Pints With Aquinas - 190: Debating Atheists, Priestly Celibacy, and More W/ Dr. William Lane Craig

Episode Date: January 28, 2020

Happy Feast Day of Thomas Aquinas. ... Two things we're doing to celebrate.  1: 10 book giveaway going on at https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd/ 2. Post your best PWA pic on Twitter using #PintsWithAquinas --- I recently got the chance to sit down with a world-famous Christian debater, Dr. William Lane Craig. Dr. Craig is a man to look up to in many ways; his debates with prominent atheists are are all over YouTube. It was a truly pleasure and a privilege to talk with him about proofs for God's Existence, the story of how he met Dawkins, Thomism, the best Christian and atheist philosophers today, and Pascal. Looking for the Matt Fradd Show? Watch the Announcement Video!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOpTh... --- SPONSORS EL Investments: https://www.elinvestments.net/pints Exodus 90: https://exodus90.com/mattfradd/  Hallow: http://hallow.app/mattfradd  STRIVE: https://www.strive21.com/  GIVING Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/mattfradd This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show. LINKS Website: https://pintswithaquinas.com/ Merch: https://teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: https://www.strive21.com/ SOCIAL Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mattfradd Twitter: https://twitter.com/mattfradd Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/mattfradd MY BOOKS  Does God Exist: https://www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist-Socratic-Dialogue-ebook/dp/B081ZGYJW3/ref=sr_1_9?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586377974&sr=8-9 Marian Consecration With Aquinas: https://www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecration-Aquinas-Growing-Closer-ebook/dp/B083XRQMTF/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=fradd&qid=1586379026&sr=8-4 The Porn Myth: https://www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myth-P1985.aspx CONTACT Book me to speak: https://www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequestform

G'day, g'day, g'day. Okay, buckle up because this is super exciting. By the way, hi, I'm Matt. Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. Today is Thomas Aquinas' feast day. Did you know that? Well, we're doing two things to celebrate and you're going to like what we're doing, I think. Number one, the first thing we're doing is giving away 10 copies of our brand new book, like brand new, like it came out 25 seconds ago. It's called Marian Consecration with Aquinas, a nine-day path for growing closer to the mother of God. It was written by myself and Father Gregory Pine. Now you've heard the way I talk about our blessed mother in the past. I know we have many evangelical listeners and some of you have gotten in touch with me to say that you appreciate the way I talk about the blessed

mother, that sometimes when you hear Catholics talk about the Blessed Mother, it turns you off or it seems unbiblical. Believe me, this is not that. I think if you are wanting to grow close to the Mother of God, if you're okay praying to the saints, but maybe you've read Louis de Montfort and that really hasn't struck with you, please check this out. I think it will. Anyway, we're giving 10 copies away. And the only, all you got to do to enter the drawing, I don't know if people still say drawing, but the only thing you got to do is go over to Instagram slash Matt Fradd, Instagram.com slash Matt Fradd. That's where I'm giving the 10 book giveaway. Super simple to join. Wherever you are in the world, we'll ship it to you. You don't have to pay shipping

or anything like that. Sound good? The next thing we're doing is we're asking you to post a picture of yourself on the Twitters. This is the second drawing we're doing. We're wearing a Pints with Aquinas logo or something, all right? Like wearing some kind of swag, maybe holding the beer stein, maybe holding a book, maybe wearing the non-nicite dominate t-shirt. Make it awesome. And we are going to select the top three photos. All right. And we're going to send you a pints with Aquinas beer stein. That's really cool stuff to buy this beer stein. It's about $35. It's that cool. So again, two raffles, one over on Instagram, where you just do what it says on instagram you can win a free copy of this book second raffle drawing prize is uh take a photo of

yourself uh post it to twitter if it's awesome you can be one of the three people that will be sent a beer stein pints with aquinas beer stein imagine just how great that would be you know so all right here's my interview with Dr. William Lane Craig. G'day and welcome to pints with Aquinas my name is Matt Fradd this is the show where we discuss faith and philosophy and theology and I'm super excited for our guest today we're going to be interviewing philosopher and theologian dr william lane craig i'm actually at a baptist church today this is why the setup is differently this is the church that dr william lane craig attends so i'm super excited this is the first evangelical that we've had on pints of the aquinas at least as a video show so super pumped about this we're going to be discussing faith atheismism, all these sorts of things. I'm not going to get into the particular differences that exist between

Catholics and Protestants, because out of respect for Dr. William Lane Craig, he likes to stick to what he calls mere Christianity, what we agree on. So that's what I'll be doing today. So for those of you who are hoping for fireworks, hopefully you'll be disappointed. Besides, me arguing with Dr. William Lane Craig is the intellectual disappointed besides me arguing with dr william lane craig is the uh intellectual equivalent of me wrestling with joe rogan it wouldn't end well for me anyway so there you go i want to say thanks to a couple of our sponsors before we begin first catholic woodworker catholic woodworker it's a small startup group that's creating beautiful rosaries home altars even altars that you can pack in your

suitcase and travel with. Fantastic. I mean, there are rosaries that are kind of dainty and they break in your pocket. Then there are rosaries that are super bulky and just unpractical, impractical. But then there are these ones. This is honestly the best kind of rosary I've ever seen. It's masculine, it's durable, and it's sacred feeling, honestly. So please go and give them your support, catholicwoodworker.com, buy a rosary for you, for a friend, and use the promo code MATTFRAD, one word, at checkout, and that way you'll get 10% off. I'll put a link in the description. Click that, go through, go and support them. This is a great group creating really great stuff.

Second group I want to thank is Halo. H-A-L-L-O-W. Halo is an app that will help you pray and lead you through different prayer experiences. It'll help you, say, meditate on the scriptures while in the background you can listen to synth music or Gregorian chant. You can choose a 5-minute 10 minute, 15 minute meditation. They're really well done. There are other apps out there that help you meditate, but unfortunately, they lead into new age ways of thinking, new age practices. We want to steer clear of that.

Halo is 100% Catholic and really well produced. Halo offers a permanently free version of their app, which includes content that's updated every day, as well as a paid subscription option with premium content. But by using the promo code MattFrad, one word, I guess just putting it in checkout there, you can try out all the sessions in the app for a full month totally for free. So to take advantage of this special offer, you need to go to hello.app slash matt frad again link in the description here hello.app slash matt frad and create your account online before downloading the app it really is excellent um i'm totally willing to like advertise for people that i don't care about so if there are any mattress companies out there i will totally advertise your stuff

but in all sincerity my wife and i do have this app on our phone and it helps us to pray it does great examinations of conscience that you can use at night and things like this so check them out hallo.app slash matt frad all right thanks very much here is my interview with dr william lane craig all right how's that sound? Yeah, that sounds pretty good. It's good. Yeah, we're kind of very amplified.

It's lovely to have you. Thank you so much for agreeing to do this interview. Certainly. For those of my listeners and viewers who aren't terribly familiar with you, who is William Lane Craig and what is reasonable faith? Craig, and what is reasonable faith? Craig Smith Well, I am a professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in Southern California and at Houston Baptist University in Texas. I became a Christian having been raised in a non-believing home about 16 years of age, and it turned my life upside down. And I sensed at that time a call to the ministry to share this good news of the gospel with as many people as I could. And so

I wanted to present the gospel in the context of giving an intellectual defense for the credibility of the Christian world and life view. And so to prepare myself for that sort of ministry, I went on to doctoral studies and did doctoral degrees in both philosophy and theology both in Europe, and then about 12, 13 years ago, founded this nonprofit organization called Reasonable Faith, which is a web-based ministry. We have no physical plant whatsoever, and hence no light bills, no rent, no mortgage, nothing. Nothing. And we are attempting to use the electronic media and social media to reach as many people as we can with a defense and proclamation of the gospel. You do a great job of it. I was telling you before the interview that I first became familiar with your work in around 2007.

It was over in Ireland. The new atheism was a big thing back then. And I listened to many debates, and I have to say it was embarrassing to see so many Christians be demolished, at least rhetorically and often substantively, I thought, by these atheists. And I heard about this debate between Christopher Hitchens and William Lane Craig, and I was reluctant to view it because I thought I can't see another debate where the Christian gets trounced. Well, I was pleasantly surprised. As charming and rhetorically effective as Christopher Hitchens was, you just took him to the woodshed. And so I wanted to ask you about that debate. What are your thoughts on it?

What was it like meeting Christopher Hitchens? What are your thoughts on it? What was it like meeting Christopher Hitchens? Well, the interesting thing about that debate was that I didn't want to do it either because I knew that Hitchens was so famed me that the student society or student organization had already contracted with Hitchens to do this debate. And they were on the hook for $12,000. And so they had to find somebody who would be willing to debate him. And so even though I initially refused, they begged me to do it, and I said, all right, I will do it. I think that this would be something that would draw a lot of attention if I can just not be bamboozled by his rhetoric.

Well, just shortly before the debate, Hitchens and I were on a panel discussion in, I believe, Dallas, Texas together at the Christian Booksellers Conference. And in this panel discussion, it just became very clear to me that he had absolutely no understanding of the arguments for the existence of God and no substantial objections. of the arguments for the existence of God and no substantial objections. And so at the end of that panel I said to him, I turned to him and said, in two weeks' time we're going to be debating the existence of God at Biola University, and I would really encourage you in those two weeks to bone up on these arguments so that we can have a more substantive discussion than we've had here today. You were sort of needling him. I was. I was. And he didn't do so. up on these arguments so that we can have a more substantive discussion than we had here today. You were sort of needling him.

I was. I was. And he didn't do so. And so as a result, the debate at Biola in terms of academic issues was very superficial. Looking back on it, are you glad you did the debate? Oh, I am. It drew huge attention and has garnered over a million and a half views on YouTube. I think it really was something that the Lord used to counteract the influence of Hitchens and the new atheism in general.

And to his credit, in an interview prior to the debate, he spoke kindly of you. He said, I don't usually get phone calls from fellow atheists saying, don't blow this. But he got many before he debated you. I hadn't heard that. He was very gentlemanly. A lot of people were shocked at that in that they said he was like a lamb in wolf's clothing. He didn't really use his normal vulgarity and profanity. He was really, really well behaved in that debate, probably because it was at a Christian university and he didn't want to alienate everybody.

And so he was very gentle and well behaved and I think that worked to his detriment, quite honestly. Okay, and then later on, you ended up doing a three-on-three debate in Mexico, I believe, and this is when you first met Richard Dawkins, who famously has refused to debate you. What was that encounter with him like? Well, this was, again, another one of these things that has an interesting backstory. Yeah, another one of these things that has an interesting backstory. The debate was originally supposed to feature three atheists, one of whom would be the physicist Michio Kaku. Well, the night before the debate or so, while we were in Mexico City, Kaku came to the organizer and says, I just don't do debates.

I don't feel comfortable in this situation. I want to back out, get someone else. And so since Dawkins was going to be at the conference giving a paper, they said, would you stand in for Michio Kaku? And without asking, I think, who was on the other team, he said yes. And so as it turned out, he stepped into a debate with me and my colleagues, even though he had sworn he would never be on the same stage with me, never debate me. For increasingly creative reasons. Yes, yes. I mean, he said he wouldn't even shake my hand because I was an immoral man in his estimation.

So that was very funny that I did get this chance to go mano a mano with Richard Dawkins, and I felt that it went very well. I was quite pleased. And what was it like when you met him in the lobby of the hotel? I know there's a story about that. Yeah, that was extraordinary. It was at a cocktail party at the organizer's home before the conference began. And I was standing there and saw him walk in. And I saw that he was walking across the room straight in my direction and that we would soon meet face to face. And I thought, wow, well, I might as well grab the bull by the horn. So he

got close to me. I stuck out my hand and I said, hello, I'm Bill Craig. And he looked at me and says, hello. And I said, well, I'm surprised to find that you're going to be involved in this debate. And he said, and why not? And I said, well, because you've always said you would never debate me. And he said, I don't consider this a debate with you. The Mexicans asked me to participate, and I agreed. And at that point, he turned away, and I said, well, I hope we have a good discussion. And he said, I think that highly unlikely, and walked off. a good discussion?" And he said, I think that highly unlikely, and walked off. Wow. It was just icy cold. So that was my initial encounter with Richard Dawkins, and

I remember it vividly because it was so extraordinary. I immediately went to my room and wrote down this conversation word for word because I didn't want to forget it. Now, out of the four horsemen of the New new atheism, which it seems has subsided a great deal, you know, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and the two we've spoken of, this might be a difficult question to answer, but who do you think was the most formidable? Well, I have interacted with all four of them in public forums, either debates or dialogues, and none of them was a formidable opponent. They were all extremely superficial and had little understanding and especially little engagement with the arguments. They wouldn't...

A good debate, you can tell a good debate by what's called clash. That is to say, the opposition of argument and counter-argument. that's what makes for a good debate and in none of these debates was there significant clash but i suppose i would say that harris did the least uh poorly of the four um he is articulate and charming and so at least presented himself well at the podium there's that classic line of his. It's good to be with William Lane Craig, the one Christian apologist who seems to have put the fear of God in my fellow atheists. That was a surprise. That candid compliment.

And afterwards, again, there was a reception after the debate. And he and I had a chance to speak personally and got on quite well. He seems like a lovely fellow. I found him to be very friendly and had a good discussion. Who do you think is the most formidable atheist today, the most formidable champion of it? I think without a doubt it's Graham Oppie, your fellow – your compatriot. He is scary smart, scary smart, and has written important books in defense of atheism and critical of natural theology. J. Howard Sobel, the Canadian philosopher, was also a formidable opponent, but he's passed away.

And so that leaves, I think, Graham Oppie as the torchbearer for the atheist cause. So here's my next question. If you could choose one Christian apologist other than yourself to debate him publicly, who would you choose? Wow. I know who would be capable of doing it intellectually, but I've never heard him really in a debate context. But that would be Alexander Proust at Baylor University, who is, again, scary smart. Proust has earned doctorates in both philosophy and mathematics and would easily be on a par with Oppie. There are others, however, as well.

Rob Koons at UT Austin is a very formidable thinker and perhaps a better public speaker than Proust. And then there's a younger fellow at Azusa Pacific, Josh Rasmussen. I've heard of him, yeah. He's co-authored books with Proust and is also very intelligent and presents himself very well. I don't have any idea about any of these fellows' debating skills, but intellectually – You need both, don't you, I guess. You really do because, for example, just to name one factor, one of the most crucial elements in a debate is time management.

You have to know how to manage the clock. What happens to many of these fellows is they will spend five to eight minutes on two points, and then they never get to the rest, and as a result, they fail to address the issues in the debate, and it's just poor management of the clock. You've got to be able to know when it's time to move along and how to speak succinctly and to use that precious time. Have you heard of the term Craig clones? No. I just heard of this last night. You know, I guess they say imitation is the highest form of flattery, but there are a lot of people out there who will now get into debates and they sound very much like William

Lane Craig. I wanted to ask you what's some things you would love to see christian apologists stop doing especially as as when it comes to debating like what are some things that you watch and you just cringe and wish they'd know better well coming unprepared i have seen debates such as the ones you described where the christian you described where the Christian debater gets just skinned alive, and it is embarrassing and awkward, and I think it's due to overconfidence and lack of preparation. I tremble when pastors go into these debates because they're not equipped for it, and they're overconfident, and they very often will lose.

The other thing, more in general, that I think Christians need to be reminded of is not to be so angry and mean. There's no need to be sarcastic or personal. We can conduct our debates and ourselves in a civil manner that exemplifies the character of Christ. I know from personal experience when I get nasty or sarcastic, even if in one-on-one conversations, it's because I don't know what I'm talking about. And if I'm not confident in what I know and how to respond, then I rely on cheap shots. I think that's what people do and shouldn't be doing. Yes, that's probably, I think, a good observation.

When you are intellectually prepared and you know the answers, it just gives you a sort of quiet confidence that there's no need to get hot under the collar. You just explain to the other person where he is mistaken. What do you think the state of the new atheism, where is that today? Has it receded? Has it been eclipsed by the Jordan Peterson phenomenon? Has it altered somewhat? What do you see? While its public representatives seem to have receded. Its cultural impact seems to be ongoing and lingering. The rise of the so-called nuns, the decline in mainline church membership, the sort of alliance between secularism and political progressivism. and political progressivism. I think all of these are cultural symptoms that the new atheism and its influence

is still a powerful cultural force. It's interesting that I find myself agreeing with people like Sam Harris and others as they commentate on social situations such as the transgender phenomenon and things like this. I find myself, how is it possible that I'm now making allies with this guy as the culture becomes increasingly secular and bizarre? Richard Wagner Yeah, I think it's great when we can cross political lines in that way.

It is awkward that Christianity seems to be so aligned with conservative right-wing politics, and yet on certain moral issues like right to life and same-sex marriage, it's hard to see room for compromise from a Christian point of view on those issues. It seems to me that one is ethically committed to certain positions regardless of how politically incorrect they might be okay i just want to take a pause for one moment to say thanks to our third sponsor covenant eyes covenant eyes is simply the best filtering and accountability software on the web filtering that is to say it blocks the bad stuff accountability thatability, that is to say, if you go anywhere you shouldn't, your accountability

partner will get an email telling them where you went, what you typed into Google, how long you were on a particular perhaps pornographic website, and so on. The good thing about accountability software, I think, is that it treats us like responsible moral agents. We can make choices, but then there are consequences to those choices. This is fantastic, especially if you have kids. You need to do the right thing and have this. We are so set on covenant eyes. We don't let our children play at people's houses if they have technology and don't have covenant eyes. It's really important stuff. This is the responsible thing to do. If you're a parent and you don't want your kid getting hooked on internet porn, you need to get Covenant Eyes today. Here's how you can get

a month for free so you can try it out for yourself. Go to covenanteyes.com and when you purchase it, use my name, Matt Fradd, one word, at checkout as a promo code. You'll get a month for free. So you can try it for that whole month. If you don't like it, quit. You won't be charged a cent, but I really don't think you'll quit. It really is the right thing to do. Go to covenantize.com. When you purchase it, use the promo code MattFrad for a month free. This show is called Pints with Aquinas, and I know you differ with Aquinas, as many of us do on different things, but I'm sure you have some respect for the man. Oh, of course. Especially when it comes to argumentation and things like this. Yes, whenever I deal with a substantive theological issue, one of the first things I'll do is see what Thomas Aquinas has to say about it.

So that even if I disagree with him, in the end, certainly his viewpoints need to be sought. the atonement that I did, I looked not only at Anselms, whose book, Cordeus Homo, Why the God-Man, is epical in medieval theology. Nevertheless, I wanted to see what Aquinas had to say on the atonement as well. One of the things I think people appreciate about him, and I do too, is that he would seem to steal man as opposed to straw man his opponent's arguments. Have you heard that phrase? I've never heard it put that way. No, I haven't, but you're right.

Well, I think you do a great job at that. You articulate your opponent's position fairly, which I think then allows that person to kind of respect you more before you critique it. Well, thank you. That is important. You don't want to attack straw men because then your critique has little value. But if you can state the opposing view persuasively, for example, the problem of evil and suffering, you present that forcefully,

then your answer will have all the more weight if you're able to turn back the force of that argument. I think it's illustrative that Aquinas in some of his works, he has a big work called De Marlo on evil. And sometimes there he'll present himself over two dozen objections to the position he wants to make. And even in the Summa Theologiae, he comes up with as many as 12. But when it comes to God's existence, he can only think of two that are worth responding to. And it seems to me that those are the two that are usually the most formidable or serious today. And those are namely the problem of evil and the idea that we can explain everything without God anyway. Do you agree with that assessment or do you think that there are other good arguments against God's existence? Well, I do think that there are

coherence of theism arguments. For example, that simplicity and the Trinity are incompatible with each other, or that divine timelessness is incompatible with God's action in the world, particularly the incarnation of Christ, or that Platonism provides a very substantial challenge to the doctrine of divine aseity, or self-existence, because these Platonic entities like numbers, sets, and other mathematical objects, propositions, properties, possible worlds, seem to exist ase. They seem to be self-existent, uncreated, eternal beings. And this is a tremendous challenge, I think, to theism. It was one that troubled me for years, but was simply on the back burner until some years ago I took it down from the shelf and began to work on it. And I spent 13 years on that problem until I came to real intellectual peace and satisfaction with it. So I do think that issues related to the coherence of theism can also be formidable objections.

And those objections are a lot more serious than can God create a rock so heavy that he can't lift? Oh, of course. Yes, of course. Those sorts of things. This is sort of what we hear on YouTube, but there are people doing real work like that. Well, what was your solution to the problem when it came to Platonism being a threat to God? Well, now, this is interesting. It's essentially Thomistic. I became an anti-realist about these abstract objects. I don't think there really are such things. So things like, when you say abstract objects, you mean

things like? The number two. Yeah. For example, we have two pints here on this table. Of water, to be clear. Yes. But in addition to the two pints, is there a third thing, the number two? Well, I don't think so. I don't think that the number two exists in the same way that these do. Independent of the objects. Is that what you mean? It doesn't exist independent of the two? Well, I don't even think it exists at all. And I think that a great deal of our ordinary language refers to and quantifies over things that don't really exist. And so I've become an anti-realist with respect to these mathematical entities and abstract objects. And that's what Aquinas says about them, too. He says they're entia rationis.

They're just things of reason, but they're not things that actually exist in the world. Am I right in thinking that Augustine said that these things exist in the mind of God? Yes, that's right. So that was Augustine's solution. That's a different solution. That's conceptualism. And that is the historic Christian position, is that these platonic entities don't exist as abstract objects. Rather, Augustine took the realm of the forms, the Platonic forms, and he moved them into the mind of God as the divine ideas. And so these things exist, but not as abstract objects. They exist as ideas in the mind of God.

Well, Aquinas took it a step further, and I think in the right direction, in saying God's thoughts are not complex. There are not really a plurality of divine ideas. That's just our way of conceiving of it. But in fact, God's cognition is simple, and therefore it's true that God grasps all of these truths, like two plus two equals four. It's not as though there are really a plurality of divine ideas. And so I find that view to be a step forward, an advance on the Augustinian view, which simply moves the Platonic realm into the mind of God.

Interesting. Well, speaking of Thomas Aquinas, I wanted to get to some arguments against God's existence. And I think the most formidable one, at least emotionally and maybe even logically, is the problem of evil. And I know there are different ways to articulate that argument, but I wanted to share with you sort of Aquinas' and just have you respond to that. Again, I think Aquinas does a great job at arguing against himself. You sometimes think, how's he going to get out of this one? Yes. He says, it seems that God does not exist because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word God means that he is infinite goodness.

If therefore God existed, there would be no evil discoverable. But there is evil in the world. Therefore, God does not exist. That's a very metaphysical argument. That has nothing to do with why would God permit evil and suffering, which is the normal way we think of it. How could an all-good, all-powerful God— Yeah, we're offended or we're— Yes, allow these things. Why doesn't he intervene to prevent or stop it?

But this is a very metaphysical argument. He's saying God's infinite goodness in a sense just expels evil so that it cannot exist. Like if there were infinite light, there would be no dark. Right, exactly. And here I think that Augustine took the right tack, namely that evil does not have any sort of positive ontological status. Evil is a privation. Parasitical. Yes, exactly.

It is an absence of something, namely it's a privation or a lack of proper order in the creaturely will. Rather than being ordered to God as the supreme good, it's ordered toward lesser goods, and therefore there is evil. There is an absence of right order in the creaturely will, and that's what evil is. And that privation is real, but it's not something that has positive ontological status. Well, I want to share with you his response. These responses are very quick. This is one or two sentences, but I wanted to see what you think about his response to his objection.

And he actually does quote Augustine. He says, as Augustine says, since God is the highest good, he would not allow any evil to exist in his works unless his omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil. This is part of the infinite goodness of God that he should allow evil to exist and out of it produce good. What do you think of that as a response and what might be a better response, at least in the sense of convincing others? Well, there he does seem to be addressing the question, why does God allow

these things? Whereas I took his question to be more metaphysical and require that Augustinian answer that I gave. But beyond that point, to ask why does God allow it, well, I do think that is an expression of the goodness of God, that he gives freedom of the will to creatures so that they are significant moral agents, and that entails the risk that they may make bad choices. So I think that it is an expression of the goodness of God that he accords to creatures the freedom to disobey and thereby to bring about this privation in the world, which is evil. Certainly when you think of evils in the world that we can't seem to see how any good could come from them, it's quite troubling.

Even the suffering of animals. In Australia right now, you have a lot of forest fires, and these poor things are burning to death. It doesn't seem like there's any good that could come from that. Or we can think of horrific things like sex slavery, these sorts of things. It doesn't seem like a good God would allow it, does it? That's right, it doesn't, and I think that emotionally this is very difficult. But logically at least, there's no logical contradiction in saying that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing these things

to occur. The atheist would have to show that there's some kind of a logical impossibility in God's having a morally sufficient reason for allowing this to occur. And this is now generally acknowledged to be a burden of proof that no atheist can sustain. It simply lays a burden on his shoulders too heavy to be supported. Rather, the atheist's better line is to say, well, it's possible that God has a morally sufficient reason for permitting these things, but it's highly unlikely, because these things look pointless. They look as though they have no justifying ends. And here I think that the proper response, among many, is to point out that we're simply not in a position to make those kind of probability judgments with any confidence. We're limited

in time and space and intelligence and insight, and it might be that God's morally sufficient reason for allowing these forest fires in Australia might not emerge until 500 years from now into the future. In fact, when you think of such a major devastating event, this is probably going to change Australian culture and the course of the future in Australia. It could have ramifications far reaching into the future through the sort of ripple effect that any event sends through history, such that God would have in the end morally sufficient reasons for allowing this to occur. It's really actually the trivial events, like hitting my thumb with a hammer, that are harder to see why God would permit that. But for big events like the Holocaust or the tsunami several years ago or these Australian

fires, it's not at all difficult to imagine that these could send a ripple effect through history that might be just earth shattering and changing so that god could well have morally sufficient reasons for allowing these now what you'll be accused of saying and what you're not saying is that therefore the holocaust was Right. That would be a consequentialist view. Some people and ethicists think that if something has good consequences, then the action itself is good. In other words, they think the end justifies the means. And I think we quite properly reject that kind of ethical theory, consequentialism. It is not true that the end justifies the means. It can be the case that there are certain events that are genuinely evil, but that are justly permitted and do in fact

ultimately have good consequences. But those good consequences don't make the acts themselves good. Right. No Christian would say, because of the crucifixion, therefore the rebellion of Adam and Eve was good, because it ended well. Yes, that's correct. Or even that because Christ's crucifixion resulted in the salvation of so many people, that it was a good thing that the Romans did in torturing and crucifying him. No, that was evil. That was wrong, what they did. It was inhuman. But in the sovereignty of God, God has brought good out of that. This is back to Aquinas, isn't it? This is just what Aquinas just said.

Yes, yes. It belongs to the sovereignty of God that he can bring good out of evil. Yes, exactly. Well, speaking of ends not justifying the means, I want to get your take on lying. Thomas Aquinas and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is quite clear on this. Aquinas is very clear that it's never permissible to lie using sort of natural law theory, the idea that speech is for truth and to pervert the end of speech would be to pervert the act and therefore under no circumstance can one lie. Of course, as soon as you say that, someone brings up the Nazi at the door situation. Yes, of course. And so I wanted to get your take on lying in general.

I suppose – no, I'm not an ethicist, I have to say. So this is outside my area, but we're all faced with these moral dilemmas, and so they're rather inescapable, and my inclination is to say that lying can be morally justified in certain circumstances because of our duty to a higher moral law. There's a sort of hierarchical structure of moral laws, and it would be more important to fulfill the command to love your neighbor as yourself than to not bear false witness. And so it would be better to lie to the Gestapo police at the door than to surrender the Jewish family in your cellar over to them

by telling them, yes, we've got some hiding in the basement. Yeah. In Thomistic philosophy, we talk about things being intrinsically evil, never permissible, and then other actions can be permissible depending on the circumstances. But do you think that there are things that are, you know, this language intrinsically evil? Well, so lying apparently wouldn't be one. I mean, I think something can be intrinsically evil, but it could be justified that you do it in light of an overriding good. There are some things, I think, that could never be done, however, which is probably what you're referring to. your God with all your heart and soul and mind and strength, but bowing down before some idol

and denying him. It's hard for me to see how such an act could ever be morally justified. In my mind, as I think through this, and I don't have a hard and fast conclusion on this either, but I suppose I would say I'd go with Aquinas and the church in thinking that lying is never permissible. But I suppose I would say in extraordinary circumstances such as the the Nazi at the door you wouldn't be necessarily culpable but that's just where I'm at right now does that make sense for the guilt of that or I don't know if it does well it makes sense in this way either lying is intrinsically wrong or it isn't if it isn't then there can be circumstances where you can lie and not be culpable in any sense. I think that's your view. But if Aquinas is right, then it's never permissible

to lie. Yeah. You would always be culpable. You would always be in some way culpable. But if you've got a gun at your head and you say something, you're not necessarily responsible for that in the way you may be if it was a premeditated life. Yeah. Well, that's, I think, a plausible point of view. Yeah. Okay. Well, here's what I've done. I did a survey online, and I shared with people about 15 arguments against God from the friendly atheist, as he's known by, Hemant Mehta.

He did a YouTube show where he gave 20 so-called arguments against God's existence. And this has over 260,000 views. And honestly, they're not very good. But I thought what I would do is read several of them and have you just respond. Okay. I haven't heard these yet, so this is off the cuff. Yes, you have. Don't worry. You've encountered these again and again and again. But what was interesting is I threw these up and I said to my followers, I want you to tell me what argument you find most difficult to respond to. And we had literally thousands of people write in. So again, this is, don't worry, you're not on the hot seat here. So, in fact, I shared this with somebody and said, these arguments aren't worthy to show, Dr. Craig. And I thought, well, maybe they're not.

But people are often moved by bad arguments. Oh, they are. So it's important that we address them. Yes. Okay. God is just Santa Claus for adults. Well, I think that we have good arguments to show that God exists, and we have very powerful evidence that Santa Claus does not exist. There have been mappings of the North Pole and so forth.

It's physically impossible for him to do what he's supposed to do on Christmas Eve. But we don't have comparably good arguments against God. So I think that the situation is not analogous. Okay. Next objection. Who created God, and how does your answer to that make any sense? My view is that God is a self-existent, uncreated, eternal being, and therefore cannot

have a cause. And this is not something that's special pleading for God. The atheist has typically said this about the universe, that the universe is uncreated, eternal, and self-existent. But I think that's highly unlikely in light of modern cosmology. But it shows it's not special pleading for God. What about when people say they just say it? There's no evidence. Again, these are statements and questions. They're not really arguments. Yes, what I say to that is, is that what you think? Well, I can think of at least five good arguments for God's existence. And at that point, he's got to say, yeah, like what? And then I'm off and running,

and I share with him a number of arguments for God's existence. So it just completely pulls the rug from under the person who says there's no evidence for God's existence. Something I've learned from apologist Trent Horn is to say to somebody, okay, what do you think is the least bad argument for God's existence? Obviously, you think they're all bad. What's the least bad? And very often, this kind of exposes, not always, because there are very thoughtful atheists, of course, but sometimes this will expose the atheist because they can't really give you the argument they think is the least bad. Ah, yes, that is embarrassing, isn't it?

Okay, next one. Science explains so much of what we used to attribute to God. Well, I would agree that we shouldn't postulate some sort of God of the gaps, where we use God to plug up the holes in our scientific knowledge. But I think that we have very powerful scientific evidence for premises in philosophical arguments for the existence of God. For example, the second premise of the Kalam Cosmological Argument— Darrell Bock Why don't you lay the whole thing out for those who aren't aware?

Richard Averbeck All right. That argument has three steps. One, whatever begins to exist has a cause. Two, the universe began to exist. Three, therefore the universe has a cause. Two, the universe began to exist. Three, therefore the universe has a cause. Now the second premise, the universe began to exist, is one to which scientific evidence is relevant. And contemporary cosmology provides, honestly, very, very powerful evidence in support of the truth of that second premise. So in this case, you've got a philosophical argument for God's existence

that contains a premise which is powerfully supported by contemporary science. Another example would be the design argument based on the fine-tuning of the universe. And it also has three steps. One, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design. Two, it is not due to physical necessity or chance. Three, therefore, it is due to design. And again, the second premise that the fine-tuning is not due to physical necessity or chance is powerfully supported by contemporary science. Richard Dawkins argues against physical necessity on scientific grounds.

Trevor Burrus So he has two options left. Richard Averbeck Yes. And then Roger Penrose, a more formidable intellect than Dawkins, of Oxford University argues against chance purely on the basis of scientific evidence. So there's very good scientific evidence for that second premise, and given that premise then you have a philosophical argument for a cosmic designer of the universe. So that would be illustrative of the way in which contemporary science can be useful to the natural theologian who wants to argue for the existence of a creator and designer of

the cosmos. Right, and so these arguments aren't plugging up holes in our knowledge. Not at all, as you can see. On the contrary, I will often ask the atheist or agnostic, why do you refuse to follow the evidence where it leads? Why are you so resistant to the beginning of the universe when that's where the evidence points? That's a religiously neutral statement that can be found in any textbook on astronomy or astrophysics, and yet some people will just dig in their heels at that because I think they see where it's leading.

And so it's not a matter of appealing to gaps in our knowledge. It's saying, please, why won't you follow the evidence where it points? Which are you more convinced of, the argument from philosophy or astrophysics when it comes to the finitude of the world? Wow. I suppose I like the philosophical arguments. I am a philosopher. Those really persuade me. Whereas science is, of course, always provisional and capable of revision. And so what one has to say is that the scientific evidence that we have now provides very powerful support of the second

premise. But these metaphysical arguments against the infinitude of the past just strike me as cogent, persuasive, and they've been around for a thousand years or more. And this is something I really hope Thomas Aquinas is wrong about. Yes. Because he has blistering words to say about the Kalam argument. His contemporary St. Bonaventure. Exactly. Proposed it, but I hope he's wrong.

And whenever I hear people articulate it, I mean, it seems cogent to me. In defense of Aquinas. Way to go. This is a way to appeal to our fan base. ago. This is a way to appeal to our fan base. In defense of Aquinas, he does think that the Kalam cosmological argument offered by these Islamic theologians is a good probability argument. It does establish that there probably is a first cause of the origin of the universe. But because Aquinas' standard for success in natural theology is so high that it has to be a demonstration, he says we shouldn't use these probability

arguments. Darrell Bock They make us look bad. Richard Averbeck They are an embarrassment, he says, before unbelievers. We should restrict ourselves to strict demonstrations. Well, almost no natural theologian today holds to so high and unrealistic a standard in natural theology, and that would mean these probability arguments have a proper role to play in our natural theology. I want to get you to give us the sort of philosophical argument for the finitude of the past, but I think it does say, again, a great deal about Thomas Aquinas, who people will often accuse him, you say, of being under the thumb of

the church, but he rejected the most prominent argument in Christian history up until that point, Anselm's ontological argument. He rejects it. Yeah, that's right. And then he rejects the cosmology. So that is just to say that if he were simply under the thumb of the church, at the very least, he wouldn't put them forward, but he thinks he refutes them. It might be more accurate to say that the church is under the thumb of Thomas Aquinas given the influence that he's had and his recognized place in the history of the church.

Have you been shocked at that as you've interacted with Catholics? Do you think, why are you all so hung up on Thomas Aquinas? Yes. Yeah, I do think that, because I mean, I've read Aquinas. I studied him from the master's level on and read him, and it does seem to me odd that there is a sort of slavish devotion to this particular medieval thinker. But his being recognized by the church in the way that he has.

It gives him this very hallowed position. Is there someone like that, would you say, in the evangelical world or history? I know there are lots of different kinds of Protestants, but is there? Well, probably Augustine. Augustine. More in the kind of Calvinist-leaning community? Yes, yes. More so there, but really almost for all Protestants, they look back to Augustine with tremendous reverence and authority, I think.

But most certainly, neither Augustine or Aquinas is infallible, and so we should – Oh, absolutely. And they would have insisted on that themselves. Absolutely. Well, this is even what Aquinas says towards the end of his life, that if I've taught anything that's in contradiction to the church, reject it. And he famously denied the Immaculate Conception, or infamously. Let me explain. So he couldn't reconcile the Immaculate Conception with Christ being the Savior of all. And so he said, well, she was sinless from the time of being in the womb of her mother, but not at conception. He's quite clear on that. And it wasn't until Duns Scotus formulated a sort of argument that showed how the two could be reconciled at the church.

And so Aquinas' concern, I gather, from what you just said, was that if Mary was immaculately conceived, she was without sin and therefore didn't need a Savior. Right. And that's not the position of the church. Wow. The position of the church is that she did need a Savior, but that she was saved preemptively. But the position of the church is that she did need a savior but that she was saved preemptively. So I think it was Duns Scotus' analogy. He said, you know, suppose a man's walking through the forest and he falls into a pit and you reach down and pull him out.

That's one way of saving him. Well, the other way you could save him is just before his foot is hovering over the hole, you hold him back. And so that's the position. Yeah, interesting. I don't want to get into the Immaculate Conception. You already did. Sorry. Sorry, brother. No, it's too late. Yeah, interesting. I don't want to get into the Immaculate Conception, but there you are. You already did. Sorry. Sorry, brother. No, it's too late.

All right. Well, obviously, too, here's another argument when we look at some of the apparent atrocities in the Old Testament. Here's another argument from Hemant Mehta, or a statement, really. Drowning just about everything alive, not really a sign of love, is it? No, it was a sign of judgment. He's talking about Noah's flood. And that was a sign of judgment upon a corrupt and enormously wicked world. So, right, it's not a sign of love. No. But is it in contradiction to God being all-loving? No, because God is holy and just. And so in a sense he administered capital punishment on these persons.

Okay. There are thousands of gods you don't believe in. What makes yours any different? There's good evidence and arguments for the existence of a monotheistic God, a monotheistic God, and I think there are good evidences in the New Testament for the person of Jesus of Nazareth as God's decisive self-revelation. And that sets these Christian monotheism apart from every other religion or credo in the world. Okay.

Prayer has never fixed anything physically impossible. Why won't God heal amputees? Well, God is sovereign, and it's up to him whom he chooses to heal or not. Amputees will be healed in the resurrection when we are raised from the dead with whole supernatural bodies. And until then, God has chosen not to do that kind of restorative work, apparently. But would you go so far as to say that this hasn't happened or won't happen? Well, let me say that I wouldn't go so far as to say that it couldn't happen. God could heal an amputee if he wanted to, but I don't know of any case that he has. What about healings in general?

Well, Craig Keener's two-volume work on contemporary miracles provides ample case studies, at least, for miracles in our day and age. It actually turns out that miracle reports are much, much more common than these atheists and agnostics would have you believe. If you talk to most people, many, if not most of them, will claim to have seen or witnessed a miracle. I wonder, just a side note, do you ever get tired of responding to the same objections, saying the same things, giving the same arguments? You've been incredibly devoted to defending what you call mere Christianity and God's existence. Do you ever get tired of it and want to get into beekeeping or something else? No, I don't think so. I don't. I mean, when someone says things like there's no evidence for God's existence or God is just Santa Claus for adults or something, I find these amusing, honestly.

They kind of tickle me because they're just so silly. Pejorative and silly. Yeah. Okay. Where you're born essentially determines what you believe. Why is the truth based on geography? Okay. I've written on this one quite a bit. And is the truth based on geography? Okay, I've written on this

one quite a bit, and boy, where to begin? Let me say that if you think that the fact that where you're born affects what you believe, invalidates the truth of what you believe, then you are guilty of a textbook example of the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy is trying to invalidate a point of view by showing how the person came to believe it. So, for example, the fact that I believe that the earth goes around the sun is due to the fact that I was born in 20th century Western society rather than in ancient Greece, for example. Does that make my belief that the earth goes around the sun false or unjustified? Well, obviously not. That would be a genetic fallacy. And in the same way, it's true that people's religious beliefs are largely determined by where they're born, but that doesn't do anything to invalidate the truth of any one of those beliefs.

That is a question of the evidence, and that therefore requires us to look at the evidence for and against these beliefs. Right. So it would be fallacious to say you're only an atheist because you were raised in Portland, Oregon. Well, it would be fallacious, but it would be a legitimate turning the tables because this argument or objection is a double-edged sword. If it's true that your beliefs are simply determined by where you're raised. Well, then if this atheist had been raised in medieval Europe, he would likely be a Christian. If he had been born in Pakistan, he'd likely be a Muslim. Does that mean that his atheism is therefore unjustified or false? Well, only if you endorse the genetic

fallacy. Two more. Why doesn't God make his existence evident? And really, I do find this problematic. This seems to me to be something of a subset to the problem of evil. Yes. You know, he says, no hide-and-seek game lasts this long, which I thought was funny. I think this is one of the more serious objections. It's called the hiddenness of God by philosophers who reflect on this. It's called The Hiddenness of God by philosophers who reflect on this.

And here what I want to say is that God, in his sovereignty, knows how people would react to whatever circumstances he places them in. So God knows whether or not more people would come to a saving knowledge of himself were he to make his existence more evident than he has. And given that God's will is to save as many people as possible, I think that it's quite possible that God has given evidence to us which is sufficient for those with an open mind and an open heart to find him and find eternal life, and that if he were to provide more evidence of his existence, no more people would come to find a personal relationship with him in eternal life. True, they might come to believe that God exists, they might add another item to their inventory of things that exist, but that doesn't mean that they would come to love him and know him and find eternal life, which is what is God's real interest.

It's not just getting people to add another item to their ontological inventory. It's bringing them into this love relationship with himself. And I think for that purpose, God knows exactly what amount of evidence and hiddenness is appropriate to achieve that. We see an example of this, don't we, in the book of Exodus, where God's existence is more apparent perhaps then as today, and yet that doesn't mean they didn't worship the golden calf. Right. He had the pillar of fire by night and the pillar of cloud by day, and yet it didn't produce heart change in the people.

They believed that God existed, but nevertheless, as you say, they turned to idolatry again and again with tiresome repetitiveness, Israel apostatized. So that's a perfect illustration of the fact that just making God's existence evident isn't a guarantee that more people will come to know him and find salvation, which is what God's real interest is. So the atheist, to put this argument through successfully, would have to show that if God's existence were more evident, that more people would come to a saving knowledge of him than do. And that's pure conjecture. We have absolutely

no idea how the future is going to go or how to estimate that sort of thing. It's pure speculation. Blaise Pascal has written about this. And I get from what I've read of you that maybe you're a fan of Blaise Pascal. Oh, I think Pascal was incredible. Yes. And he lived in a very skeptical age. Yes.

Was a contemporary of Descartes. Right, and a culture of libertinism that sought pleasure and hedonism, and so Pascal wanted to get people to think about the human predicament. If there is no God, what are the consequences for human being? And if there is a God, what difference does it make? And I think he's just masterful in laying out the human predicament. And if any of your listeners haven't read Pascal's Pensée, the thoughts, I would really encourage them to do so. It's an easy read, very entertaining, and very thought-provoking. It's good if you have ADD, too, because it's just short little clips that you can make

your way through. Yeah, for readers or listeners who aren't familiar with the work, what this is is an assemblage of notes that Pascal left at his death, unassembled, unordered, just like a shoebox full of notes. And scholars have numbered these and put them into a sort of logical order that they think might have been the order that Pascal was thinking for. But as a result, you just have these pithy little thoughts that are so stimulating. Now, I think that Pascal's wager often doesn't get a very fair shake. I think that if there's people out there watching perhaps now, and the two live options on the table are atheism and Christian theism, and they might want to say,

well, maybe agnosticism is just the most respectable decision because at the end of the day, I'm not 100% sure, so I'm just going to remain on the fence. What would you say to someone like that? Well, I think when you're down to atheism versus Christian theism as your alternatives, then Pascal's wager really goes through. And that wager is that if you believe and you're right, you gain infinity. Whereas if you believe and you're wrong, you've just lost— You'll never know. Well, you'll never know, and all you've lost is the pleasures of sin in this lifetime. Whereas on the atheistic view, if you're wrong, you suffer infinite loss, separation from God. Whereas if you're

right as an atheist, all you've gained is the pleasures of sin for this brief lifetime. And so Pascal is quite right in saying if you do a cost-benefit analysis if the evidence is equal now that that's the the key or that the evidence can't incline either way if the evidence is 50-50 then he says a cost-benefit of analysis says you should believe and I think that's right well suppose somebody hears that and they agree with you, but they just don't know how to make themselves believe. It feels like they're being hypocrites or something.

Yeah. Or fake, phonies. Pascal addresses that issue. And he says, what you should begin to do is immerse yourself in the Christian community. Start going to church, participating in the services, prayer. I would add things like Bible reading, Christian fellowship. And God will work a change in your heart through these spiritual practices that can help to bring you to belief. I wanted to ask you, you being – do you consider yourself a Protestant or

evangelical? What do you like? I don't mean to be offensive. I don't know the terms that people like to use. Peter Robinson Either of those labels is one I accept. John Dickerson Yeah. So you're a Protestant. I'm a Catholic. I thought maybe we could say what is something that you think we could learn from each other? Not to put you on the stop. Peter Robinson Well, no, no.

That's a fair question. John Dickerson One thing as a Catholic, and I think that many Catholics find very admirable in their Protestant brothers and sisters, is their love and reverence of Holy Scripture. I know many Catholics, thank God, there's been really a revolution among the laity who are picking up the Scriptures, getting into Scripture studies, loving the Word. That's probably a result of Vatican II as well. In part, yeah.

But even prior to that, you do have popes suggesting that we need to study the Bible. Good. Yeah. Either way, we are seeing that, and thank God for that. Yes. And I see that in my evangelical friends. I see the emphasis they place on their personal relationship with their Savior, which I think is beautiful. And in even the way I find that evangelicals get together in small groups, and they see the importance of living a life in fellowship with others. Very true. I think that's something we Catholics can learn from. One of the things that strikes me about Catholicism is that, if I'm not mistaken, we have four

Supreme Court justices who are Catholics. There has never been an evangelical on the Supreme Court. Catholics, through their universities and the culture, I guess, values intellectual engagement with their faith in a way that evangelicals haven't. For evangelicals, we raise our children with the vision of becoming a missionary or a pastor or Christian worker, but we don't give them the vision of becoming a scientist or a lawyer or a judge. And as a result, we have not had the sort of influence in American society that Catholics have with respect to justices. And I would very much hope that in the future we will see an evangelical appointed to the Supreme Court. But up until this point, it's been the Roman Catholic justices who have been holding the line in support of biblical values.

I hope they'll continue to if a push comes to shove because there are many people who are Catholic by name like Joe Biden who are actually not very good Catholics at all. And he presented himself for communion recently and was denied. And I'm glad he was denied. I saw that. Yeah. It was embarrassing. And I think it was an act of charity. I mean, if you believe what the Catholic Church believes about the Eucharist and you take Paul's words that you shouldn't present yourself, then it would be an

act of charity. You're eating and drinking condemnation on yourself. Yeah. Yeah. So I think we're seeing a lot of scandals in the church, in the Catholic Church now. It's heartbreaking for us Catholics, you know. And many people are fleeing. And this part of me I'm like I get it um but I think we're going to see a um a sort of a revival or a renewal as people draw closer to Christ and the scriptures and the teachings of the church and that they're no it's no longer fashionable to be culturally Catholic I think that's the last thing anyone wants to be is Catholic if there's no good reason for it. I hope you're right, and I am optimistic as well. I think – now, this is doubtless controversial, but I think that the best thing that the Roman Catholic Church could do to get past these sorts of current problems would be to eliminate priestly celibacy.

In the UNIAC Church, Catholic priests are allowed to have wives. And I think this has placed celibacy, I mean, I think has placed a burden upon these men unsustainable that it helps to foster this terrible undercurrent of sexual abuse and scandal and cover-up. I think one of the strengths of the evangelical Protestant Church is our married pastors. A pastor and his wife are the models for people in the church and for the Christian family. And wow, if that were to happen in the Catholic church, it would revitalize it, I think. Well, certainly, you know, priestly celibacy is a discipline, not a doctrine. And so it's open to changing. And I myself attend an Eastern Catholic church here in Roswell, Epiphany of Our Lord. It's lovely. And as you say, priests prior to ordination can be married. But I would disagree that priestly celibacy

is the primary factor that would lead a priest to abuse another person. Certainly, what do we do with our Lord's words, who says, if you can accept being a eunuch for the kingdom, then you should. And it wasn't too much of a burden for Paul, presumably. Right. Or Jesus himself. Do you not see there being any role for – Well, I would see it as voluntary rather than required. But isn't it voluntary if one chooses to be a priest?

Oh, but, I mean, you can't be a priest. That's true. You can't be a priest in the Western church and be married unless you're kind of converting from Anglicanism. And yet there's a precedent for that, as you say, in Eastern Catholicism. Yeah, that's been the tradition. And we have married Western priests who say convert from Anglicanism and the like. But then I think us in the church, too, we look at – we hear the argument, and this might not be the argument you're making but some people might say well if only you would allow married priests then my goodness you know you guys would explode in your numbers and you'd have a lot more priests but we look at the anglican church

that didn't happen there but that might be for other reasons well that's a that's a fair counter argument i think that that's a good point. And in the United States, the poor Episcopal Church has just been in collapse. So there, yes, well, this shows the importance of having not only these practical matters, but also right doctrine. And as churches like the Episcopal Church have become increasingly unbiblical in the doctrine, there's just no reason if you're a parishioner to get up in the dark and the cold on a Sunday morning and go worship somebody that isn't there. Yeah. No, I think we are seeing this resurgence and this renewal among all Christian denominations

perhaps that we want to be serious about our faith. And so I suppose that leads me to – Let me ask you. Yes, please. Did you see my dialogue with Bishop Barron? I did. Okay. We got on famously. Good. And the Catholics who were involved in and attended that event were so enthusiastic. And I thought, this shows how we can work together and collaborate. No, indeed. I think you've done a tremendous deal of good in the Catholic Church just by your witness and your writings and your research. You've inspired people I know to write

on this in this area of atheism things. And they're doing tremendous work, actually. And that's because of your work and you're outside of the Catholic Church doing such great work. So, yeah, I mean, and the Catholics I know, you know, they'll say, well, yeah, I disagree with him here or there, but they also find it admirable in a way. If you don't accept what the Catholic Church teaches and says you ought to believe, then of course you shouldn't become Catholic. You don't want to pretend to believe what you don't believe.

As we kind of begin to wrap up here, I wanted to ask you what we Christians ought to be doing in this increasingly secular society, because I think sometimes the temptation can be to treat God as a sort of equation that we keep up on the chalkboard, and we forget that if Christianity is true, we are engaged not in a math equation or a syllogism or a series of them, but a spiritual battle. What advice do you have for us Christians as we live in today's? Well, first and foremost, we need to be training our children so that we don't lose the next generation. They are our first responsibility. And so I think Christian parents

need to be training their children in Christian doctrine and apologetics, teaching them why and what we believe, simply at first from an early age, but then with increasing sophistication as they grow older, so that we don't lose them when they go to high school and university. So first and foremost, strengthen the Christian family. And this is primarily the responsibility of the father, not the mother. The father needs to provide this kind of leadership in the Christian home, in training the children in doctrine and apologetics. And then beyond that, I think all of us need to be involved in some sort of evangelism or discipleship ministry.

We mean to be doing something, counseling people at a pregnancy center, serving at an inner-city mission, going on a mission trip to a distant land, leading a Bible study. Bible study. There are just so many different ways in which each of us can be salt and light in our dark and decaying world. And so each of us needs to be involved in that way. Thank you very much for your time. This has been an absolute delight, and I really appreciate it. We're going to close here on YouTube. I have one more question for you, which I want to share with our patrons, those who support us. And that's this.