warns against the rise of ideological orthodoxy in society.

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Brian Keating for an insightful conversation touching on evolution, genetics, science, and culture. They explore Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including AI, the extended phenotype, evolution, the possibility of alien life followed by audience questions. This episode was filmed as part of Richard Dawkins' tour. Brian Keating is an American cosmologist, professor of physics at the University of California, San Diego, and a bestselling author. He is renowned for his research on the early universe, cosmic microwave background radiation, and inflationary cosmology.

On todays Show we celebrate the return of Texas Jim and we talk about Jimbo's paper on early Christian liturgical and catechetical patterns, which identified 12 features of apostolic Christianity. These include beliefs in God's unity, Jesus' divinity and humanity, and the resurrection. Jimbo compared Apostolic Fathers' texts with Nag Hammadi texts, finding that only the Secret Book of James and some Valentinian texts partially aligned with the narrative pattern. The paper concluded that early Christianity was unified around these beliefs, despite diverse practices. The conversation also touched on the implications of these findings for modern Christian orthodoxy and the importance of implicit versus explicit theological statements. The discussion delves into the interpretation of the Bible, emphasizing the depth beyond literalism. Speaker 2 critiques the shallow approach of Richard Dawkins and others, advocating for a deeper understanding of Christianity's narrative and salvific plan. The conversation highlights the unity of Christianity through 12 core features, despite diverse practices like communion. They contrast this with Gnostic texts, which deviate significantly from Apostolic Christian principles. The narrative pattern unites major Christian denominations, including Protestantism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Catholicism. Don't miss it!

Orthodox thinker and icon carver Jonathan Pageau joins Justin to talk about why the God conversation has been intensifying in recent years. Along with Belle Tindall, they also cover atheism, the resurrection, the Bible and why symbolic patterns underlie our experience of the world. Pageau also gives the backstory to his friendship with Jordan Peterson who has been increasingly challenged to clarify his views on God, Jesus and the resurrection in the past year by atheists such as Richard Dawkins and Alex O'Connor. More info, book & newsletter: https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/ Support via Patreon for early access to new episodes and bonus content: https://www.patreon.com/justinbrierley/membership Support via Tax-deductible (USA) and get the same perks: https://defendersmedia.com/portfolio/justin-brierley/ Give a one-off gift via PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme/brierleyjustin Buy the book or get a signed copy: https://justinbrierley.com/the-surprising-rebirth-of-belief-in-god/ Got feedback? Share it with us by emailing: feedback@think.faith Ep 9 show notes: https://justinbrierley.com/surprisingrebirth/season-2-episode-9-surprising-conversations-jonathan-pageau The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God is a production of Think Faith in partnership with Genexis, and support from The Jerusalem Trust. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

This conversation discusses the similarities between Jonathan Pageau and John Vervaeke with regards to ontology, teleology, and epistemology. This is in preparation for a conversation in preparation for the midwestuary conference. I mention John Vervaeke (  @johnvervaeke  ), Jonathan Pageau (  @JonathanPageau  ), Mary Harrington, Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Meno's Paradox, Gregory of Nyssa, Father John Behr, Hank, Immanuel Kant, John Locke, George Cybenko, Kurt Hornik, Charles Darwin, Jonathan Losos, The Timmaeus, Jordan Peterson (  @JordanBPeterson  ), Richard Dawkins, The Baldwin Effect, William James, Renes Descartes, Plotinus, and more. Midwestuary - https://www.midwestuary.com/Jonathan Pageau and Mary Harrington - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJnGDEAka7I&t=1525sJonathan Losos - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70waxmiQa8I&t=1143sPeterson and Dawkins - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wBtFNj_o5k&t=5364sSam and Vervaeke - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0RDjahsd1M&t=5176s

In this episode of The Poetry of Reality, Richard Dawkins joins Colin Wright for an insightful conversation touching on evolution, gender, science, and culture - They explore Richard's latest book, The Genetic Book of the Dead along with a wide array of topics including the nature of truth, the reliability of science, evolution, and the controversies surrounding sex and gender. This episode was filmed as part of Richard Dawkins' tour. Colin Wright is an evolutionary biologist and science writer whose work spans research on animal behavior, particularly social insects, and public advocacy for evidence-based discussions on sex and gender.

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.

You've been lied to: apologetics isn't just for professors and internet debaters. It's for every Christian who wants to survive real conversations with real people.In this video, I'll share how teaching apologetics to middle schoolers, high schoolers, and 96 grown men shattered every myth about who needs it — and why YOU can't afford to ignore it.Learn why apologetics is the secret weapon for raising bold believers who aren't blindsided by doubts, culture, or that smug coworker who thinks he's the next Richard Dawkins.Plus, I'll show you the simple definition of apologetics that actually matters, and how you can start preparing today (without needing a PhD or monk robes).

On this ID The Future, Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger joins hosts Andrew McDiarmid and Nathan Jacobson to delve into his personal evolution from longtime skeptical philosopher to belief in God. After falling out of faith in his teens, Sanger became a committed skeptic and agnostic, adhering to the principle of methodological skepticism for decades as he evaluated traditional arguments for the existence of God and found them wanting. And while Sanger was unconvinced by the claims of "new atheists" like Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett, he found himself drawn to the arguments of intelligent design scientists like Stephen Meyer, Michael Behe, and William Dembski. In this first half of a conversation, Sanger recounts his fascinating intellectual journey while unpacking the intelligent design arguments he found most convincing along his journey. This is Part 1 of a two-part interview. Look for Part 2 in a separate episode. Source

Topics this week:Women's Basketball Player Embraces Her FaithThe UK Supreme Court Rules on GenderFrance's Law on Anonymous Sperm and Egg DonationRichard Dawkins' Blog Post on ChristianityListener Questions:Further questions concerning the life of MLK jr.How should someone approach talking with parents in the midst of deconstruction?Is there continuity of life between now and the new heavens and new earth?==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

This is a free preview of a paid episode. To hear more, visit andrewsullivan.substack.comFrancis is a physician and geneticist whose work has led to the discovery of the cause of cystic fibrosis, among other diseases. In 1993 he was appointed director of the Human Genome Project, which successfully sequenced all three billion letters of our DNA. He went on to serve three presidents as the director of the National Institutes of Health. The author of many books, including The Language of God, his latest is The Road to Wisdom: On Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust.Our conversation was entirely agreeable until we talked about trust, and his own handling of the Covid epidemic. I asked him in depth about the lab-leak theory and why he and Tony Fauci passionately dismissed it from the get-go, even as it now appears to be the likeliest source of the terrible virus. Things got intense.For two clips of our convo — intense debate on the “Proximal Origin” paper outright denying a lab leak as the source of Covid-19, and Francis finding God after decades of atheism — pop over to our YouTube page.Other topics: growing up on a rustic farm in Shenandoah; his parents creating a community theater; homeschooled until 6th grade; his amazing scientific accomplishments as a young adult; his scientism; his terminally ill Christian patients; the AIDS crisis; C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity; the First Mover question; Ross Douthat and “fine-tuning”; the multiverse; the limits to the materialist view; deism; cradle believers vs converts; evolution and sacrificial altruism; Socrates; Jesus dying for our sins; the doubting Thomas; how angels manifest; Francis Bacon; Richard Dawkins; being the NIH director during Covid; trust and mistrust in science; the early confusion in pandemics; tribalism; dismal safety standards at the Wuhan lab; gain-of-function; EcoHealth and Peter Daszak; intel agencies on lab leak; furin cleavage sites; Kristian Andersen; geopolitical fears over Trump and China; the opacity of the CCP; the Great Barrington Declaration; Trump threatening science funding at the Ivies; In Covid's Wake; and if Francis has any regrets after Covid.Browse the Dishcast archive for an episode you might enjoy (the first 102 are free in their entirety — subscribe to get everything else). Coming up: Claire Lehmann on the woke right, Stephen Macedo and Frances Lee on Covid's political fallout, Byron York on Trump 2.0, Robert Merry on President McKinley, Sam Tanenhaus on Bill Buckley, Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson on the Biden years, and Paul Elie on his book The Last Supper: Art, Faith, Sex, and Controversy in the 1980s. Please send any guest recs, dissents, and other comments to dish@andrewsullivan.com.

Dave Rubin of "The Rubin Report" talks about Bill Maher surprising the "Real Time with Bill Maher" crowd by agreeing with Fareed Zakaria's shortsighted criticism of JD Vance's speech criticizing Germany's lack of free speech; "60 Minutes'" frightening story about the chilling enforcement of Germany's new hate speech laws, where German citizens go to jail and have their devices taken from them for saying any "hateful" speech online; Richard Dawkins' chilling appearance on "Piers Morgan Uncensored" which revealed how successful the muslim's world's threats have been to any public figure critical of Islam when Dawkins refuses to comment on the case of the "ISIS bride"; the UK continuing to cede it's cultural history to Islam by allowing an Iftar event to celebrate the end of Ramadan in the historic St. George's Hall in Windsor Castle; Jasmine Crockett proving how ignorant she is of Elon Musk's accomplishments; Boston mayor Michelle Wu responding to a knife attack in a Chick-fil-A by offering condolences to the family of the dead attempted murderer; Bob Hope's proving that people always mocked Democrats; and much more. Dave also does a special "ask me anything" question-and-answer session on a wide-ranging host of topics, answering questions from the Rubin Report Locals community. 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: Prolon - Rejuvenate your body from the inside out, while supporting enhanced skin appearance, fat loss, and improving energy and focus. Prolon is offering 15% off their 5-day nutrition program for Rubin Report viewers. Go to: http://ProlonLife.com/DAVE Lean - A powerful weight loss supplement with remarkable results to help lower blood sugar, burn fat by converting it into energy, and curb your appetite. Rubin Report viewers get 20% off plus free rush shipping off their first order! Go to: https://TakeLean.com and enter promo code DAVE20 for your discount MCT Wellness - Activate the specific process in your body that thousands of people have used to dramatically improve their health, even at age 50 and beyond. Watch the video that Dr. Gundry calls the "caloric bypass". Go to: https://TheHealthyFat.com/Rubin ---------- #RubinReport #BillMaher #RealTime #FareedZakaria #JDVance #freespeech #hatespeech #Germany #daverubin The Direct Message directly addresses political news, cultural news and current events of the day. It's only by having rational conversations about these topics that we can help end political polarization. To hear what Dave has to say on these and a variety of other topics watch this playlist: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEbhOtC9klbDG22n--rCDbv02-n8l6agL To make sure you never miss a single Rubin Report video, click here to subscribe: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJdKr0Bgd_5saZYqLCa9mng?sub_confirmation=1 Looking for honest conversations about current events, political news and the culture war? If so, then you're in the right place because on “The Rubin Report” Dave Rubin engages the ideas of society's most interesting thought leaders, authors, entertainers and politicians. Dave lets his guests speak their minds and his audience to think for themselves. The Rubin Report is fan funded through monthly and one-time donations: https://rubinreport.com/support ****** Follow Dave on Twitter: https://twitter.com/RubinReport Follow The Rubin Report on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/rubinreport Follow Dave on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/daverubin Follow Dave on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/rubinreport/?hl=en About Dave Rubin: http://daverubin.com/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices