Trent Horn DESTROYS Atheism | Last Call Ep. 9

Are you an atheist? I'm an atheist in the same way as I'm an alepricornist and a fariist. And do you see an equivalence between the idea of God and the idea of a fairy and a leprechaun? The evidence for both is equally poor. You can explain stories about leprechauns and unicorns as the product of imaginations. You can't explain the universe as the product of human imagination. But you can't explain it as the product of divine imagination. Descind! Trent! Matt! How are you? I'm doing well. Answering atheism, how has it held up your book? It is the worst book I have written. No. Well, it's my first book. I've learned a lot since then both in how to write a book and how to approach the subject of atheism. It's not a bad book. But it's one where I think I might try to approach the subject of atheism again. I thought I wrote it because there wasn't a similar treatment on atheism from a Catholic perspective at the time. I was back in 2013 when I wrote it. And I really wanted to help Catholics have a solid response on the issue. So it's definitely a subject I've learned a lot about since I've written the book. And I want to revisit it at some point in the future. I'll tell you something that I've never told you before. Okay. I was sitting in a sushi restaurant in San Diego and I spoke to you on the phone and we had never met before. So you hadn't yet started at Catholic Answers. And you were talking about wanting to get into debates because we were talking about Dr. William Lane Craig. And you said something like, yeah, I think I might throw my hat in the ring. There was a slight part of me that was like, all right, like, I mean, I'm sure you, I don't have you that good to throw your hat in the ring. Like, what do you mean for your hat in the ring? And no, you're that good. You've done an excellent job of getting atheists. Yeah, it's been a good experience and I've really enjoyed the quality of atheists that I have engaged over the years. I would say it's increased my very first debate. I was there. Yeah, you were. Front row. San Diego. Yeah, it was Dan Barker. Yeah. Freedom from Religion Foundation. Dan and I debated again later in Minnesota. And I think his arguments are really do lack in substance and he mirrors the evangelical Christianity that he despises in just like kind of not an intellectually rigorous position. And since then I've debated other other atheists and other other people. And it's something I definitely want to continue doing. But the question is, can you refute these TikToks that producer Maria has chosen for us to watch? We will see. Let's see. So let's look at the first one. This is atheism in a nutshell. One person says, there's a God. And atheists says, can you prove that? They say, no. The atheist says, I don't believe you. That's it. That's all it is. You see, if you took every holy book, every holy book there's ever been, every religious book, every bits of spirituality and hid them or destroyed them. Okay? They went away and never, right? And then you took every science book and destroyed that. In a thousand years time, those science books would be back exactly the same. Because the tests would always turn out the same. Right. Those religious books will either never exist or they'd be totally different. Because there's no test. Oh my gosh, this breaks my heart because Ricky Gervais is so hysterical, but that is so sophomorically awfully bad. Have you ever spoken to a Christian anyway? Yes, I don't even think. Well, he played, in his version of the office, he played his name David, I think. David Brent. David Brent. Yeah. And I don't think David Brent could come up with a take as bad of trying to say that. So there are two things that I noticed there. First, this is atheism in a nutshell. Excuse me, this is atheism in a nutshell. Well, how'd I get in this nutshell? What's happening to me? No, he has an inadequate definition of atheism. Very common. I'll see among kind of new atheists arguments that, well, atheism is just saying, I'm not convinced of theism. That's not atheism. Philosophically, you look at the internet encyclopedia of philosophy, Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. The best defenders of atheism like Graham Oppie will say that atheism is the denial of the existence of God. So you look at it this way, there's a question. Does God exist? There are three ways to answer it. Yes, no, I don't know. So yes would be theism. No would be atheism. I don't know would be agnosticism. We'll be saying, I don't know. And that's the position that you should have if you are completely unaware. Even if you're not sure if theism succeeds, you can't say no. All you could say at that point would be, well, I don't know if there is a God or not. You're not justified in saying no yet unless you have other additional arguments. So right there, he's shifting the burden of proof. And also, I don't know any philosophers who would say, oh, well, I can't prove it. Yeah, maybe I can't prove in the sense of a mathematical proof, like an arithmetic, but I could make an argument that satisfies proof because there are, the premises of the argument are more likely to be true than false. And there's no logical fallacies in the reasoning. So I could call that a proof. People can always bite at the premises, but I could still put forward a proof, or a case at least that I would say this provides good reasons for believing that God exists. It's like the only Christians it sounds like he's ever encountered a people who are like, it just seems like it. I just feel in my heart that's the kind of strawman he's attacking. And that's not what Christians are. Which is sad because he's so intelligent. All right, it seems to me, maybe. I don't want to go to the next one yet. Yes, the other part about the science books, that's probably the silliest part of it. Yes. Because he's a few things he's wrong about there. First, if we got rid of all science books, there isn't a guarantee that they would come back. Because many scientific discoveries were historically contingent on societies reaching certain levels to development or having discovered things like you left the Petri dish out. You know, things discovered like penicillin or many other things were discovered by happenstance in certain historical contingent facts. And that would explain why, for example, not every society on earth has achieved scientific progress at the same level, right? I mean, medieval European science is very different than medieval East Asian science, for example. So that's not the case. We also know in a lot of the sciences, there's something called the replication crisis where you can do an experiment and you can't replicate it. This happens a lot in social science and social sciences. Also, the question about the holy books not coming back. Well, a few things there. One, I guess you're correct that the historical facts in those holy books probably would not return again if they were all destroyed and all memory of them was lost. But so what? That doesn't prove it didn't happen. If you destroyed every history book on earth, they wouldn't come back. But that didn't mean history never happened. Also, many religious texts, the things that are in there that are truths of the natural law, do good, avoid evil. Understanding moral duties that we have to others. Many of those would return because the moral law is written on our hearts. The fact that there's this universal witness to it is evidence in favor of theism that you don't find comparable to atheism. I'm going to put you on the spot because he says, I'll say to a theist, why do you believe in God? And they say, just do it or whatever. I have no arguments for it. If he was to say to you and you had to give a very quick answer, why do you think God exists? What would you say? I would say that there are many things in the world. There are many things in the world that make much more sense if God exists than if he doesn't exist. And the atheist converse explanation doesn't follow. So the fact that there are things that exist and do not have to exist. The fact that in a beginningless past would create contradictions if there were no God. The fact that we live in a universe where the odds of it being right for life are on par with finding a randomly marked atom somewhere in the universe. The fact that there are universal moral laws and that human beings have moral features like moral responsibility and moral knowledge. And that there have been so many experiences of God. I would say to him that for atheism to be true, every reported claim of a religious experience or a miracle must be false. But I need only one miracle for theism to be true. So which one's more likely there? Nobody believes in God and I can show you. First of all, I don't mean believing God exists. Lots of people believe God exists. But nobody believes that he's like the ultimate determining factor of the universe. We'll use run of the mill Christianity as an example. You've got God and you've got Satan. God, the source of all light and truth. Satan, the opposite, the deceiver. So what's his job as the deceiver? Well, it's to trick us. If he's any good at his job and rumor has it he is, it's going to be hard to tell the difference between God and Satan. So who f***** decides? We do. Nobody believes that God is the ultimate decider because that would mean deciding that God is the ultimate decider, making you the ultimate decider. Whether you think you're believing God or your priest or your women's Bible study leader, you're not. You're believing yourself that they are worth believing. We are our own authorities. Not because we're arrogant and set ourselves in that prominent place, but because there's no other option. If you have decided to follow Jesus or whatever other God, you are subordinating that deity's authority to your own decision-making. So yeah, you believe they exist, but they're not in charge. You are. What do you think? I would say that he's half right, but he's discovered it's something that's trivial and he's making a big deal out of nothing. So yes, ultimately, the entity that decides what you and I believe is you and I. God doesn't make decisions for me. I have to decide what I am going to believe and what I am going to do. The intellect can comprehend things and the will can choose to act or not act on that. But while you and I are the ones that decide what we will believe and do, we are held accountable for those beliefs and decisions by other people. So the point he makes is just rather trivial. So what? I don't know any Christian who says, well, God's the ultimate decider. What does that even mean? I think God is the ultimate foundation of reality. I'm sure he believes that there is something that's the ultimate foundation of reality beyond himself, like atoms or molecules, but he has to make decisions. What is he going to believe and how is he going to live his life? And then he would say, well, when you choose to make beliefs or decisions, you're going to be held accountable for that. If you choose to live virtuously or viciously, he's going to judge the decisions that you make or society is going to judge them. But what if he's wrong or society is wrong? What is the ultimate standard that we judge our decisions against? If it's just ourselves, then we can never be wrong. If he doesn't like what I do, well, hey, man, I'm the ultimate decider. Who are you to tell me if I'm right or wrong? I'm the ultimate decider in my life. You're the ultimate decider in your life. But if he's going to say that we can be held accountable for bad beliefs or bad actions, there has to be an ultimate standard beyond us that we subordinate ourselves to. So the question is not who is the ultimate decider? Well, we have to decide for our lives. The question is, what is the ultimate standard that we conform our lives to? Before we go any further, I just want to check something. Are you an atheist? For all practical purposes, yes. Nobody can actually say for certain that anything doesn't exist. But I'm an atheist in the same way as I'm a leprechaunist and a fariist and a pig unicornist. So you're not 100% sure God doesn't exist, but you're sure enough to make it practically... I'm as sure as you are sure that fairies and leprechauns don't exist. And do you see an equivalence between the idea of God and the idea of a fari and a leprechaun? The evidence for both is equally poor. It's remarkable how bad that is. And it makes me think of what Bishop Barron has said, that he's grateful to the new atheists. Because they came onto the scene, they seemed formidable, unstoppable, brilliant. But then it forced Christians to go, okay, to dig into our intellectual tradition to show why these were intellectually vacuous. Right. So we could say here, all right, first, he's incorrect when he says you can't prove the non-existence of something. You can easily do that. I can confidently say square circles do not exist. Because that would be a contradiction in terms. So there's lots of things we can say do not exist. We can say there is no elephant in this room we're occupying. Elephant, the standard definition of the animal, adult size elephant. Because if there were, the room would be a lot different. So we can prove the non-existence of things, even the universal non-existence of things. So he's incorrect about that. And some atheists have tried to do that. But those arguments really don't exceed. They usually misunderstand God rather than try to refute God. Next he tries to say, well, I basically, there's no God, like there's no leprechauns, no fairies, no pink unicorns. But he doesn't explain, well, how do you know there's no leprechauns, no fairies, no pink unicorns, things like that. So how do you know that? And then how do you apply that to God? So typically with creatures and magical creatures, we would say if these are, even if they're magical, like leprechauns or fairies, they're natural in the sense they belong to the ecosystem. So there are creatures that we discover, like animals we didn't know existed. And then we go and find like a black swan, for example. Back in Australia, I thought, oh, no such thing as black swans. And you go to Australia. I saw one in person. I'm like, my world is shattered. I thought they were all white, you know. So we discover new animals, new organisms all the time. But if these things existed, there would be different evidence than there is now. So we would have more evidence. If there really were pink unicorns, we'd find horse carcasses, special hoof prints, people would identify them more. The same with leprechauns or fairies. So we only, we just have some folk tales, isolated folk tales of them. One, the Cottingly fairies was, there was a photograph of little girls with fairies that they later said was a hoax. They cut it out. And you could tell in the photographs, you could see their cutouts. So if these creatures existed, there would be more evidence, but there isn't. So to make a similar argument for God, you have to say, well, if God did exist, we have more evidence. And I said, what more do you want? The belief in the divine is a universal thing across human history. There are people in all places and cultures who sense a connection with a transcendent other. Though they might have the attributes are different. They don't espouse materialism. And we have lots of other evidence that the universe is the product of God. Whereas we don't have natural things that we can say, oh yeah, leprechaun, a fairy or a unicorn definitely caused this thing. There's no, like you can explain stories about leprechauns and unicorns as the product of imaginations. You can't explain the universe as the product of human imagination, but you can't explain it as the product of divine imagination. I don't mean to pick on rate comfort, but it seems to me that, but here we go. But it seems to me today Christians view Richard Dawkins the way atheists and many Christians view rate comfort. Look at the banana. Right. Perfectly. God made the banana perfect. I know what you mean, but explain what you... Yes. So once rate comfort was making a comparison about how the universe or the earth is intelligently designed and we can locate design. If we can locate design in man-made objects, we can locate God's design in natural objects. So if you take a Coke can, he says, look, there's a pop tab. It's made perfect for me to open this Coke can. It fits in my hand. It fits in my hand. The Coke is not a product of randomness. It was designed by a human. And yet now look at this natural object, the banana. It has a little pop tab. I can peel it open. Look, this also is a product of design, but presumably it is of a divine design because it's part of the natural world, except the banana that comfort referred to was genetically engineered through selective breeding over many generations from wild bananas. So it's actually more... I mean, all living things have divine design at their root level, but the elements of the banana rate points out like the pop top, the easy peel, its general enableness were actually... It's products of human design. So it was just a poor example in the analogy, but it's lived on and infomated. Well, I pray for his comeback story. Like, I really... Wouldn't it be a beautiful thing if Dawkins came to Christ? We can pray for it. There is still time. This episode is sponsored by Hallow. You know, most of us or many... I think it's fair to say most Christians want to pray. OK, but if we're honest, we get distracted or bored or we simply forget. In other words, we love God in theory, but in practice, we're scrolling. That's why I'm grateful for Hallow, which is the number one Catholic prayer and meditation app in the world, because it actually helps us build real daily habits of prayer. Right now we're in the Easter season, which means the church is celebrating the fact that Jesus is alive and has conquered death. It's a pretty good time to let that reality move from an idea in the head to a relationship of the heart. On Hallow, you'll find guided meditations, the rosary, daily gospel reflections, the examine, and quiet, simple contemplative prayers for when you're exhausted and don't have the words. You can put it on a car, on a walk or before bed and let the risen Christ speak through the Scriptures at any time of the day. I was actually doing this last night. I was having trouble going to sleep and I prayed the 20-decade rosary and was just able to pray as I was going to sleep. It was quite beautiful. Consider this your invitation this Easter season to deepen your personal relationship with God. Visit Hallow.com. To get three months for free. So I love coffee. Look at me. I'm using the word love. I love coffee and we've tried a lot of coffee over the years. Our sponsor today is Seven Weeks Coffee and it's the one that my wife and I have landed on. Honestly, if you open up the cabinets above our espresso machine, it's just stuffed with Seven Week Coffee Espresso. And it's not just great coffee. It's a brand built around values that we take seriously. Seven Weeks Coffee is America's pro-life coffee company on a mission to fund the pro-life movement one cup of coffee at a time. Now you might be thinking, why are they called Seven Weeks Coffee? Matt, good question. Because at Seven Weeks, a baby is the size of a coffee bean. And it's the same time a heartbeat is clearly detected on an ultrasound. They've built their business around saving lives by donating 10% of every sale to pregnancy centers and pro-life organizations nationwide. They've now raised over one and a half million dollars and saved thousands of lives. Now, let's talk about the coffee because I care about what I'm fueling my body with. Okay, it's mold-free, pesticide-free, shade-grown and low acid. And it's organically farmed. It truly checks all the boxes. Now, when I first heard about Seven Weeks Coffee, I thought, okay, I'm open to trying it, but I'm not going to keep buying coffee just because it has a great cause if the coffee's not excellent. You know, hand to my heart, it is actually excellent and we really love it in the Fred household. So go to SevenWeeksCoffee.com and save 15% forever when you subscribe. Plus, get a free gift with your order. And exclusively for my listeners, use Code Pints for an extra 10% off your first order. That's a 25% total savings on your first order plus a free gift. Just use Code Pints at checkout. When talking to any person of faith, the atheist is always in a position to say that you know exactly what it's like to be an atheist. So for instance, you're a Christian. You know exactly what it's like not to believe that the Quran is the perfect word of the Creator of the universe. And you know exactly what it's like not to lose sleep over whether or not you should convert to Islam. And you know that feeling for a thousand other gods. You know what it's like not to care about Zeus or to think that Zeus needs to be in just the mythology section of the bookstore. You know what it's like not to be a Mormon and ad infinitum. The atheist is simply in that position with respect to one more God and one more faith tradition. And so there really is, 99% of my experience would be deeply familiar to you. And in conversation with any other faith tradition. Yes, this is the one less God objection. Actually, as it's roots, I remember reading a very early account of this objection in the works of H. L. Mankin, who was an early 20th century newspaper author, reporter. He reported on the Scopes Monkey Trial, the famous evolution trial, Tennessee, I believe, where it took place. And he talked about how like why believe in God. He's just in the graveyard of the gods with all the other gods who have died before him that people don't believe in. So I think that's one of the earliest use of the argument. The one less God objection fails because Christians do not reject other deities arbitrarily. We have reasons for that. And primarily these other beings we reject. The reason I don't believe in Zeus or Thor isn't because I believe in my God rather than those gods. I don't believe in Zeus or Thor because they're not God. They're capital G. When I say that I believe in God, I say I believe in the infinite, uncreated, purely actual ground of all being in reality. And so that cause, which is not limited in existence and power and knowledge or goodness, that is what I mean by the word God. So all these other candidates in mythology and other religions, they are, you can wipe out like 98% of them because they're not the God of classical theism. They're not actually God. They're just super beings with a lower case G. That's not God. Same of Mormonism. I'm not a Mormon because I believe the universe is created, not crafted and hobbled together by a heavenly father who's an exalted man. So that would leave me with maybe just like Baha'i, Islam, a few other monotheisms that believe in an infinityity to which then I would say, well, I believe in the Christian God because God revealed himself historically. The objection is also similar. It's like somebody who would say, well, Matt, you know, a single guy tells you, hey, man, I know what it's like. You know what it's like to not be married. Like you're not married to Susan. You're not married to Rachel. You know, you're not married to all these other women. I'm just married to one less woman. Yeah, we're all single. Yeah, you're basically, you're a bachelor when it comes to millions of wives. I just have one less wife than you. Yeah. No, I am not. I am married. My life is radically different. And you are radically different from me in this regard. So similarly, I could say you could use this argument for any kind of skepticism. It'd be like, imagine an anarchist saying, well, look, you're not a, you don't believe in constitutional monarchy. You don't believe in communism or fascism. There's all kinds of governments you don't believe in, Matt. I just believe in one less government. It makes it seem like, oh, you don't have to make a case for anarchy because like every, all the other governments are arbitrarily rejected. You say, well, no, I don't reject them arbitrarily. This is the best form of government that can work. So you have to prove why we shouldn't have anything at all. You still have a burden to prove. And it's the same when it comes to atheism or being a moral to say, well, you're not a utilitarian. You're not a virtue theorist. I just believe in one less morality than you. No, I think I have the best moral system. Why do you think there is no moral system at all? Make your case. It's very typical of new atheism is this idea that, oh, well, the theist has to carry the whole burden of proof and we don't have to do anything, which is, you know, it's a shifty way of dealing with the burden of proof. Reflecting back on the four horsemen so-called of the new atheism, Daniel, Dan, Christopher Hitch and Sam Harris and Dawkins. Who did you find most insufferable and what, who did you like the most? That's a good question. They all have their flaws to be sure. Daniel Dennett is a philosopher, so he's probably like the most adept one to answer the question. But he would also, he tried to like for a while rebrand new atheism and be bright. That's right. We're the brights, which would mean that you and I are the dims. Yes. And that's kind of, that's kind of a bit much. I think my favorite was probably Christopher Hitchens. Everyone says that. He's at least charming. He's funny. He is at least charming. Harris might be a number two. I always appreciated the Harris's willing to go after Islam and nobody else would. So I appreciated that. I rank him a number two. So probably a tie between Dennett and Dawkins. And I feel like Dennett is at least like a decent enough philosopher. I'm going to say I think Dawkins is probably the most insufferable because he was like trying to wield that Oxford biology PhD when it's completely unrelated to the subject being discussed. Alan Plantinga did a great take down of him in a review of the God delusion. He said that to call the God delusion sophomoreic would be an insult to sophomores everywhere. So I am going to say Dawkins was the most insufferable one to me. Now I remember, I think it was back in 2009, perhaps when William Lane Craig debated Christopher Hitchens. Yes. I remember, because I had like you and like every other Christian who was interested in these things, I had listened to every William Lane Craig debate on MP3 on some random website. I was really afraid to watch this debate because I just could not see another Christian. I didn't want to see another Christian apologist get his ass handed to him by Christopher Hitchens. No, it was definitely the other way around. Oh, it was slaughter. He absolutely slaughtered him. Because Hitchens, it was a formal debate. Craig stuck to his arguments and Hitchens did not bother to even try to rebut the arguments and Craig was completely on point in that. And that's why what we're seeing now is that's why I think this kind of snarky new atheism, it's really fallen out of favor where people more want to say, well, if we're going to address it, we at least have to get to the arguments because Christians are really using a lot of these against us. All right, let's look at the next one. Ah, your friend, that Dilla Hunter here, before we play this, do you debate at him on my channel? I did, yes, I did. He's the, I'm not convinced, guy. He's the claims are not evidence guy, which I made a video about how Asinine a phrase that is to say claims are not evidence. They're not proof. But most things we believe in life is a claim that somebody made. And even many atheists praise the response I made to him because it's absolute silliness to say something like claims are not evidence. We'll say, oh, it's amazing that the universe just seems so fine tuned for us. Well, first of all, all the best evidence points to the fact that we evolved to fit the universe that we find ourselves in. Additionally, Hawking has pointed out that if the universe is fine tuned for anything, it seems to be fine tuned for the creation of black holes, which is antithetical to life. And we know that the vast majority of the universe is also antithetical to life, that there are the building blocks of life all over the place. But, you know, if I just stick you, I don't even have to stick you out in space, I can just hold you underwater for a while. The idea that, oh, look, it all comes together just for us is so monumentally arrogant. But then to say, I just can't imagine how this could have happened unless there was a creator and that makes a creator likely is fallacious. All right. So the fine tuning argument, what do you think? The fallacy here is he is misunderstanding the term fine tune, which is very common in the literature on this argument. Fine tune, because we often think, oh, fine tuning argument means that a creator designed the universe for the maximum amount of life possible. If fine tune is used as a synonym for design, it is a fallacious argument. If you say like, oh, the constants and conditions that allow life to exist are designed, therefore the universe is designed, therefore God exists. That would be circular reasoning. Fine tuning does not mean designed. It's a neutral term. All it means is that the, to say there, the constants and conditions are fine tune is to say that the conditions that are necessary for life are extremely narrow within a far, far wider band of possibilities. That's all fine tune means. It just means the conditions that are right are really, really, really, really narrow and the band of possibilities is extremely, extremely wide. We're talking orders of 10 to the 120th power magnitude of wide. And so the odds of it being of the constants and conditions falling within that narrow band that are life permitting is incredibly, incredibly unlikely if we are operating by chance alone. But it's much more likely if design is another competing theory. So that's why when he brought up a few different terms, he said, well, the universe isn't fine tuned. It looks like it's, he's using the word fine tune to mean designed. It doesn't look like it's designed. It looks like, like replace fine tune when he's speaking with the word design, you'll see what he's getting at. They'll say it's not designed for humans, it's designed for black holes because there's a ton of black holes. That's fine tune doesn't mean designed. Just means the odds of us being able to exist. It's much more likely if there is design rather than chance. Then he says, well, the evidence is that we evolved to fit the universe. No, because these constants and conditions are what makes the evolution of life possible in the first place. So if the constants were wrong, for example, you could get a universe that's the size of an atom or one that's only filled with hydrogen and you can't have complex life with just one. So he's just incorrectly, we could just, we evolved to make that. And then yeah, he's, he just misunderstands what the fine tuning argument is saying. He's trying to say, oh, well, the universe isn't designed because only a tiny amount of it has life. Well, imagine you visit a thousand acre ranch. Well, it's something that's part of a thousand acre ranch and it's uninhabited wilderness. You come across a cabin in the middle of it. And if I said, oh, this seems like it's designed, if you said, you look at this huge ranch, there's no cabins. I can't believe we could say that this ranch was designed when it's just this cabin here. Okay, maybe not the whole ranch, but definitely this part of it for sure. I don't see how that, I don't see how that's germane, how that's relevant to me reaching the conclusion that design is involved here. So yeah, the fine tuning argument does not say the universe was created for producing the maximum amount of life. All we are saying is that the conditions necessary for life to evolve exist within a tiny narrow band, within a much wider range of constants. And it's much more likely for that, the constants to fall within that band if they were designed rather than if chance is operating. Christ is risen indeed. He is risen and the church gives us 50 full days to celebrate the joy of Easter. Many of us know how to fast for 40 days, but we're far less sure how to really live those 50 days in the victory of the resurrection. That's why I want to invite you to the Weight of Glory Challenge from our sponsor Exodus 90. Exodus isn't just a one-time 90-day program, but a way of life shared by tens of thousands of men, learning to live as beloved sons of the Father in small fraternities. The ascetic practices are never the goal. They're just simple tools to make space for an encounter with God's transforming love in the middle of your real, messy life. If you're longing to be more present to your family, more faithful in prayer and freer from the pharaohs that quietly rule your hearts, this is a concrete way to invite the risen Christ into all of that. He wants to meet you where you are and to lead you into a deeper, quieter joy. St. Paul says our trials, embraced in faith, prepare us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all comparison. And that's exactly what this Easter season challenge, led by Dr. Jared Stout and Father Jonathan Meyer, is all about. Join the Exodus 90 Brotherhood today to live out the joy of Easter through the Weight of Glory Challenge. Download the Exodus 90 app to start your 14-day free trial or visit Exodus90.com. That's Exodus90.com. The Weight of Glory Challenge runs throughout the Easter season. Download the app today and become the man God created you to be. Look, dating today, at least they tell me, I don't know, they say it's weird. Is it weird? I don't know. You can feel like the only practicing Catholic in your city and you start wondering, is everyone either hostile to the faith or just spiritual but not religious? Meanwhile, you'd actually like to pray erosally with someone, not just hope for the best together with everyone on mainstream dating apps. And that's where our sponsor, Catholic Match, comes in. Catholic Match is the largest Catholic dating platform in the world and I love what they're doing. It's an online community built for Catholics who actually care about the faith. Confession, the Eucharist, openness to life, building a family, all of it. You're not having the, so how do you feel about kids talk on date three with someone who's never even considered what the church teaches? On Catholic Match, you can filter by things that actually matter. Things like mass attendance, devotion to the faith, openness to church teaching. Meet people who want marriage and understand it's a sacred vocation, not just a situationship, which is a word I just learned after having read this situationship. I'm okay with it. Have real conversations about God and what a holy family might look like. Catholic Match puts you in a place where people are on the same page about Christ and his church. So you can find your forever. So if you're serious about finding your spouse who loves Jesus Christ and the church, stop wasting your time scrolling past people who don't. Download the Catholic Match app on the Apple Store or Google Play. It's free to sign up and only takes five minutes. We'll go to catholicmatch.com to get started. Again, visit catholicmatch.com and sign up today. And if you do get married, make sure you name your first child Matthew. There is a very real contingent of non-believers and I would count myself among their number who are unable by any means to discover him, who seek and do not find, who knock and receive as it were, no answer. This strange phenomenon is known as the problem of divine hiddenness. If there is a God, then simply why is he hidden from so many of us, so much of the time? I think it would be great if God existed. I really do. I would absolutely love to escape death. I would relish being a recipient of unconditional love. Less selfishly, I would love to be able to worship that which deserves to be worshiped. I just don't think it's true. But try as I might. Look where I can. I find no response, no hint, nothing. I don't choose to disbelieve in God anymore than I choose to disbelieve in aliens, despite how much I might want them to. It seems to me that God has a lot to answer for here. Is it not troubling, Jonathan, for as a Christian, that your place of birth is a reliable statistical indicator of how likely you are to be saved? I'll say that again. Your place of birth, which is entirely arbitrary, is a reliable indicator of how likely you are on Christianity to be saved. You're significantly more likely to be a theist if you're born in Rwanda than if you're born in Thailand. Can this situation really obtain under the supervision of a God who wants to come to know us and makes his existence equally accessible to all? The chances seem infinitely small. But the existence of meaningless or unnecessary suffering does seem to be incompatible with the existence of a God who loves us and has the power to prevent it from happening. We're sometimes told that God has morally sufficient reason to allow suffering to exist. Indeed, if God is good, then he must have such sufficient reason. Perhaps suffering is necessitated by human free will. Perhaps suffering helps to develop a person's moral character, or maybe it's necessary to achieve some other end that God wishes to bring about. But intuitively, there appear to be instances of suffering that cannot serve any such end. And if even one example of these turns out to be an actual case of unnecessary or meaningless suffering, this would be enough to cause a problem. Alright, so we're dealing with the problem of the hiddenness of God and the problem of evil. I think the problem of the hiddenness of God could probably be a subset of the problem of evil. And I like the response because I've sometimes heard Christians, not so much these days, but back in the day, say, and maybe today, say things like, well, the only reason you're an atheist is because you want to do all these terrible sins. That's the only reason. You just have bad faith. You're not actually desiring there to be a God if you were. Then you'd find him. And then you've got people who I think are very sincere. Like, no, no, I really mean it. And then Christians are like, no, no, you don't really mean it. Right. And what I would say here is that smart, sincere people can still make cognitive and rational errors where they fail to apprehend the truth. I think that the argument from Divine Hiddenness that Alex is putting forward makes questionable assumptions, like that God would make it the case that everyone would automatically come to believe in him and not make bad choices or incorrect choices that make that belief difficult or not obtain. I would say that the answer to the Divine Hiddenness is kind of similar to the problem of evil. That one reason evil obtains is that human beings have free will. And so if God gives us free will in the moral area, He also gives us free will in the cognitive area of our lives. And there can be very smart, sincere people who come to deny things that I think are very obvious. Paul and Patricia Churchland are philosophers who are very, who are limitative materialists. So they would say that the self does not exist. They speak about, my brain did this or my brain did that, but not I. That's kind of an illusion. That I is sort of a folk psychology or an illusion. Right. And that's because people who deny the existence of the self, but just because they're very smart, it doesn't mean I'm still pretty confident I exist. So I'd say to Alex, yeah, but there's also lots of people who are very convinced that God does exist. So you saw the same problem saying that there isn't a God. How do we explain all of that where even if someone doesn't know God, God can judge them based on what they have come to know, either knowing like conscience, for example, knowing that they're called to something else in this life, that God will not punish someone merely for a cognitive error, merely for something that is not a moral decision that they have made. Rather, God holds us accountable for the moral choices that we make in life. Finally, I would say when it comes to divine hiddenness and suffering, you can kind of flip the argument around like all of it divine hiddenness. This person really wants God to exist and can't find him or a really bad thing happened. Why would God allow that? His arguments basically can be subsumed into this. If non-justifiable suffering exists, then God does not exist. Non-justifiable suffering exists, therefore God does not exist. You can run the argument backwards. If gratuitous evil know God, God, therefore no gratuitous evil. Even he would admit, well, there are evils that are justified. He said, I could see a good reason for that evil. I could see how God would allow that. I could see how God would allow that. I could see how God would allow that person to end up not knowing he existed because of the free choices they made. But I don't know how God could allow this, this, or this. To which I would say, so you're saying you can't see it, but what's to keep an all-powerful, all-knowing God from bringing good from those things. When you've already shown he can bring good from these other things, I have no reason to doubt he can bring good from those things, but I have good reason to believe that there is a God. I have better reasons to believe God exists than that an omnipotent, omniscient God cannot bring good from X, Y, and Z. I have better reasons to believe there is a God than he's incapable of addressing these problems. Therefore, I can hold fast that God does exist, and these problems aren't actually problems at all. And what about his claim about the poor fellow in Thailand who's born into a culture that doesn't believe in the existence of God and perhaps through no fault of his own, is an atheist? What does the Catholic Church say about that? What the Church says in paragraph 16 of Lumen Gentium is that God desires the salvation of all people, so it is possible for anyone to be saved and God will take into account the historical circumstances that could prevent a person from knowing he exists or fully trusting in him so just because someone doesn't know God, if they don't know God through no fault of their own, what we would call invincible ignorance, then God can take that into account. And if a person receives infinite unending happiness in the next life, that compensates for any suffering they may have endured in this life due to the lack of knowledge of God, whereas God may have justifiable reasons for not making his existence obvious. And there's a wide variety of goods we can think of. So for example, God may want us to freely choose to obey him without feeling like we're always, you know, he's just always over our shoulder. It's like when you're on the highway and there's a police officer behind you, you don't slow down out of the goodness of your fellow motorist. You do so because you're worried about being punished. And so maybe God will want us to have more free reign to be able to choose or not choose him or make choices for or against him in the moral life, for example. That might, that would be one reason that would come about there. I remember one question you have asked atheists, and I want to ask you why you asked this question. Yes. You say to them, and I've done this too, I've learned from you, what's the best argument for theism and why does it fail? Why is that a good question? It helps to root out the new atheists and the Reddit atheists and others who just want to sneer at God and sneer at Christianity but are unwilling to examine the evidence as we have put forward. Why should you and I have to go to all that trouble to present it when they won't even go to see what's already there? Our Lord said, do not cast pearls before swine. And I think there is wisdom there. If a person is not willing to do some effort on their own part to examine the case, you don't necessarily have to present that to them, especially if you're not as familiar with the arguments. But it's a way to reveal that they haven't bothered to do any of the work at all. So maybe they can do that and then they can come back to you. But they're not in a position to boast that Christianity is intellectually vacuous when they're unwilling to even examine it in the first place. And what do you say to the person who's willing to believe in God but is afraid that they could never go up against Alex O'Connor in a debate and of the opinion either explicitly or implicitly that unless I can respond to every possible objection from every possible contender, I really shouldn't go ahead and accept something like God's existence. I would say that you can believe something is true without being able to prove that to others. My favorite analogy of this would be if you were wrongfully convicted of a crime you didn't commit. So actually there is, in the United States, there is a plea for this. It's called an Alfred plea. It's a plea where you can say, look, I don't want to go to trial. I admit the court has enough evidence to convict me but I didn't do it. That's different than guilty. So a lot of times to avoid a trial you would say, well, I'm fine, I'll plead guilty. You can say, look, I didn't do this but I don't want to go to trial because I admit you can probably convict me. I know I didn't do it but nobody's going to believe me. I may get a lighter sentence because we're not going to trial but I want to make it clear I didn't do this. I'm not admitting guilt. So in the same way you could be wrongfully convicted of a crime, does that mean like, oh, they have all this evidence and you can't answer it? But I have evidence that they can't share. So you might have evidence interiorly and subjectively of the existence of God and that's one of the surest evidence that we have. You're not able to communicate that to others but it doesn't follow. You should abandon that sure faith you have in God just because somebody raises an argument somewhere and odds are they've raised an argument someone else could have raised an answer. You just don't know where to find the answer. And if I'm not epistemically justified in accepting a belief until I can respond or unless I can respond to every possible objection or individual, then I will never accept anything. You couldn't believe anything because there's always somebody. I mean, there are people who obsess about flat earth theory who come up with what seemed like convincing arguments. Yeah. And if I got into a debate with them, they would win because I haven't thought about this. Right. But that doesn't mean you are not justified in believing, no, the world is round and I have good reasons to believe that. Trent, thanks so much. Thank you.