Am I going to hell?

>> Yes. But here's the thing. Everybody is

going to hell. And it's not because they

don't believe in God. And look, I'm a

historian and a theologian. So, I study

ancient biblical manuscripts. And if you

truly understand what this book is

saying, I don't want you to experience

that.

>> This is not a place I want to go. So,

what do I do about that?

>> It's not about trying to earn my way

into heaven. It's not about checking

off. I read the Bible as many times. I

didn't lie. I didn't steal. I didn't

cheat. Like, it's none of that. But

here's the problem. Unfortunately, we

bought the lie that we are the sum of

our actions, where we're chasing after

things that aren't going to give us what

we actually need. Which is also why we

live in a world that is lacking in

purpose and meaning.

>> But the part that I've always struggled

with is that the answer being religion

as an antidote to that feeling because I

require a really high standard of

evidence because of the way that I am.

>> Well, I think not only can it provide an

antidote, it can provide the antidote.

And I'll explain why. like how can we

trust human accounts of these things and

then how do you take people who agree

that there's clearly something missing

to believing that what's written in the

Bible is the thing that should guide my

life also do you have any doubt oh

especially when there are times of

struggle and pain and suffering like the

whole Epstein thing right now we are

seeing examples of true evil so there

are moments where I think how could

there be a good god however from my

investigation I am convinced beyond a

reasonable doubt that there's actual

evidence for the existence of God the

historical reliability of the Bible and

the philosophical explanations for

meaning and purpose.

>> And what is that?

>> First, we have

>> that is some of the most persuasive

evidence one can receive.

>> Guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you.

We're approaching a significant

subscriber milestone on this show. And

roughly 69% of you that listen and love

this show haven't yet subscribed for

whatever reason. If there was ever a

time for you to do us a favor, if we've

ever done anything for you, given you

value in any way, it is simply hitting

that subscribe button. And it means so

much to myself, but also to my team

because when we hit these milestones, we

go away as a team and celebrate. And

it's the thing, the simple, free, easy

thing you can do to help make this show

a little bit better every single week.

So, that's a favor I would ask you. And

um if you do hit the subscribe button, I

won't let you down and we'll continue to

find small ways to make this whole

production better. Thank you so much for

being part of this journey. Means the

world. And uh yeah, let's do this.

Wesley, I have this fascinating uh graph

in front of me here and it shows several

things that I find to be really really

interesting. One of them is that as of

2024,

the decline of religion has started to

level off and actually increase a little

bit. And now 63% of US adults identify

as Christian, which is roughly 160

million people. In 2025, Bible sales hit

a 21-year high in the United States with

19 million units sold. Weekly Bible

reading amongst US adults has increased

to 42%, which is up 12% since 2024. And

in 2024, Christian and gospel music

streams in the US increased by roughly

20% according to the Washington Times.

Wesley, what is going on in society? If

we zoom out,

>> I think we're in a unique bubble where

we found ourselves in a time frame where

we're connected more than ever. We've

kind of come out of a period of time

where the new atheism is very, very

popular. You had Dawkins, Daniel, uh,

Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher

Hitchens, and they made a big impact in

the early 2000s.

>> I think we should probably just give

some color to what new atheism is.

>> Sure. Yeah.

>> I've actually got a graph here, which

I'll throw up on the screen, which shows

the rise and then the the fall of new

atheism, but I was pulled in by new

atheism.

>> And that meant that I, and again, I

should probably preface my beliefs

because people are going to want to know

what my bias is when I'm asking

questions. I grew up in a very Christian

household up until the age of 18. I then

became agnostic/ atheist when I started

consuming a lot of this stuff from

Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and all

of these people. And then I find myself

at a point now where I'm just

open-minded and curious,

>> but I have lots of questions. Yeah, you

had these individuals who are writing

these very influential works. But I

sometimes wonder whether the new atheism

movement worked a lot more effectively

in print than it did in actual real

life. Like in terms of the practicality

of the application of the things that

were being talked about, especially in

regards to meaning, if you apply ideas

like you being a product of time plus

matter plus chance, what does that

actually give you in terms of the

ultimate identity questions? And so I

think I think that's true in a lot of

circumstances where you have these seeds

that are planted and they grow and they

produce trees that produce fruit that

are kind of hard to digest in their

actual application. And along with that,

we have a world that's very complex.

We're more connected than we ever have

been. I don't know if we're truly we

were ever truly meant to know as much

information as we do, especially about

things that are going on around the

world and things that are hard to to

comprehend. And so what I think that all

kind of adds up to is people asking

questions about, okay, I'm here. I'm

right now trying to figure out what's

going on. How do I actually find out the

answers to a lot of these questions that

just go beyond the here and the now that

I'm experiencing? This is what um

individuals like James K. Smith called

the dynamics of disenchantment where

people are struggling with these

transcendent questions, questions that

are metaphysical that go beyond just the

here and the now in the world. Why is

the three pounds of gray matter in my

brain able to comprehend the

complexities of the universe? How do I

how do I come up with a solution to that

problem? So, I think that's part of it.

I think it's kind of moving on in a

world that just is probably more messy

than it's ever been. A lot of countries,

the UK, Europe, Canada, America, all of

these western countries,

they they were founded on these

Judeo-Christian ethics of foundations

that come from the Old and the New

Testaments, what we call the Bible. And

a lot of people kind of attempted to

divorce the religious aspect from the

societies. And societies became less and

less overtly religious in those natures.

And then a lot of people saw that their

parents were no longer going to church.

Like the Bible wasn't part of kind of

the household any longer. And I talked

to a lot of young people who look at

that and they say in almost like a

rebellion against their parents, they're

now interested in that. Their parents

rebelled by disassociating from

religion. And now I wonder if there's

part of a rebellion in kind of looking

back and trying to reclaim some of that

religious stuff. I think in part as well

this younger generation, Gen Z's and I

guess to some extent also millennials

have been told to live more

individualistic lives and that's really

been glamorized like be your own boss

and now we work remotely and stand on

your own two feet and we're even seeing

people getting into sort of

relationships later and later in their

lives and having less children. So

they're more it appears people are more

unanchored than they've ever been and

that was to some degree glamorized. Um

but it also appears that when we are

unanch anchored when we don't have

responsibilities or we're not part of

something mental health issues um are

quick quick to follow

>> and for this generation they're

suffering the most with those types of

mental health issues and then one would

assert that they would therefore be

searching more for

>> answers to some of these existential

questions

>> expressive individualism I think it rose

that's the kind of the terminology in

soc in the sociological literature that

they refer to it but I I think you

touched on a good point in that like as

we've removed God, part of the

intellectual light enlightenment was

that we would move away from the

shackles of religiosity and the concept

of a creator and that would lead us into

a utopia. And I think the more and more

we've removed that from society that

hasn't decreased our levels of anxiety

and depression and meaning. I I think

it's increased it.

>> Yeah. And especially celebrity worship,

social media, building a following of

your own like sort of low-key

narcissism.

>> Yeah.

>> Has made us more and more and more and

more important. And that seems to

correlate with worse and worse and worse

mental health when you start to become

more individualistic and think more and

more about yourself

>> and self-importance

>> versus others and a bigger picture.

>> Mhm. I think we were created for

community. I think we are as human

beings a creature that is created for

community ultimately like cards on the

table as a Christian because I believe

we are created in the image of a God who

exists in a set of living loving

relationships like that's what the

trinity is when we talk about that idea

within Christian theology. God exists in

father son and holy spirit. And so being

created in the image of God, part of

that is you are created for

relationship. And so in a society that's

continually removing us, you know, you

need to be an influencer. You're

influencing everybody else.

>> When I think we're not created to be

lone wolves or lone rangers. We're

created to live amongst community and

have that be something that likewise

gives us fulfillment. It's not that

people who are leaders are, you know,

rise to the top are wrong by any

stretch, but in a society where we're

alone together because

we are sitting behind computer screens

>> and we're talking to hundreds of

thousands if not millions of people in

some cases, but but we're secluded.

>> I think that that does something to our

souls because we were made to be in

relationship with other people. I

agree with everything you've said as it

relates to the sort of crisis of meaning

in society and I also agree with many of

your reasons as to why that's occurred.

>> The part that I've always struggled with

is then the answer being Christianity or

any other religion.

>> Sure. I agree with, you know, so many of

the things you've said, but then I my

brain has, I think, especially after the

age of 18 when I started reading about

all this new atheist stuff and these

questions of evil and am I going to hell

and all these other things, I've not

been able to get there.

>> But I'm having this conversation with

you today because I am open-minded and

although I've got like difficult

questions to ask, I'm in pursuit of the

truth, not any particular ideology or

answer. So, how do you take someone like

me who agrees that there's clearly

something missing, who believes that

there's something transcendent? Like,

it'd be a crazy thing to assume that

this is it. I I think

>> Yeah.

>> How do you take them from this position

to

>> believing that what's written in this

book in front of me, the Bible,

>> Yeah.

>> is the thing that should guide my life,

>> right?

>> Because I I like, again, I say I'm going

to say this again, that like

>> I think I require a really high standard

of evidence because of the way that I

am.

>> Yeah. You know, I think there's a

historical case for it which I'm very

much invested in because my training

formerly is in historioggraphy. I study

ancient biblical manuscripts and their

kind of reliability and fidelity over

the last couple of millennia. So looking

at some of those manuscripts that

actually can trace back to the actual

time frame of Jesus and answering

questions like is what we have now what

the original authors wrote back then?

So, I think there's a historical

question to it. And I in my own personal

investigation genuinely think that the

evidence, the publicly available

evidence gets us back to not only the

time frame of Jesus, but to early

eyewitness testimony that proclaims that

this first century Jewish itinerate

rabbi who was walking the dusty streets

of first century made these claims and

then there is sufficient evidence to say

that he predicted his own death and

resurrection and did it. How do I know

Jesus Christ was real? And then how do I

know what's written in that book is real

versus just some guys thousands of years

ago made a book?

>> Yeah. So that is a question of

historical reliability. So there are a

couple different ways we could go about

it. First, we have four biographical

accounts of Jesus's life, which is very

unusual. So we call them the Gospels,

Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Um those

aren't actually our earliest source

material for the life of Jesus. that

comes in the person of Paul. Paul is

actually writing before the gospel

accounts and he is uh someone who was

hostile originally to the Christian

message and he's persecuting Christians.

He comes along and he has this radical

conversion experience when he's

traveling to Damascus where he says he's

he's literally thrown off a horse. He

hears God's voice and it's Jesus and he

says, "Paul, why are you persecuting

me?" And then he writes these things

about his experience and and then

ultimately goes and connects with the

individuals who are who we call the

disciples who are like this this close

Jesus community and connects with them.

So he's our earliest source but then you

have these gospel accounts these these

biographies and the gospels are

interesting because they fit within the

historical framework of ancient Greco

Roman biography. So let me give you an

example. The most well-known person in

Jesus's day was the emperor. His name is

Tiberius. Tiberius has four biographical

accounts that are written about him.

Valasculus, Casiodio, Sutonius, and

Tacitus.

>> So, these are the four guys. Okay.

>> And what's interesting in sort of a

comparative analysis of Jesus and those

people is that they're all writing

around the same time period. So the

biographies are coming from the first

century for Jesus. They're coming in

this time period where you have an early

eyewitness testimony for the emperor for

the most well-known person in the

ancient world. All of the sources except

for uh Valas Peterculus are coming from

the second century.

>> Val Petculus is coming from the first

century. He's very close to the source,

but he's a paid propagandist. So even

though he's the earliest, he's the least

reliable. And for the gospels that comes

around to the 4th century. So there's a

comparison with the source material for

someone like Jesus even though we really

shouldn't have anything about him

because he's he's kind of a nobody from

nowhere

>> in terms of the Roman Empire and the

grand scheme of things.

>> But we have a phenomenal amount of

source information for his life. I mean,

this is one of the things I discovered

when I went through that new atheist

phase was that really everybody kind of

agrees that there was a guy called Jesus

from Nazareth and that he was a real

historical person.

>> I guess the part in dispute was whether

things like his resurrection actually

happened or whether he was just a

spiritual leader back then like we have

spiritual leaders today. And I think one

of the one of the things that I got

really stuck on when I was reading about

Jesus and the Bible was there appears to

be quite a significant gap between his

life, his death, and then the writings

that go into the Bible. And for me in my

head, I was like, well, if you know,

>> if something happened in my life 50

years ago, I mean, I'm only 33, but if

something happened 50 years ago, I would

not be able to recount it. Frankly, I

can't recount what happened last week

accurately,

>> right?

>> Let alone like decades ago. You've you

must have heard this argument before.

>> Yes.

>> What how do you how do you square the

circle here?

>> So, there are a few things going on.

First, we live in a hyperiterate

culture. We are writing everything down.

The ancient world was far less of a

literate culture. They were an oral

culture. These stories would have been

passed in large groups at at at time

frames, especially if we're talking

about the biographical material of Jesus

is actually written in a closer time

frame than the majority of anyone else.

>> What was that gap?

>> It's it's about 40 to 60 years.

>> So, I really want to I imagine there's

some people listening that have probably

never read the Bible. And I really want

to explain to them like what this book

is in the simplest terms. Can I I can

open your Bible.

>> Yeah, of course. Yeah.

>> So, is there is there like chapters in

here?

>> Yeah. So, the Bible is though we now

have it in one book is 66 books written

over a period of about 1600 years on

three different continents by close to

40 different authors in three different

languages.

>> So, I've just opened your Bible. Y

>> and there's one section that says the

Old Testament. There's another section

section that says the New Testament. M

what am I looking at? Like is this God's

words? Is this a bunch of people's

stories that have been compiled

together? What is the Old Testament?

What's the New Testament? What's the

difference?

>> Yeah. So the Old Testament is the Hebrew

scriptures. So that's the scriptures of

the Jewish people.

>> Okay.

>> So that is uh you know it starts in

what's referred to as the Torah, which

are the first five books or the five

books of Moses. And then that goes in a

time frame all the way up to the period

of the Persians.

>> So that's a certain time frame. Yes. And

they've gone and collected books from

that time frame or writings from that

time frame.

>> Yeah. So the ancient Jewish people had

and remember all of these books they

would have circulated as independent

writings.

>> Okay.

>> So we start to see things like this

happen in the 4th century. Prior to that

everything's in independent scrolls. So

there's an understanding when even you

get them all sort of put in one unit

that would have contained the

scriptures, the word of God more so than

like this is the word of God.

>> The reason why I am unapologetic and

very open about my total naivity is

because often in these conversations

>> you end up kind of preaching to the

choir.

>> Sure.

>> If you know what I mean. And there's a

huge amount of people, especially

younger people that went through that

new atheist movement, were maybe born in

the 2000s that are now 26 years old,

>> that have never read the Bible, have

never even opened one, have no idea what

it is. They just think it's this kind of

like book of stories. Yeah.

>> But these the first um you call these

books, I was thinking of them like

chapters.

>> The first one in the Old Testament is

Genesis.

>> Who wrote Genesis? Was that a guy or was

that God? So the idea is in Christianity

the terminology is what's called verbal

plenary inspiration. So verbal it's

spoken plenary it's like written down

and then inspired. So there are human

authors to all these books.

>> Okay. So humans wrote these chapters but

they were inspired by God.

>> So yes. So the understanding so in the

Bible itself Peter says that men spoke

as they were carried along by the Holy

Spirit. So there's a there's a

historical context to all of these like

the history of this period of time of

the nation of Israel as they were being

led by particular rulers.

>> And where does Jesus show up?

>> Jesus is the New Testament.

>> If someone's never read the Old

Testament, what is that about? It's just

describing the time.

>> It's a bunch of different things. So

different things. It's there's a whole

bunch of genres of literature. So, some

of it is history, some of it is poetry,

some of it is what's called wisdom

literature.

>> And who decided that these it looks like

there's I don't know, it looks like

there's about 40 books in the Old

Testament.

>> Mhm. 39 books that are in the Old

Testament.

>> Who decided that those were going to be

part of the Old Testament because I'm

sure that there was lots of other

writings at the time that could have

been included.

>> Yeah. So, by the time that Jesus is

around, there's approximately an

agreement of what is considered

scripture

>> by who? by the Jews themselves.

>> So the Jews decided which 38 books to

put in.

>> Yes. So you have conversations by

individuals like there's a guy named

Josephus who is writing at the end of

the first century. Part of what he

argues is that the Jewish people don't

have kind of an innumerable number of

religious texts like the Greeks do. They

have a specific number and he uses this

terminology that they were laid up in

the temple. So the idea is that you know

these are the books they're housed in

the temple and they're a set number and

he gives the number of the same number

of letters in the Hebrew alphabet 22. So

you usually see this 22 or 23 number,

but they group them differently. And he

gives an argument that one of the

reasons that there we can find a

timeline for what the Jews consider

scripture is he says there's nothing

written before Moses and there's not

nothing written after the time of Artis

Xerxes, which is the Persian Empire. So

the book of Esther in the Bible is is

that time period. So though there are

writings after that there's this

agreement that

the voice of God in say the prophets

giving a thus sayaith the Lord statement

like communicating messages to the

people of Israel has ceased but the

Jewish cannon though there's like a

closing of it there's a soft closing

there's an idea that there's going to be

a new covenant God is make going to make

new pro promises with his people and so

there are going to be more writings.

>> Okay. So my understanding of that is

that he made the case that God is no

longer communicating with people to

write these books

>> at least that there was a stop point at

Malachi. So it's sometimes referred to

as the 400 years of silence for that

reason

>> from the point of Jesus's death.

>> Mhm.

>> What book from the New Testament is

written last and how big is that gap?

>> That's a debate.

>> Okay. What's the debate? So the debate

so the the there's it's a question if

John's gospel

>> is written before 70 AD or after 70 AD

and if it's written after 70 AD it's

written in the '9s. So it's written

pretty far afterwards.

>> How many years?

>> So if Jesus dies in 33.

>> Okay. So about 60.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. Fine.

>> Yeah. So, so at minimum I I think like

99% of historians, biblical scholars,

classicists would argue that the 27

books of the New Testament are written

in the first century. And so in that

sense, they're in the lifetime of the

eyewitnesses to a certain degree.

>> Mhm.

>> And there's evidence even within some of

the gospels where you have these names

thrown out kind of randomly. And part of

the thinking of that is that this is

like citing your sources. At one point

when Jesus is carrying the cross to

Galatha,

>> he kind of stumbles and they get another

person to carry his cross for a little

bit.

>> And that person is Joseph of Arythea.

Well, one of the gospels names one of

Joseph of Arythea's son by name. And the

thinking is that this is probably

someone who's well known within the

early Jesus community. And the purpose

of naming that person randomly is to say

he's actually well known. Go ask him.

>> I mean logically there's quite a risk of

Chinese whispers to some degree.

>> As you were speaking I was trying to

think about things that I experienced

when I was younger like with my like

grandmother before she passed away and I

was trying to like accurately recount

those memories.

>> Yeah.

>> I was thinking of like going to her

house and then

>> I remember one day she gave me some

money but I can't remember what she gave

it to me for and I can't remember how

much she gave me. I know she put it in a

card and this was only like hm 20 years

ago.

>> Yeah.

>> And so if I was to write about that

today, I would be filling in some some

gaps, especially especially this is the

other thing that I always struggled with

is like especially in a world where we

didn't understand science. Now my

grandmother like put it in a card and it

was like I opened it and the way she did

it was often as a surprise. So in a

world where I like didn't understand

physics or science, I might have

concluded that my mother, my grandmother

did something like magical,

>> you know, at a time when we didn't

understand anything about like really

much about the nature of the universe

and planets and the solar system and

physics.

>> So is that a risk that some of the

things that have been transmuted by God

into this book in front of me are prone

to Chinese whispers and or just like a

lack of understanding about the nature

of the world like the resurrection for

example.

>> Yeah. So this is uh this is in my field

referred to as mythological drift. So

how do we factor in making sure that

mythological drift doesn't happen? I

think there are a couple things related

to what you said. First off, I think I

would be careful in trying to ascribe

the ancient world as being

pres-scientific and therefore largely

say ignorant. I mean, even when the

angel comes to Mary in the gospel story

and says, "You're going to be with

child." Mary's objection to the angel is

a scientific one. I haven't met the

minimum requirements of how babies are

made, therefore I can't be pregnant,

right? So, she's not dumb, right? She's

not just at face value accepting that,

you know, well, I believe in angels and

so, you know, this kind of magic thing

can happen. she's still objecting

scientifically even though she might not

have the terminology to understand like

the complexities of child birth and

embryology and all of that. So I would

say you know this is what uh the writer

CS Lewis calls chronological snobbery

that he says you know we need to be

careful of not to ascribe the ancient

world as being more ignorant and stupid

than than you know just because we are a

product of the enlightenment and we

understand scientific things. Yeah. The

second thing is I think the the Chinese

whispers or the telephone game or

whatever you call it is a good is a good

kind of case study. I think where it

falls short is that if you play the

telephone game, if you play Chinese

whispers, there are rules in order to

corrupt the message. So you have to

whisper, you can only say it once. You

have to do it one person to one person.

In an oral culture, you would have been

hearing these stories constantly. So

when some of these stories are told,

they're being told within a lifetime

where there could have been individuals

who say the story of the feeding of the

5000, that's a lot of people. So there's

a lot of witnesses to this particular

event. So if you're writing this down,

there's an aspect of there are people

out there who could verify what is being

said, at least orally, not necessarily

like literarily. Likewise,

what we have in the gospel accounts,

particularly after Jesus's death, when

the disciples proclaiming his

resurrection, they go back to Jerusalem,

which is the scene of the crime. So,

they go back to the exact place where

Jesus was crucified and start telling

people he was risen from the dead. If

there is some aspect of say

disingenuousness and making up a story,

don't go back to the place where

everybody could have seen that thing

happen to that degree. Right? So in in

one sense, Chinese whispers is is a

faulty analogy in that it's less like

one person whispering into another's ear

and more like a 100 people in a room all

saying communicating the thing verbally

and then getting the other people to

repeat it back to them and then

corroborating with the other individuals

of what's going on. Now I think there I

think your point in in the story of your

your grandmother and you know the the

the letter and is a good one. You know

how do we remember things? Do you

remember 9/11?

>> Yes, I do. Yes. And I was in the the UK

at the time.

>> Could you tell me a little bit more

vividly what what you were doing on 911

compared to your grandmother and the

letter?

>> Yes, I could. Yeah. I remember coming

home from school and like watching it on

the screen and my and my dad having it

on the screen and usual just looking at

the screen.

>> Yeah, me too. So whereas I couldn't tell

you much of what else happened during an

average day in that year, I could tell

you what happened on September 11th,

2001. And that's because of the nature

of what was going on. And I think when

we're talking about the gospel stories

in particular, first you have what I

genuinely believe are eyewitness

accounts from at least the source

information coming from a group who

would have heard Jesus be preaching

these things multiple times in multiple

different settings. Like it's it's

probably likely myself as an itinerate I

have given the same talk on a particular

subject quite a few times. Yeah. And I

joke with my wife that she could give my

talk on the historical reliability of

the Bible herself. You know, if I'm

sick, I'll just send my wife, right? Cuz

she's heard it so many times. I think

that's the case that's going on with the

disciples.

>> There's an aspect of they would have

heard say the biatitudes.

>> Yeah.

>> That Jesus most likely more than once is

the case because that's just the nature

of not just itinerate speaking but even

traveling rabbis in in the ancient

world. And then you have this event that

is kind of earthshattering in terms of

their narrative of who they are. They've

been traveling with this rabbi for 3

years straight. They've been hearing his

teaching. They've been seeing miracles

at least that are recorded in the

gospels.

Pretty phenomenal things. And then he

gets taken and he's murdered publicly.

And they think it's over. They think,

you know, there are other messianic

movements in the ancient world. most of

which you and I aren't hearing on a

regular basis because when those

individuals die, their movement dies

with them. And so that's what they think

is happening, right? So they think,

"Okay, we're done."

So the story is they're hiding in this

upper room and they're scared. In fact,

it's the women who take on the

responsibility of like going and

figuring things out, which in terms of

the time period is actually an

embarrassing fact because of the kind of

cultural dynamics of what's going on.

And so

you have the disciples who think it's

over. What is it that has 11 scared

disciples because one of them Judas goes

and he kills himself. 11 scared

disciples hiding in an upper room

thinking that's it. We're done. We might

as well, you know, Peter, James, and

John might as well just go back to being

fishermen cuz that's all she wrote. to

then having the boldness to go out and

actually proclaim this message

ultimately to

the level of persecution and hardship

that they endure for the rest of their

lives. Well, it's that their rabbi then

shows up alive again. And so, at

minimum, I think what we can say is that

this is a pretty drastic event that

takes place in their life. It's a

comparative to a 9/11 event for them.

And so in terms of like the memory

imprint that they are experiencing

for the murder of their rabbi of their

teacher and then something

happening where they then go

for the rest of their lives. The

martyrdom stories are a little bit

tricky in terms of their historical

reliability. I think a few of them we

can say did happen.

a lot of them is kind of up in the air

but at minimum they suffered

persecution.

>> So the story in the Bible is that he was

killed on the cross, murdered on the

cross and then he was put into a tomb

>> and then who saw him come out of the

tomb.

>> So nobody physically sees him come out

of the tomb. But the women go to the

tomb in the morning and on the third day

and the tomb is empty. And so there are

four accounts, right? And I think it's

interesting also that we have four

accounts that kind of give different

angles on the stories. They're not it's

not as if they got together and they

corroborated and all gave the same

story. The fact is that we have four

accounts that kind of capitalize on

different angles, which the

differentiation in detail, I think,

actually gives credibility to the the

reliability of it. Because if they were

all telling the same thing, you could

argue that they got together and they

colluded. They don't do that. In fact,

they they touch on different aspects of

the story.

>> Are these people saying that they saw

him walk out? Are they saying that they

just saw it empty? What is the claims

being made about his resurrection from

these witnesses?

>> Yeah. So, the tomb is empty.

>> The tomb is empty.

>> And so, it's interesting in in one of

the accounts, um, Mary's at the tomb,

and she actually talks to Jesus, but she

confuses him with a gardener. Now, I

think it's it's interesting that she

doesn't confuse the gardener with Jesus.

She confuses Jesus with the gardener.

Like, she thinks that that this person

she's talking to isn't Jesus. She

doesn't recognize him at first. And she

she asks him, you know, what happened?

Why is the tomb opened? Where did the

body go? And then there's also an

account of an angel appearing and

saying, why are you looking for the

living among the dead? He's not here.

He's risen. And then they go back to the

disciples who are, you know, hiding in

this upper room. Mary says, you know, I

I've I met the tomb's empty. I've met

Jesus. Jesus is not in the the tomb.

He's risen. And some of them don't even

believe her. They think she's crazy.

Now, we don't have like an eyewitness

account of the tomb being open. And this

is actually an embarrassing fact in the

ancient world. So some of those other

gospels that I mentioned earlier that

are written later on, Gospel of Thomas,

Judas, Mary, Peter, there's one of them,

the Gospel of Peter, which is actually

trying to remedy this fact that women

are the first eyewitnesses to the empty

tomb, which is a which is an

embarrassing fact in the ancient world.

If that's not true, if they made it up,

it seems very unlikely that they would

have done that because women are not

considered good eyewitnesses in either

Greco Roman or unfortunately Jewish

society in this time period. So the

gospel of Peter tries to remedy the

situation by having all of the right

people in the right place at the right

time. It has the Jewish and the Roman

officials camping out in front of the

tomb when it actually happens. And then

has this recounted the story of the the

literally the stone moving, Jesus coming

out, all these things. Now, we know it's

not historically reliable. We know that

because of when it was written. We also

know that on the eve of Passover, the

priests would not be camping out in

front of a dead body. It's just

historically um anacronistic.

But it is an account of a literary

source later on that is embarrassed by

what we find in here about the

biographical information of the empty

tomb.

>> So is it just two women that said they

met Jesus in some form after his death?

Mary being one of them which was his

mother.

>> No.

>> Who's Mary?

>> Mary. So there are a number of Marys in

in the New Testament. Um this was Mary

Magdalene.

>> Okay.

>> Yeah. who who was like a close

associate.

>> Okay. Like a friend.

>> Yeah.

>> Okay. So, a friend. And then was there

is it just her that says she saw him

>> in there was a group of them.

>> A group of them.

>> Yeah. Of the women.

>> Okay. And they were separate when they

saw him. They weren't they were on their

own.

>> They were together. So, one of the

gospel only mentions Mary.

>> I believe it's the Gospel of John. But

like I said before, it implies that

there are more because she says we don't

know where they put the body.

>> Okay. So though that account only has

her

recounting it, it implies that there are

others and then the other gospels have

more women that are going to the tomb.

>> As a percentage, what degree of

certainty do you have that he was

resurrected and that um he was who he

said he was? Cuz I agree with you that

this character clearly existed like

Jesus clearly existed. I personally

believe that he was he was killed

>> probably on a cross.

>> But then you get to this point of

resurrection which you have to then

believe in something supernatural.

>> Yeah.

>> So what's the probability you'd assign

to it?

>> I I

>> if it was like likely, unlikely, very

likely.

>> They're all likely because I think that

what the gospel authors are doing is

communicating truth. And I don't

ultimately see an overabundance of

reason why they would write what they

wrote other than actually recounting a

story of what took place.

>> I grew up in a place called Plymouth in

the UK. I was born in Africa and in my

local park there was this big poster on

the wall about the white lady. I'll put

it up on the screen. It's like a big

legend in our city. It's this park and

everybody says that they see this white

lady in the park that was killed. And

actually, there's a big board explaining

her life, but it's all just accounts of

people that say they've seen her.

>> You have things like the Loch Ness

monster in Scotland as well, where

there's been 1,500 sightings of this big

monster in the river. And even up until

recent times, 2025, there was a surge of

sightings of the Loch Ness monster

called the Black Mass in in in the bay.

>> Um, and that started in 565 AD. So, one

of the things that I've always sort of

struggled with when I think about humans

saying they saw something is we still

today have sightings of UFOs and Loch

Ness monsters and white ladies in parks

that become legend. And actually with

the Loch Ness monster, it's pretty

interesting that even today there are

sightings all the time of this monster

that lives in the river. Now, I think

maybe me and you both agree that there's

no monster in the river,

>> but there's something going on. There's

something in human nature where we do

have like a proclivity to engage in

supernatural sightings and then once

we've heard it once, we then reinforce

that we've seen it too. And even as like

a young man, I mean, maybe you believe

this, but like I believe that there was

a woman that would stand on the landing

of my home and it would like wake me up

and I would run and and tell my parents

that the lady stood on the landing.

Again, there's people watching this that

think that there was actually a lady.

Probably maybe there was. But I you know

what I'm getting at is like how do how

can we trust human accounts of these

things when clearly humans have an

ability to make make things up that

aren't real in some situations.

>> Sure. Part of the answer to the question

is one of the evidences for Jesus's

resurrection is the fact that you and I

are still talking about it almost 2,000

years later.

>> My friend said this to me. I was telling

you before about my Christian friend. He

was like why are we still talking about

it? Well I we can't prove it.

>> It wasn't it didn't happen. So we're

always going to talk about it. there's

there's never going to be I mean unless

>> something happens

>> right the difference is that there are

these other messianic movements that

happened in the ancient world

>> and so uh like uh Simon Barora the

reason why we're not talking about Simon

Barora as a messianic figure is because

he died and his movement died with him

>> and his disciples didn't go out and then

proclaim his continued message until

like to their own detriment so I would

say a few things I would say liars make

poor martyrs in that you will die for

something you believe is true, but the

chances of you dying for something you

know is not true

>> are less likely. So if we're talking

about the disciples and especially if

what they're getting for this particular

proclamation is they're being ostracized

from their own communities, pagan

gentile communities and the Jewish

communities because remember there was

persecution on both sides because it was

at a certain point in time continuing to

say that Jesus was the Messiah and on

top of that that he was God himself

was not very popular Within the early

Jesus communities, there's a complexity

to the fact that

people usually lie. You look at cultic

figures, right? Right. Cult leaders

usually do things for prominence or

money or sex or influence. The

interesting thing about the early

disciples is they get none of that. In

fact, they almost get the complete

opposite of that in that Jesus says,

"You're going to be persecuted. you're

going to be put in front of tri

tribunals and you're going to be

interrogated. And that's exactly what

happens. And they know that there is

there's a danger to this because we have

in the book of Acts, which is the book

after the gospels, we have a recounting

of the first martyr of Steven.

>> I think of like someone like Martin

Luther King or Gandhi as being, you

know, leaders from history that appeared

to be from what I've understood very

selfless and actually realized that they

were all going to die. I'll never forget

the speech actually where Martin Luther

King says, "I've been to the mountain

top." He was a very religious man, very

Christian man, and says, "I've been to

the mountain top. You guys get there,

but I don't get there with you."

>> Right?

>> And then from the information I had, he

died very, very shortly thereafter. And

as he's saying, "I don't get there with

you." He's he's emotional in his face.

You see him crying. The video is was

very con persuasive of the Christianity,

by the way.

>> Um, and then he's pulled off stage and

then he's shot thereafter. feels like a

man that knew he wasn't going to live

much longer but was willing to put his

cause ahead of um his own mortality and

um I guess Jesus was doing the same

>> in a certain regard in terms of the

disciples though I think like if they

know this isn't true if they know that

there's this kind of this has been

mythological drift if things have been

exaggerated

why then especially experiencing that

persecution seeing their friends die in

that kind of setting do they continue to

go on and do it.

>> I think they definitely believed it was

true.

>> Yes. I think at minimum whatever is

going on they like you you look at some

of these uh secular historians and they

look at the data and they say whatever's

going on the disciples believe something

happened that they saw something

>> and so the I just think that the

explanations

of the alternatives of that actually

happening are insufficient in so far as

how they actually explain the data. Do

you have any doubt?

>> Oh, of course.

>> Okay. So, you have at least even 1%

doubt.

>> Oh, definitely. And I think especially

when there are times of things that are

far more existential than historical,

when times of like struggle and pain and

suffering, and I look at the world and I

look at how messy it is, the children

who die young, people who are abused,

all of these things, I there are moments

where I think, how how could there be a

good God? I mean, I'm not immune to

doubt. Um, and and the interesting thing

that I find about the Bible is that the

Bible is very open to the God of the

Bible being open to us coming to him

with our doubts.

>> Mhm.

>> You know, onethird of the book of

Psalms, which is like right in the

middle of the Bible, this kind of poetic

literature, if you want to call it that,

are sometimes referred to as the lament

or the complaint psalms. It's things

like Psalm 22, my God, my God, why have

you forsaken me? Why are you so far from

me? I like I cry out by day and I hear

no answer. And I think what's

interesting that I find with the Bible

is its transparency in saying we're

going to struggle. You know, there's

this really great story in the Gospel of

John. Well, this is in a couple of the

instances of the Gospels where John the

Baptist who's like Jesus's cousin and

good friend, he's been in prison because

he's been speaking out against Herod.

He's been being a little bit too verbal

politically. And so he gets taken and

he's in prison. And though he's the one

that baptized Jesus and said, you know,

behold the lamb of God who takes away

the sin of the world. When he's in

prison, he doubts and he sends his

disciples over to Jesus to ask, are you

the Messiah? Are you the one we're

waiting for? Or should we we be waiting

for another? Now, in that interaction,

Jesus actually says, John the Baptist is

the greatest of all men born of women,

which is basically everybody, right? And

yet in that very same setting, John the

Baptist is doubting

that Jesus is who he says he is because

he's experiencing pain and suffering.

>> On that point of um you seeing you know

horrific things happening in the world

and then having doubts. I think for me

that was one of the persuasive arguments

of the like new atheist movement that I

became a part of when I was like 18

years old which was I think Richard

Dawkins had said about you know if God

is all loving

>> then why would he let a 2-year-old kid

in Africa have their eyeball eaten out

from the inside by a parasite.

>> Yeah.

>> Like if if if I could intervene with

that because you know the assertion is

that God is omnipotent or powerful and

omnisient or present.

>> Yeah. If I could intervene with that as

a human, I would stop that. And so if

God is omnipower, omnipotent, sorry, all

powerful and omnipresent, knows

everything and is everywhere, then why

wouldn't he intervene with the baby

having its eyeball eaten out from the

inside?

>> Yeah, it's it's a good point. And I

think if there is an objection that is

truly impactful on Christianity on in

the atheist corner, it is the problem of

evil and always has been because it's

far more of an emotional and existential

question than it is an intellectual

question. Now, part of the problem with

it is that if we're talking about evil

with a capital E, we're implying that

there's a good with a capital G. And so

I think we do run into an issue when

saying that evil exists or implying that

good exists. And if we're implying that

good exists, we're implying that there's

a moral law to adhere to to call the

good good and the evil evil. And if

there's a moral law, then there has to

be a moral lawgiver. And that's where we

come into issues with is this subjective

or is this objective. I think the

atheist movement would argue that that

moral good is virtue of what helps me to

survive. So like watching a small child

suffer in such a way.

>> If I didn't feel anything bad about

that,

>> yeah,

>> then I wouldn't have the wiring for

survival because I wouldn't have the

proclivity to defend a suffering child.

If I don't have that, then I probably

don't reproduce and I don't pass on my

genes and then I'm selected out of

existence. So that pain I feel when I

see a child suffering is a function of

my evolutionary mechanics that make me

more likely to survive and anyone that

didn't have that wouldn't have survived

and wouldn't be here now.

>> Sure.

>> So evolution therefore is the answer.

>> I think that might suffice in certain

instances. However, it's still sort of

smuggling in moral categories into a

biological explanation. So part of I

mean you read Richard Dawkins, you read

you read River Out of Eden and he has

that section where he talks about you

know we shouldn't expect to see any

rhyme or reason good or bad you know DNA

neither knows nor cares. DNA just is and

we dance to its music. And there's an

aspect of Dawkins himself in that volume

at least at that time when he wrote it

articulating that at the end of it all

there is no such thing as actually you

can't call that parasite in that that

boy's eye evil. You can say I don't like

it, but to to import this moral category

of evil is actually to import an idea.

And this is actually what Dawkins was

criticized by by individuals like John

Gray, the philosopher who taught at the

London School of Economics. And he says,

you know, you're a really great

biologist,

but then you want to impart actual

intrinsic value to people. And if you're

looking at a simple selfish DNA

perspective, you can't actually ascribe

that because your DNA, your selfish DNA

exists to carry on its

selfish DNA. And so in one sense, that

child has no bearing on you. Now, it

might have like a a protective mechanism

where you want to figure out why the

child got the parasite, and so you try

to avoid that in order to not get the

parasite yourself. But science

can't actually give you an explanation

for what the moral implications are in

that instance. Let me give you an

example.

>> I think I understand the point there. Um

it's essentially asserting that like why

does that child matter to me? Because my

DNA should just be trying to take care

of itself.

>> Um I guess in biology there's um I don't

always know who my child is. But also

from an evolutionary perspective, if we

were raised in communities and tribes,

we took care of all of our the children.

>> Sure.

>> In in the surroundings, I would take

care of my brother's children and he

would take care of mine, therefore.

>> Yep. Yeah.

>> And again, that goes back to the point

of survival, which means that I'm more

likely to survive if I take care of like

my community sort of. You you read

something like uh the origin of species

though like like uh Darwin himself

when he's articulating the survival of

the fittest there is an aspect of

you shouldn't take care of those people

because they're actually bringing the

genetic gene pool down. So we see even

in like the eugenics movement pulling a

lot from individuals like Darwin in

order to validate the fact that in order

to carry on your selfish DNA, this idea

of taking care of the marginalized and

those with on the fringes of society and

those who are the the lesser than is is

not evolutionary advantageous because

survival of the fittest implies that the

fittest should survive and these are

obviously not the fittest. It's actually

a Judeo-Christian ethic in the

understanding of everybody having equal

value that we should be taking care of

people because they have intrinsic

value, not exttrinsic value. That allows

us to then even import an idea of taking

care of those who are not necessarily

specifically related to me and mine. And

it comes back to okay, where are we

grounding this objectivity in? cuz there

have been societies that have attempted

to do it in like a might is right aspect

and and you ground the objectivity of

what we say is right in a society that

says this is better for the most amount

of individuals within a particular

community. I think about um Yevel Noah

Harrari Harari in his book Sapiens where

he says that the real defining trait of

>> our species versus other species was our

ability to collaborate and basically

scratch each other's backs

>> and that that meant that we had um

evolutionary advantages because if we

could work together in a big group and

we could believe in stories and we

believe in money and prison and

governments etc. we could band together

and take on the lion or band together

and take on the elephant or whatever.

And it's actually that in part there you

have like I need to take care of you,

you need to take care of me and we're

going to reciprocate that altruism uh

and increase our survival chances. So

again that might explain why I care

about that kid um because the species

that didn't

>> Uhhuh.

>> they would never have been able to band

together and take on the elephant.

>> Yes. I think it's largely our modern

perspective living in a society where we

are uh starting on second base already

with our moral perspectives, right? We

have inherited all of these moral

categories because of our

Judeo-Christian ethic. If you look at

basically every society prior to this or

even societies in the east, that's not a

given, right? That's not an assumption.

Especially in societies that have say uh

understandings of karmic cycles whether

that's in like Buddhism or Hinduism the

idea of altruism is actually can be

categorized as an evil because in the

cycle of samsara of birth life death and

rebirth you are actually the your lot in

this life is due to your wrongdoing in

the last life. So in helping someone

like that you are actually inhibiting

them from being reincarnated better on

the other side. So an idea like altruism

doesn't exist within that eastern

society. And if you look in the ancient

world, let's pick on the Babylonians.

The Babylonians, if they were to read

Dawkins' River out of Eden, would

basically say, "Yeah, exactly." Right.

So they have this creation story. It's

called the Inumalish, and it's this big

battle of the gods, and it's uh it's an

origin story, an attempt to explain why

everything is here. But the conclusion

of it is basically you are a product of

a big battle and a mistake, right? The

one god loses and you, everything around

you, the earth, the sky, it's just the

remains of the gods that lost. So

meaning, value, purpose, not really

ultimately. You're just the product of

time plus matter plus chance as well.

It's just framed within a religious

perspective. whereas Dawkins frames it

in a natural materialistic perspective.

So where do we get the categories

to even say that we should be taking

care of people in communities outside of

our specific community

because in some cultures they have the

ethic of love thy neighbor but in others

it's eat thy neighbor and so the

question is which society do you want to

pick? And you're saying that that came

from Judeo-Christian values.

>> Yes,

>> I would agree. Yeah, I would agree that.

I think I'm trying to understand if it's

innate in us from a God what's good and

evil or whether it's, you know, we we

all subscribe to a culture that was, you

know, the foundation of that was these

Christian values and um yeah, which one

is it?

>> Yeah. Well, was I born with a good and

evil or was 2,000 or 3,000 years ago

when Jesus came to be and we had these

books? Did that just influence them?

>> Yeah. Well, I think ultimately there's

an aspect of our conscience that's

imprinted on us that we we understand

ethics to some degree or another, but

the framework to actually find the

objectivity of that ethic is found in

the revelation of specific revelation in

scripture.

>> Do you believe in evolution?

>> I don't.

>> You don't believe it's true?

>> No. I am open to the fact that I don't

think that a belief in evolution

undermines Christianity in any way.

However, I'm and prefacing this by

saying I'm not a scientist. I'm an

advocate for intelligent design and I

would basically punt the complex

conversations of evolutionary biology to

individuals who are far more studied

than me like Steven Meyer and Jonathan

Mcclache and John Tours and

Douglas Axe and those individuals who

have studied it. At the exact same time

though it also depends on what you mean

by evolution, right? So like adaptation

genetically is a thing

>> I guess. So I'm saying do you believe

that we evolved from very simple

organisms to become a human that you see

today?

>> No.

>> And the argument for that would be you

know I share 98% of the same DNA as like

a chimpanzeee and we have these fossil

records which seem to show a progression

over time.

>> You don't believe that's true?

>> No I don't. But at the exact same time,

I think, you know, there are individuals

within the Christian faith, intelligent

people who do and have no problem with

understanding of a theistic evolutionary

model. However, I think in the effort of

survival of the fittest, I still think

that you're starting a few miles down

the road in answering the question of

the arrival of the fittest. How do minds

come from mindless matter? How does

everything come from nothing? How do how

do we answer those questions? And I

think that's why you can use the

evolutionary model as an explanation of

how God has actually created right the

biology of the situation. But I think

the bigger question is the cosmological

questions. How did this all get going?

You know, the big bang, what was the big

banger?

How did that first ball get rolling? And

then why can you and I, Stephen, sit

here and like I said before, have the

three lbs of gray matter in my head kind

of uh ruminate over these very complex

questions.

>> You know, I I think it was on the

Galapicus Islands. I'm probably going to

butcher this, but I'll I'll do my very

best. They, you know, the sailors went

to an island, they left a bird there,

they came back 50 years later, the

bird's beak had grown to be very, very

long

>> because the prey on that island that it

was eating were in in hole. So, they

needed longer beaks. So, it kind of

shows us that if you leave an animal in

an environment, it will adapt and it's,

you know, it will select out the the

short beak birds for the long beak

birds. And just in that short period of

time, you can see that it's like, you

know, it's becoming a different type of

animal. And if you extrapolate that out

over a long long period of time, almost

an inconceivable amount of time, you

know, maybe hundreds of millions of

years,

>> one can understand why like me and a

chimpanzeee,

there are similarities in how we look.

Um, and there are 99% similar like 98%

similarities in my DNA and a chimp

chimpanzeee's DNA. So, one would argue

that we are we have a common ancestor.

Yeah,

>> it's like very compelling evidence to

me.

>> Sure. I mean, it's the transitions going

from as the chimpanzeee type thing,

right? Because we're obviously not

arguing that that we were a chimpanzeee,

a chimpanzeee exist today, but that

yeah, that homminid, whatever that

homminid was,

>> what is the transitionary

fossil explanation whatever that goes

from the monkey to the human being? And

I don't really think we have an answer

for that in terms of consciousness

questions like why what makes our

ability to reason and think and

contemplate different than all of the

other species in the animal kingdom. And

how do we go if we're arguing that, you

know, everything comes from

single-sellled organisms?

I guess you could have a if you want to

call it a time of the gaps explanation,

you know, just just add lots of millions

of years and it solves this issue. I

don't know if I am completely satisfied

with that answer if cuz obviously

there's adaptation but you know if

you're looking at whether there's the

dodo bird example or Darwin's finches

right where the beaks are different um

you're still getting beaked birds and

we've never seen one species turn into a

completely different species

>> the thing that I filled the gap with is

that it's just a matter of time so you

know with the birds example it's like 50

years or something or decades

But when we think about Earth being like

5 billion years old,

>> I think it's almost inconceivable what

can happen over such a long period of

time like it's conceivable that if me

and you went to different parts of

planet Earth and lived in two completely

different environments and then we came

back 5 billion years later and there was

no medicine and no factors helping us to

survive that you know we would have

branched gone in two different

directions completely and you you know

your ancestors who were living in the

jungle might

9 foot and actually what was useful for

survival where I lived in some cave was

being 2t tall,

>> right?

>> And then we wouldn't be able to

reproduce which kind of makes us

different species now. Like that's I

mean that's sounds conceivable for me

over four like 4.5 billion years. Seems

conceivable that

like we both agree on adaptation.

>> Mhm.

>> Like small adaptations. But then if you

expand the time horizon, those small

adaptations become massive.

>> Yeah. I mean ultimately no matter which

way you want to swing it, I think the

adding millions of years as the

explanation is a little bit too

convenient.

>> But I think at the end of the day,

you're still looking at the complexity

in nature that points to a design of

something that is is amazing.

And the the question of okay, how do we

Dawkins is, you know, famous for saying

that that it it has the illusion of

design to it, right? There's not not

actually a design to it. It's just the

illusion of design. But I think, you

know, if we actually look at when Darwin

was writing, they thought the smaller

you got, the simpler it got. And now we

know that the smaller you get, in fact,

the more complex you get.

>> As in the more you zoom into the design,

like the more you zoom into the brain or

>> Yeah. Our understanding of science has

grown exponentially even from Darwin's

day. And there's an aspect of like

Darwinian evolution that is is has moved

on into what we would now call like

neodyarwinian evolutionary theory.

And you look at um individuals like I

mentioned Steven Meyer before and he

even uh has questioned some of these

things about the explanations that are

working as givens for evolutionary

theory. I still don't think it gets us

back to, okay, then why do we have

purpose?

>> I've had so many founders speak to me

and say, why didn't this particular ad

that I ran on this platform work for me?

Maybe the copy wasn't good, the creative

wasn't strong, but usually the problem

is they're not having the right

conversation because that ad never

reached the right person. And if you're

in B2B marketing, that is much of the

game. And this is where LinkedIn ads

solves that problem for you. Their

targeting is ridiculously specific. You

can target by job title, seniority,

company size, industry, and even

someone's skill set. And their network

includes over a billion professionals.

About 130 million of them are decision

makers. So when you use LinkedIn ads,

you're putting your brand in front of

the right people. And LinkedIn ads also

drive the highest B2B return on ad spend

across all ad networks in my experience.

If you want to give them a try, head

over to linkedin.com/diary.

And when you spend $250 on your first

LinkedIn ads campaign, you'll get an

extra $250 credit from me for the next

one. That's linkedin.com/diary.

Terms and conditions apply.

Every time I've tried to improve

something in my life, like my

businesses, my health, my relationships,

I've noticed that the biggest shifts

have come from being better informed.

And when it comes to our health, most of

us know very, very little. So when our

team was approached about partnering

with Function Health, it felt very much

aligned. Their team has developed a way

of giving you a full 360deree view of

your health, many of the things that are

going on in your body in the form of

different tests. You do one blood draw

and it gives you access to over 160 lab

results, hormones, heart health,

inflammation, stress, toxins, the whole

picture. I use it and so have many of my

team members.

>> You sign up and you schedule your test

and once you're done, you get a little

report like the one I have here. I can

see my inrange results, my out of range

results, and there's a little AI

function, too. So, if I have any

questions about my out of range results,

I can just go in there and ask it any

question I want. And these tests are

backed by doctors and thousands of hours

of research.

>> It's $365 for a yearly membership. Go to

functionhealth.com/doac

and use the code DOAC25

for $25 off your membership.

Where do you think we came from? Like,

where do you think I came from or my

ancestors came from? Do you think they

were put on Earth as humans? Do you

believe in the Adam and Eve story? Do

you think there was some kind of

evolution? And when did you think this

when do you think this happened?

>> So I know that the world is at least 35

years old.

>> Uh I don't think it's an answer that the

Bible is actually attempting to address

in terms of the age of the earth.

>> Billions of years old. I don't see any

reason not to because I don't think that

the creation story in Genesis chapter 1

is necessarily

an attempt to reveal the mechanisms of

how God did that exactly

>> cuz the sort of scientific consensus

says that it's roughly 4.5 billion years

old the earth.

>> Yeah.

>> And microbes and single cellled

organisms are estimated to have appeared

3.5 to 4 billion years ago almost as

soon as Earth. Cold enough to have

liquid water.

>> Sure. Yeah. And and I'm I'm fine with

that actually. I don't I don't think I

have to adhere to neo neodyarwinian

evolution in order to actually believe

that the world is old. I think I would

adhere to an intelligent design thesis.

But

>> what does that mean?

>> So essentially that the the world around

us is intelligently designed. Not

necessarily in that it it came through

processes of evolution. Once again, I'm

not a scientist, right? I'm a historian.

I I genuinely do believe that there was

a historical Adam and Eve and that those

were the first people.

>> Okay.

>> Now, what did they look like? I don't

know. I think they they probably lived a

long long time ago. And I don't know if

the breakdown of Genesis chapter 1 and

the like seven days of creation are

actually attempting to articulate seven

24-hour days. They could be.

>> Yeah.

>> I just don't think that's the point. But

you do believe that humans were put here

as humans

>> and you believe that the other animals

were put here in their in some kind of

early form.

>> Yes.

>> And then you also believe in adaptation

of those species. Fine. Okay. Fine.

>> And going back to like talking about

trying to explain these things

scientifically. I always find like we

can explore the answers scientifically,

but that's only going to get us so far,

especially when we're discussing meaning

and purpose questions. So, let me give

you uh a little bit of a story that a

friend of mine, Glenn Scrier, uh likes

to articulate in uh this parable that he

tells that he calls Betty the botist.

So, you have Betty the botist and she's

been uh looking at a plant sample in her

lab. She's been spending all weekend

looking at this plant sample. She's been

uh you know, investigating it and doing

all of these tests on it all weekend.

And Jerry, the lab assistant, comes in

on Monday. And

Betty looks at Jerry and says, "Jerry,

thank you for the botanic botanical

specimen that you left me on the

weekend. Thank you for this botanical

specimen. I've been doing all of these

tests. I've been looking at the

components of it and the complexity of

the biology and there are

pharmacological implications that I've

extrapolated from its various biological

components and we can use these to cure

diseases. There's so many things. Thank

you so much for the botanical specimen.

And Jerry says,

"Betty,

it was February 14th on the weekend.

That was a long stem rose.

>> Do you know what I left for you? Do you

know what the implication of the

botanical specimen, as you're calling

it, was for what I was trying to

communicate to you?" Now, did Betty the

Botnist understand the long stem rose?

In one way, she understood it more than

most because she had done all of the

tests and run through all of the

different ways that she could

extrapolate what that thing was.

But what Jerry was trying to actually

illustrate was something that went

beyond that. It was a love gift. He was

trying to communicate something that

went beyond the simple biology. and and

Betty could very simply say, "Well, I

couldn't get that from the data. I I

couldn't have extrapolated the

implications of it being a love gift."

And in that so far as it being a

parable, we can look at all of the

scientific explanations, but there's

something that goes beyond the simple

data in terms of meaning and purpose and

desire,

identity questions that go far beyond

that, right? Like we can look, I could

tell you the different chemical

components that make up the page and the

ink and like the size of the paper and

it transparency and all of that. I could

say, you know, Stephen, what is this?

And you could go into all of this

explanation about how paper is made and

the pulp and how we extrapolated and

eventually put it together and the

binding and and I could say, okay, yeah,

but this is a Bible. This is meant to

communicate something to you. you know,

what is the explanation for this? One

explanation could be the chemical and

and you know, scientific components that

make up the Bible. Another explanation

could be this is a religious text that's

actually trying to communicate something

to you. And so I think in the scientific

data,

all of that is obviously important,

right? Like there's this great quote by

C. Lewis where he says that men were

scientific because they expected laws in

nature and so they looked for the

legislator

and you look you read individuals like

Francis Bacon who came up with the the

scientific method and they're inherently

religious right they almost articulate

what they're doing in their scientific

endeavor as an act of worship because if

the exploration of the creative world

points to a creator then that can be an

act of understanding who and why we're

here. In terms of the scientific

questions, I'm very interested in them,

especially as a non-scientist. They

fascinate me. But in terms of the

meaning questions,

I think I would air on the side of

caution of attempting to be Betty the

botist and sometimes I read individuals

like Dawkins and I'm I'm hearing Betty

the Botnist extrapolate and define the

botanical specimen. I think part of the

reason why the new atheist movement that

I again was captured by was not

sufficient is because as you say it

didn't

it didn't fill some kind of gap

>> and and much of the gap I think for a

lot of people is okay so if if I believe

in the science and and that argument and

the atheist argument or I believe in the

Bible I still need a an answer to like

yeah but so what like what's the point

of this even in the example of evolution

I yeah but why am I evolving

Why? Why am I trying to survive?

>> Yeah.

>> A means to what end? Okay, I'm trying to

have more kids, but then why are my kids

trying to have more kids? What's the

point?

>> And you just keep hitting this wall of

like, okay, but what's the point? What's

the point? Am I meant to do something?

Is it is there a mission for me?

>> Right?

>> And I think that question is one that I

think about uh sometimes, which is