Pints With Aquinas - 30: Has science done away with the need for God? With Trent Horn

Starting point is 00:00:00 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas, episode 30. I'm Matt Fradd. If you could sit down with St. Thomas Aquinas over a pint of beer and ask him any one question, what would it be? Well, in today's episode, we'll ask the question, has science done away with the need for God? Now, I interview a friend of mine, his name's Trent Horn. I'm sure many of you are familiar with him. He's awesome. But when I recorded the interview, my awesome mic that you're listening to me on now, for some reason, didn't work. And the mic that picked up my voice was the laptop mic. And so, consequently, my audio isn't as good as it could be. But I think if you can just get past that small annoyance, you'll get a lot out of this interview. Enjoy the show.

Starting point is 00:01:01 Welcome to Pints with Aquinas. This is the show where you and I pull up a bar stall next to the angelic doctor and discuss theology and philosophy. And today I'm joined by a good friend of mine, Mr. Trent Horn. Hello, hello. Hi. For those who aren't aware, I'm sure many of our listeners are,

Starting point is 00:01:20 Trent is a Catholic Answers apologist and author and speaker and debater. It's good to have you with us, Trent. How are you? I'm doing well. It's good to be chatting with you here on all kinds of interesting subjects. So always glad to be with my might, Matt Fradd. My might. So people probably don't know this, but I met you, Trent, at Catholic Answers when I used to work there. This was before you were married.

Starting point is 00:01:51 And two of my most fondest memories of you, Trent. The first was when you and I got together and watched Batman cartoons in my living room. Batman cartoons in my living room, and my wife came past and made some joke, some condescending joke about us watching cartoons. It was an animated series. That's right. You were quick to correct her. The second one was when you and I went to, was it Balboa Park? Yeah, that's right.

Starting point is 00:02:21 Yeah, so these atheists have, and sure still a table that they set up and then they try and enter into dialogue with people walking by. And so I said, oh, I've got to go down and chat with these atheists, but I don't want to do it alone. So I took, you know, you and I couldn't imagine anyone who'd be more able and competent at dialoguing with these atheists than you were. And it was really cool. I joked about it in a blog after that it was like making friends with the biggest guy at school and then kind of walking around and chatting with bullies. A terrible ironic thing because that's the exact opposite of how my life was like in school. That's what I say when I go and give talks and things. I often have young girls that are really thankful to me and want to come up and take photos. I always think, where were you when I was in high school?

Starting point is 00:03:13 No one wanted to talk to me back then. Yeah. Anyway, so today we want to discuss one of the objections that Thomas poses himself in the first part of the Summa Theologica, question two, article three, and this has to do with the existence of God. Now, as you know, Trent, Aquinas at times can present to himself over a dozen objections to the point he wants to make. But when it comes to the existence of God, he comes up with two. And it's interesting that these are the two that I think are still the ones brought up the most.

Starting point is 00:03:45 The first was the problem of evil, and the second, and that's what I want us to deal with today, it has to do with science. So let me just read what Thomas says, and then I'll let you speak to it. He says, Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many but it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles supposing god did not exist for all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature

Starting point is 00:04:17 and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason or will. Therefore, there is no need to suppose God's existence. So there you go. Now, of course, he answers it by saying, look to the arguments I just made. That'll show you why this is wrong. But would you speak to this a bit? Because whenever we dialogue with atheists, and some are much more polite than others, but some aren't, and almost always this issue of science and where is the evidence and that sort of thing gets brought up. Right, you're absolutely right. I think this is one of the most common objections to the existence of God that I hear and that I confront. It's this idea that, well, belief in God arose in a pre-scientific age when people rushed to incorrect explanations. And so, religion and belief in God today is just a vestige, it's a remnant of that

Starting point is 00:05:14 pre-scientific incorrect way of thinking. But now we have science and people will say that, you know, God was used to explain certain parts of the natural world in the past, like the water cycle or lightning and thunder, and we now know the causes for that. So, today, when theists propose, and whenever theists propose the existence of God, aside from the ontological argument, they're going to try to point to something we can observe in the natural world and say that what we observe can only be explained by God. And the atheists will say, well, science might get around to figuring it out someday, so how do you know you're not making a God of the gaps argument, so to speak?

Starting point is 00:05:55 So, you're right, that's a very common objection, but I think it can be taken apart in a number of ways. First, the claim that science will be able to answer every question we have about reality is an unscientific and unproven claim. And I think you and I could probably bat back and forth as to why that's probably the central problem with this entire thesis. Similar to the objection that Thomas poses from his objector, it's almost a kind of circular reasoning. Well, we know nature is the only thing that exists because nature can explain everything. You see what I mean? Yes. Yeah. Well, and I think that is the death nail to this sort of scientism,

Starting point is 00:06:33 the fact that it refutes itself. But before you discuss that a bit, why don't we talk about why just the problems we run into when we define reason as science. All of a sudden, so many areas of knowledge we have no justification for holding to, right? And questions about the meaning of life or whether certain actions are right or wrong or even the fundamental laws of thought and logic, all of these things. There is a disturbing trend in atheism over the past 10 or 20 years that, you know, during the 19th, 20th century, the most competent atheists, the most famous atheists were typically philosophers. You had people like Bertrand Russell, J.L. Mackey, you had equipped philosophers. Today, the most outspoken atheists are usually not philosophers. I mean,

Starting point is 00:07:25 Daniel Dennett might be an exception to that. Sam Harris has an undergrad degree in philosophy, but they're scientists. Richard Dawkins is a scientist. Christopher Hitchens was a journalist. So, they think that, well, science will give us all the answers we need, and this atheism rejects not just religion, but philosophy. Because when you and I bring Thomas out and we say, well, no, you can make a philosophical argument for God that you can't find God with a scientific experiment or an instrument, the atheist will often scoff and say, well, anyone can do armchair philosophy, but if you want to really learn about the world, Lawrence Krauss does this a lot and it's incredibly irritating. You got to get out there and do the experiments. It's this idea that philosophy doesn't prove

Starting point is 00:08:09 anything. In fact, Stephen Hawking, in his book, which was The Grand Design, which is basically a philosophical argument, he says on the first page, philosophy is dead. It's absurd. But then we have to ask, well, what is science? If you say that science is just a way of learning anything about reality, well, that makes it so broad that it's a universal discipline. Then there are no other disciplines. Yet, that doesn't make science narrow enough, that it can't replace philosophy. The best example I would give for questions that science cannot answer, and there are people who disagree with me on this, they're wrong, but they would disagree with me, is ethics. You can get a bunch of scientists together, and you can put forward a moral dilemma, and you can analyze it with every scientific instrument you have, and none of those are going to tell you what is the right or wrong action. Because ethics is about discussion about basic goods and values, which of course are immaterial, and science deals with investigating the material natural world. Yeah, excellent. And this idea that in the objection you have Thomas say, what can be accounted by other principles? And so it seems to me that sometimes our atheist

Starting point is 00:09:23 friends can fall not into the God of the gaps fallacy, but almost the science of the gaps fallacy. In other words, just as you pointed to a moment ago, eventually, it'll all be explained by science. Could you speak to that a bit? Yeah, it's this idea that, well, why is a God of the gaps argument wrong? You know, it's the God of the gaps argument goes like this. Phenomena X is unexplained. Therefore, God is the explanation of phenomena X. Therefore, God exists.

Starting point is 00:09:59 But of course, the problem with this explanation, with this argument is you may come up with a natural explanation later. But the arguments we use, the arguments that Thomas uses, are not of that variety. The arguments we use are, X is not unexplained, is inexplicable. As in, there are arguments that show it cannot be explained in principle in any natural way. That's the key difference. Now, the science of the gaps argument is similar. It's this idea that the theist has proposed X as evidence for God. Science will eventually explain X, therefore the theist loses. One way I like to turn this around on atheists when they say, oh, all your arguments are just God of the gaps,

Starting point is 00:10:36 I ask them, okay, are you open-minded? Are you willing to change your mind and believe God exists? And they'll say, well, yeah, I just need evidence. I just need evidence and I'll change my mind. Because you know your open mind. Do you want to be fair? I'll say, all right, tell me then. And this is a challenge I have proposed in debates, on the radio. No one has ever answered it. And the challenge is this. Propose to me a hypothetical case where you were presented with evidence and the specific evidence you are presented that causes you to believe in God that does not conform to this pattern. X is, I cannot explain X, therefore God explains X. Because think about it, what are the common things, like when you talk to atheists and you say to them, well, what would convince you, what do they give you?

Starting point is 00:11:20 They give you something like, well, if all of a a sudden if i was looking up at the night sky all of the stars rearranged you know and said i exist or something or if we looked at the atom if we kept zooming in and it said made by god somewhere within us something like that that would convince me right but then you can always say well how do you know science won't explain it later right Right, and then— So the science of the gaps argument renders atheism as unfalsifiable as many religious claims. And so suddenly, atheism becomes this kind of personal philosophy or personal religion, almost, you could argue, that can't be falsified, that can't be disproven because the evidential bar is raised infinitely high. It can never be surpassed. Whereas as a theist, so the atheist under this view can't be disproven. I could be disproven. Just show me the idea of God doesn't make sense or that God contradicts a known fact in the world. That's

Starting point is 00:12:19 all you have to do. I address both those arguments in my book, Answering Atheism. So, that's another problem here with this, that really the other side is using a gap argument in their assumption science will prove everything, when another example of what science can't prove for us is that science cannot define what science is. There's no experiment, no method that scientifically will show you what is science and what is pseudoscience. Why don't you just step back a little bit here, because we know that science comes from the Latin sciencia, meaning knowledge, and that Aristotle, Aquinas, and those prior to him would use science to mean a number of different things, you know, different disciplines. But I just think maybe we

Starting point is 00:13:00 should define for our audience what is meant by by modern science and i think perhaps this is an interesting question to ask your interlocutor because often it's used with this air of um you know this deified air this air of mysticism science but i wonder sometimes if you just stop and say okay what do you mean by science now as you say they might make it so broad you know like or just how we know things but but maybe would you just explain for us, Trent, what is meant by modern science? Yes. And you raised a good point that in the time of Thomas, science was just a mode of knowing. There were many sciences. Science was a way of knowing things. Theology was considered the queen of the sciences. The science we know today would have been called then natural science or natural philosophy. So, the term science, as we know today,

Starting point is 00:13:52 was really coined by William Whewell in the 18th, I think it was in the 19th century. And science today really, if I had to give a rough definition, would be this. if I had to give a rough definition would be this. It is a system of methods and principles ordered towards producing natural explanations for observed phenomena. So essentially what science tries to do is to create a series of explanations in the form of laws or theories or hypotheses that explain why the natural world functions the way it does. Now, what's interesting in this is that science, yeah, it's really impressive, but it has to take a lot of givens. For example, scientists assume that nature is uniform,

Starting point is 00:14:36 that the laws of nature they try to explore and investigate are the same in all parts of the universe, which they may not. So science, it has many benefits in that, you know, it creates technology and it does widen the knowledge we have about the world, but it has limits. It can't explain everything and it was never meant to. But you can also understand where maybe atheists are coming from when they say, you know, look to people like Aristotle, who instead of going out and seeing whether or not a heavy thing, you know, fell at the same speed as something less heavy, he just sort of asserted it.

Starting point is 00:15:10 And so you can say, and there's all these kind of what we would consider now rather ridiculous assertions about the way in which matter is constituted that was given to us in the pre-Socratics. So you can understand why someone would say, look, just go out and do the experiment. And you'll have people say, because science is not biased. It's all there in the evidence. You just go out there, you put your beliefs to the side, and you just do the experiment. What do you say to that claim, that it's just this unbiased sort of discipline? It's impossible for science to be.

Starting point is 00:15:40 Yes, you're correct. Science is unbiased, but scientists are not. That's the problem. So when someone has a bias, and this is very common in the social sciences, the natural sciences experiments you do, on the kind of variables you're running in an experiment. So, for example, and as I said, the social sciences are raff, raff, reek, they reek of this. Rife, they're rife with this. One of them. One of them. It's rife with this. For example, studies that purported to show that same-sex parents are superior to opposite-sex parents in their parenting abilities. And yet, when you look at many of the studies, there's a fallacy. You'll say, well, here's all the data. It can't be wrong. Right. But the data may have been acquired, for example, from voluntary surveys that are submitted. So, for example, if you're doing a parenting survey and all of your data from the same-sex parents is submitted voluntarily,

Starting point is 00:16:44 then the bad same-sex parents aren't going to voluntarily submit how crummy their home life is. You're only going to get the good ones. It skews your data. And that's just one example that you're right. Science in its purest form, just like any discipline, is not biased. But it is not methods that investigate the world. It's people. And people have biases. Now, you're right. We do experiments. We put forward data. We put forward arguments to show, you know, the facts apart from bias, but we always have to look at that and apply reason. It's important. I think, you know, our atheist friends may forget that science is a subset of reason. Reason is not a subset of

Starting point is 00:17:19 science, and that might be where the mistake is. Now, that's a great thing. I encourage all of our listeners to tweet immediately. What was that again? Science is a subset of reason. Reason is not a subset of science. And so science is limited to the natural world when we speak of modern science. And there's that, of course, famous quote from Stephen Jay Gould. Did I get his name right there? That's right.

Starting point is 00:17:43 Who said in an article in Scientific American, quote, to say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time, science simply cannot adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it. We simply can't comment on it as scientists. Yes, Gould called that the Noma, non-overlapping magisterium. So, the idea is that science investigates one realm, the realm of nature, any realm beyond nature, the supernatural, is outside of science's reach. And what people say is, well, that supernatural doesn't exist. It's just gods and fairies and demons and who cares about that? But philosophers know, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. There are important entities that could exist beyond just what we consider to be the natural world. And if you ask many people, scientists who call themselves naturalists, it's hard for them to define what naturalism is without being circular or without just being straight up materialists. For example, under moral truths, you know,

Starting point is 00:18:46 do more, here's a few examples. So, moral truths or consciousness or abstract objects like numbers, do these things exist? Well, if they do exist, science cannot adjudicate their existence. And because they are immaterial, like God. It doesn't mean if something's immaterial that it doesn't exist. So, yeah, Gould's point is well taken here. And when we look at the idea about God and science and science can't touch God, one issue that I've confronted is prayer. People say, well, we can run experiments to see if prayer works. Here's the problem, though. No scientific experiment on prayer can be valid, and here's why. When you do scientific experiments, you have to, ideally, they should be

Starting point is 00:19:30 double blind. The person you're experimenting on shouldn't know they're being experimented, shouldn't know what you're trying to test for. Otherwise, they may fudge the results. And you got to create suitable control groups that are isolated. But with God, who's infinite and immaterial and all-knowing, all bets are off the table. You know, God knows you're doing an experiment on him, so he may choose to not participate. The same is what happened with many human beings. If they knew they were being observed in an experiment,

Starting point is 00:20:00 it would alter their behavior accordingly. Or you need, like, to see if prayer works. You say, well, let's see, we have a control group and a variable group. The control group is the group not getting any prayers, and the variable group is being prayed for. How do you create a group of people that aren't being prayed for? What if they have relatives who are praying? What about the lady in Nepal who is praying for every sick person in the world? Or the saints in Nepal who is praying for every sick person in the world? Or the saints in heaven. Exactly.

Starting point is 00:20:27 So, the idea is that when this happens, you say, well, you can't, you see the problem is why science can't involve God. It's not because God is an inferior idea. It's just because science is the wrong tool. You can do great experiments in the natural world because you can make control groups and variable groups and lay down the right conditions, make it blind or double blind. But when you have immaterial, infinite, all-knowing entities, you can't really run experiments. You can't do things like that. That's where the realm of philosophy takes over to help us understand God because God is not a blind law or force in the universe that science can examine. Right, right.

Starting point is 00:21:10 And if you think that that is what God is, then I would agree with you in not believing in it, him. In that. Here's an analogy I like to use. Tell me what you think about it. If I went down to my kid's sand pit and with a metal detector, very carefully and slowly went over every square inch of this sandbox. And suppose I come back up inside and I wipe the sweat from my brow and I lay down my metal detector and I say to my wife,

Starting point is 00:21:31 well, that proves it. There are no diamonds in the sandpit. My wife would probably say, that's a metal detector. And so it sounds like what you're saying is if we're using a method that by its very nature is limited to the natural world, it won't be able to directly prove nor disprove the supernatural. So another tool is necessary, and that tool is philosophy. Absolutely. Because when I talk to atheists, they'll say, well, I'll believe in God if there's a mechanism or tool we can create that can find him, that can prove he exists, or that can prove the supernatural exists. not made of anything that doesn't occupy any moment of time, but exists and has control over

Starting point is 00:22:26 all moments in time and all elements of space. I mean, if it's not in space and time, science really can't get a hold of it. But that doesn't mean that it does not exist. If you say, well, the only things that exist are the things that have spatial and temporal coordinates. Well, the problem with that is, what about space and time itself? Time doesn't have a temporal coordinate. Space doesn't have a spatial coordinate. Is space not real? Is time not real? In the beginning of the 20th century, you had McTaggart. He was arguing for the unreality of time, so it's not that far off. So, when you apply the reasoning, when people think, oh, well, if you only care about Higgs boson particles and photosynthesis and electron microscopes, yeah, that's great.

Starting point is 00:23:11 But you forget that science is built on larger philosophical and metaphysical categories related to things like truth, existence, being and not being. If you don't get metaphysics right, you're not going to get science right. You're going to have a strange kind of materialism or extreme scientific realism that doesn't account for the way the world really is. You went to mention this in the beginning, but we didn't touch upon it, and that's this idea of scientism, right, which is generally understood to be the belief that one should only believe that which can be shown true by the scientific method. Would you talk about how that's incoherent? Yeah, well, all you have to do is take a belief and apply it to itself to show if it's incoherent. So, for example, the claim there are no objective truth claims is incoherent

Starting point is 00:24:01 because it's making an objective truth claim. Similarly with science, and this is similar to the old verificationism school of philosophy from A.J. Ayers and Quine and others from the early 20th century, the idea that, well, the only meaningful truths, the only things that are really meaningful and true are those things that can be verified empirically or can be proven with the scientific method. Anything else just isn't really interesting. It's not interesting. It doesn't matter if God exists. It doesn't matter if there are numbers. None of that stuff matters. Only what you can prove scientifically to be true is the case. But of course, this is ultimately self-refuting

Starting point is 00:24:39 because you would ask, well, okay, how do you know scientism is true? How do you know that the only truth statements are those that can be verified scientifically and there are no others that can be verified in any other way? How would you demonstrate that? There's no scientific way to demonstrate that. conclusion that comes from some kind of an argument that just observes how science has benefited the world and incorrectly observes, incorrectly deduces that philosophy really hasn't, and yet makes this philosophical argument that the only truths that matter, the only truths we can know are scientific. So I would just say, when people bring this up, I'll say, well, look, you say that science is the only way to come at truth? Point me to the journal article or the scientific experiment I can replicate that proves that conclusion. Because you can't. That's a philosophical belief. It must have premises and inferences. And that in and of itself shows that

Starting point is 00:25:38 philosophy matters. There's a great meme actually online. I know what you're doing. Yeah, you'll know this one too, where the one guy says, you know, who cares about philosophy? All we need is science. And the other guy says, well, why is science important? And the scientist says, well, science matters because, and then the philosopher says, and now you're doing philosophy. So it sounds like maybe here could be a threefold approach for someone. If they get cornered by somebody and start getting told about why God doesn't exist because of science. They might begin by asking, what do you mean by science? Because whenever we get into an argument, it's important that we are clear on the terms we're using.

Starting point is 00:26:21 Secondly, they might point to things that the scientific method cannot even begin to explain, things like advanced laws in mathematics or the laws of logic, morality, meaning that sort of thing. And three, a good question to ask would be, are you saying that I should not believe something else can be shown to the scientific method and showing how that's self-referentially incoherent? Are there any other objections that you hear concerning God and science that you'd like to touch upon, or have we pretty much covered them? No, I mean, there are other objections, and we'll have to save them probably for another chat. I think that, one, the arguments that try to purport that the existence of God is invalidated by science

Starting point is 00:27:01 are incredibly weak, because they're two different areas. What some atheists will try to say is, fine, maybe science can't touch God, but it can't disprove God, but it can show that God doesn't interact with the world or that God hasn't been involved in purported Christian revelation. You know, you could try to cast doubt on original sin or on the Genesis narratives, things like that. So, I think more of the objections is not God himself, the divine being, but might try to go after divine revelation using science, and that might be a chat for another time. And generally speaking, it's a lot easier to tear down a person's position than to build it up, isn't it? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. And that's the problem with atheism, when it tries to only tear down the existence of God and doesn't put forward its own positive case, which is to show

Starting point is 00:27:51 either A, God does not exist, or B, here is the reason all of these arguments don't work, but then you're still, atheism itself isn't a complete worldview. Now, some atheists try to do this. They say they're naturalists and only nature exists, but then they get into the problems of trying to define what is nature and what is not nature that I referred to earlier. Sure. Well, as we wrap up here, Trent, I want to talk about two books of yours that I have found incredibly helpful and I know that our listeners will. And the first pertains to the topic we're discussing today, and that's your awesome, awesome, awesome book called Answering Atheism. Do you want to just say a word about that? Yeah, Answering Atheism was the first book that I wrote, and I think it's the most comprehensive treatment of the arguments for and against the existence of God written at a

Starting point is 00:28:39 lay level. There weren't many books from a Catholic perspective on that issue, so I wrote one, and the first part of the book clarifies terms, then I look at the arguments for classical atheism, that God doesn't exist, and then I defend four arguments for the existence of God in the book. And I try very hard to be thorough, to look at what different atheists have said about these arguments, and really introduce readers to this, and put a lot in the end notes for further study. But yeah, that book is called Answering Atheism. And then your newest book, which I know so many people must be thrilled to have, and that's Hard Sayings, A Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties. Why should people

Starting point is 00:29:18 get that? Well, similar to what we alluded to before, when I said that atheists might use science to attack Christian revelation, Hard Sayings is the first book, is really the first comprehensive addressing of Bible difficulties from a Catholic perspective for a lay audience. So, actually, almost for any audience, really, for how many Bible difficulties are addressed. actually almost for any audience, really, for how many Bible difficulties are addressed. These are passages in Scripture that seem to contradict science or history or one another or seem to be immoral, referring to slavery or genocide. And so, in my book, Hard Sayings, I walk people through these difficult passages from a Catholic perspective and show that they do not disprove the inspiration or the inerrancy of sacred scripture.

Starting point is 00:30:07 So yeah, so that book is called Hard Sayings, a Catholic Approach to Answering Bible Difficulties, and it's available online and in local Catholic bookstores. Yeah, cool. And then I'd also like to tell our listeners that if you haven't ever listened to Catholic Answers Live, be sure to do that. They have an app you can download to listen to the podcast, or you can just go to catholic.com, click radio. And Trent does hours in which he takes calls only from atheists and asks them, why are you an atheist?

Starting point is 00:30:33 And they have a good dialogue. And I always enjoy those episodes. So there you go. Thanks so much for all that you do, and Trent, you're a real blessing to the church. And I was happy to see, Trent, that you wrote this book for me in the front of hard sayings. It says, To Matthew. And I'm just so humbled, I guess. Yes, although the dedication would be to another Matthew who shares the name, because of course, the name Matthew can have many

Starting point is 00:31:02 references to it. I would refer to my son, but I do think maybe there's a spiritual sense to the words that also applies to you as well. Awesome. Alright, well thanks so much for being with us. No problem. And that's it for that episode. Notice how all of a sudden I sound really cool? It's

Starting point is 00:31:19 because of the mic. Sorry again about that. Hope you enjoyed the podcast. Hey, I want to say one more thing, but before I do, listen to this. My name is Gomer and I'm the co-host of Catching Foxes. I would like to tell you about something more important than my podcast. Pints with Aquinas. Matt Fradd actually wrote a book on 50 plus deep thoughts from the angelic doctor. Pints with Aquinas. Here's the deal. Beer is easily lovable, but medieval monastic philosophers, they can be quite intimidating. Yet in this short pithy book, and I don't use that word often. In fact, I never use the word pithy, but I'm going to use it here

Starting point is 00:32:04 and you're going to agree with me. Matt Fradd made The Greatest Mind in the History of the Church as easily accessible as your favorite beer. You'll laugh. You'll cry. Well, you won't cry. But you'll laugh, and you'll discover that this old-school philosopher's wisdom is just as relevant today as it was back then. So do yourself a favor. Get a copy of this enlightening, pithy little book from Amazon

Starting point is 00:32:25 right now. And when it arrives, pour yourself a frothy pint and dig in. You'll be glad you did. Okay. Hey, thanks everyone who has supported this show by buying that book, Pints with Aquinas. Thanks to everyone who has reviewed it. Thank you to all of you who've been emailing tweeting instagramming that's probably not a thing uh thanks a lot really appreciate all your support as always at the end of every 10th episode i take a break so you will not hear from me next week uh and maybe not the week after but maybe we'll have to see but i'll'll definitely be back, so stay subscribed. Tell your friends. Geek out on past episodes.

Starting point is 00:33:09 If you haven't listened to them all, just scroll down the list and choose one. You'll be fine. I promise. And I battle with my consciousness I battle with my selfish flesh These wolves in my feet in my bed

Pints With Aquinas - 30: Has science done away with the need for God? With Trent Horn

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.