Christian apologist Wesley Huff argues rising Bible sales and youth interest stem from a crisis of meaning and robust first-century eyewitness documentation.
## Background
This episode of The Diary Of A CEO was published by Steven Bartlett on YouTube on March 9, 2026. The page description frames the conversation around soaring Bible sales, the resurgence of interest in Christianity, and features Christian apologist Wesley Huff discussing historical evidence for Jesus, the problem of suffering, and humanity's search for meaning.
## TL;DR
In this wide-ranging dialogue, host Steven Bartlett and Christian defender Wesley Huff explore the cultural shift toward religious belief amid modern loneliness and mental health challenges. Huff presents the historical, manuscript, and philosophical cases for the credibility of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus. The conversation delves into complex theological questions including evolution, the nature of suffering, original sin, hell, prayer, and how AI might impact human purpose. Throughout the interview, Huff addresses modern skepticism by balancing academic defense with personal experience, including his childhood recovery from sudden paralysis.
## Atmosphere & style
The interview carries an intellectually curious yet deeply respectful tone as Bartlett poses sharp, reflective questions against Huff's composed and reasoned explanations. The mood alternates between rigorous historical defense and personal, vulnerable inquiry into existential suffering, moral duty, and human longing. Watching the discussion feels like a thoughtful, high-level fireside conversation that treats faith and skepticism with equal earnestness.
## Key takeaways
- [02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=141s) Religious belief and Bible engagement are experiencing a recent resurgence, evidenced by rising US Bible sales and stabilizing adult Christian identification as people seek answers beyond New Atheism.
- [06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=385s) The crisis of meaning, anxiety, and loneliness in modern society correlates with expressive individualism and the removal of traditional community and spiritual foundations.
- [11:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=684s) The Bible and Christianity rest on testable historical claims, supported by thousands of early manuscript copies and short chronological gaps between events and their recorded accounts.
- [31:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1918s) Variations in detail across the four Gospels strengthen their historical credibility by demonstrating independent eyewitness testimony rather than central collusion.
- [41:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2497s) Calling actions objectively evil requires a Moral Law Giver, which standard naturalistic evolution cannot adequately ground beyond biological survival mechanisms.
- [01:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3788s) Genesis 1 provides a theological perspective on the 'why' and meaning of creation rather than functioning as an empirical science manual on physical mechanics.
- [01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4173s) The central biblical hope for believers is not a disembodied escape to a cloud-like heaven, but bodily resurrection on a renewed physical earth.
- [01:18:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4711s) Popular views of hell with pitchforks and physical fire derive more from Dante's Inferno than scripture; bibliology frames hell as the ultimate separation from God's presence based on human choice.
- [01:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5035s) Christian salvation operates on divine grace—receiving unearned favor—rather than a merit-based system of counting good deeds.
- [01:54:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6887s) Simulation theory fails to resolve ultimate origins, merely shifting the question of the primary uncaused cause further back, which classical theology attributes to God.
- [01:59:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7177s) Centering human identity and worth on finite metrics like wealth, career, or economic output leads to existential crisis, whereas Christianity grounds human value in the Imago Dei.
- [02:07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7643s) Modern skepticism toward faith has shifted from intellectual questions about God's existence ('Is God real?') to moral evaluations of His character ('Is God good?').
- [02:12:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7938s) Christian apologetics, rooted in 1 Peter 3:15, refers to offering a reasoned, thoughtful defense for faith rather than expressing regret.
## Detailed walkthrough
Here is a detailed and faithful walkthrough of part 1 of the interview:
[00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) Teaser & Introduction: Purpose, Hell, and the Crisis of Meaning
The conversation opens on an intense, provocative note regarding damnation and human intent. Wesley Huff addresses the common fear of hell, stating bluntly that under Christian theology, everyone is heading toward hell—not out of a punitive decree for simply disbelieving in God, but because humanity has fallen into a deeper moral state. As a historian and theologian studying ancient biblical manuscripts, he stresses that true Christianity is not an exercise in earning heaven by checking off good deeds or keeping a clean scoreboard ("I didn't lie, I didn't steal, I didn't cheat"). Rather, humanity has bought into the fundamental lie that we are merely the sum of our actions. We relentlessly chase external achievements that fail to satisfy our deepest spiritual needs, leaving modern society in a acute crisis of purpose and meaning.
Steven Bartlett expresses his personal struggle with this premise. Operating from a mindset that demands an extremely high standard of empirical evidence, he questions how religion can claim to be the definitive antidote to this existential void. He wonders how modern people can place their lives in the hands of ancient human writings, and candidly asks Huff if he ever harbors doubt himself. Huff readily admits that he does—especially when confronted with immense suffering and human depravity, citing recent horrific real-world examples like the Jeffrey Epstein scandal. Times of deep evil make him question how a good God could exist, yet his rigorous historical and philosophical investigations have convinced him "beyond a reasonable doubt" that there is undeniable evidence for God, the historical reliability of the Bible, and a coherent explanation for human purpose.
* "It's not about trying to earn my way into heaven. It's not about checking off, 'Oh, I read the Bible this many times. I didn't lie. I didn't steal. I didn't cheat.'"
* "Unfortunately, we bought the lie that we are the sum of our actions. We're chasing after things that aren't going to give us what we actually need."
* "From my investigation, I'm 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."
---
[02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=141s) Why Religious Belief and Bible Reading Are Surging Again
Steven brings out recent data highlighting a dramatic shift in Western cultural trends:
* **Religious Identification:** As of 2024, the long-standing decline of religion in the West has leveled off and begun to uptick; currently, 63% of US adults (roughly 160 million people) identify as Christian.
* **Bible Sales:** In 2025, US Bible sales hit a 21-year record high of 19 million units sold.
* **Bible Engagement:** Weekly Bible reading among US adults rose to 42%, a 12% increase since 2024.
* **Christian Music:** Streams of Christian and gospel music surged by approximately 20% in the US.
Analyzing why this resurgence is happening now, Huff explains that society is emerging from a distinct historical phase dominated by "New Atheism." In the early 2000s, figures like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens gained massive mainstream popularity. Steven shares his own story: raised in a strict Christian household until age 18, he was deeply pulled in by the writings of Dawkins and Harris, leading him to abandon his faith for agnosticism and atheism. Today, however, he views those arguments with fresh curiosity and questions their long-term impact.
Huff argues that while New Atheism worked brilliantly on paper and sold millions of books, it failed in real-world application. When you reduce human existence to "time plus matter plus chance," it offers no satisfying answer to fundamental identity questions. Humanity has found itself hyper-connected through technology yet deeply isolated, overstimulated by global information, and struggling with what sociologist James K. A. Smith calls the "dynamics of disenchantment"—the inability of a purely material framework to satisfy metaphysical, transcendent questions.
- **4 Key Figures of New Atheism:** Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens.
- **The Materialist Paradox:** Huff challenges materialist worldviews by asking why "3 pounds of gray matter" in the human brain should be capable of comprehending the vast, complex laws of the universe if it is merely a random evolutionary byproduct.
---
[06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=385s) Rebellions, Expressive Individualism, and the Loneliness Epidemic
The discussion shifts to generational dynamics across Western nations like the UK, Europe, Canada, and the United States. These societies were built on Judeo-Christian ethical foundations, but successive generations attempted to divorce societal morality from religious roots. Parents stopped attending church and removed the Bible from the household. Interestingly, Huff notes that younger generations (Gen Z and Millennials) are now engaging in a reverse rebellion: while their parents rebelled by abandoning religion, young people are seeking meaning by reaching back toward their spiritual roots.
Steven points out that younger generations were sold the dream of "expressive individualism"—a culture that glamorized self-reliance, remote work, personal branding, delaying marriage, and having fewer children. However, being totally "unanchored" without deep responsibilities or community ties has correlated with skyrocketing rates of depression, anxiety, and mental health crises. The pursuit of personal influence, social media fame, and self-importance ("low-key narcissism") has isolated people rather than fulfilling them.
Huff grounds this phenomenon in Christian theology: humans were designed specifically for community because they are created in the image of God. In Christian doctrine, God exists as a relational Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Therefore, humans are hardwired to thrive in genuine relationships rather than living as isolated "lone wolves." Sitting alone behind computer screens while broadcasting to thousands of followers creates a state of being "alone together" that ultimately starves the human soul.
* "As we remove God... the intellectual enlightenment was that we would move away from the shackles of religiosity... and that would lead us into a utopia. The more and more we've removed that, it hasn't decreased our levels of anxiety and depression; I think it's increased it."
* "We're not created to be lone wolves or lone rangers; we're created to live amongst community."
---
[11:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=684s) The Historical Case for the Bible and Ancient Manuscripts
Steven re-engages from his position as an open-minded skeptic, reiterating that because of his analytical nature, he requires an exceptionally high bar of evidence. He asks Huff how a rational person moves from acknowledging a vague transcendent feeling to accepting that an ancient book, the Bible, should actively guide their daily life.
Huff approaches the question through his academic background in historiography and textual criticism, which involves evaluating the preservation and transmission of ancient manuscripts over thousands of years. He emphasizes that the Christian faith makes concrete historical claims that can be investigated like any other ancient event.
```
Ancient Source Comparison (1st vs. 2nd Century Texts):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject Earliest Biographies / Sources Context & Reliability
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tiberius Caesar Velleius Paterculus (1st c.) Paid imperial propagandist
(Roman Emperor) Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus (2nd c.) Written ~100+ years later
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus of Nazareth Apostle Paul's Epistles (1st c., early) Direct early testimony
Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (1st c.) Greco-Roman biographies
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```
Huff highlights that the earliest source material for Jesus does not actually start with the four Gospels, but with the writings of the Apostle Paul. Paul was originally an ardent enemy and persecutor of Christians who underwent a radical conversion on the road to Damascus after an encounter with Jesus, subsequently writing letters and comparing notes directly with Jesus' original disciples.
Furthermore, the four Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) match the formal literary genre of ancient Greco-Roman biographies. To demonstrate the quality of gospel documentation, Huff compares Jesus to Tiberius Caesar—the most powerful and famous individual in the Roman world at the time. While Tiberius has four main biographical accounts (with three written long after his death in the 2nd century), Jesus—a seemingly obscure figure from a remote province—has four distinct biographical accounts written within the 1st century, during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Steven notes that virtually all serious modern historians agree Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person; the main point of contention remains whether supernatural events, such as his resurrection, actually occurred or were added later over time.
- **Primary Gospel Authors:** Matthew, Mark, Luke, John.
- **Key Historical Baseline:** The earliest documented writings about Jesus (Paul's epistles) come from a converted hostile witness writing well before the end of the 1st century.
[15:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=955s) Oral Tradition vs. Modern Hyper-Literacy
Wesley Huff addresses the question of how historical accounts were preserved before widespread text recording. Modern society lives in a hyper-literate culture where nearly everything is written down immediately, whereas the ancient world was predominantly an oral culture. Historical stories and biographical details were routinely memorized and transmitted across large groups.
When looking at the biographical material about Jesus, the gap between the events and their written recording is surprisingly short compared to other ancient figures.
- The time gap between Jesus's life and the writing of the Gospels is approximately 40 to 60 years.
---
[16:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=985s) The Structure and Composition of the Bible
Steven Bartlett notes his total naivety regarding the Bible, observing that many young people from the "New Atheist" generation (born in the 2000s) have never opened the text and assume it is merely a single book of stories. Opening a copy on set, Bartlett asks for a breakdown of what the Old and New Testaments actually are and whether they represent the words of God or human stories.
Huff explains that while the Bible is now bound as a single volume, it is fundamentally a library of independent texts written over a vast span of human history:
- **Volume count:** 66 individual books.
- **Timeframe:** Written over approximately 1,600 years.
- **Authorship:** Authored by roughly 40 different people across three continents in three languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek).
The **Old Testament** comprises the Hebrew Scriptures (the Jewish scriptures), beginning with the *Torah* (the five books of Moses) and continuing through the Persian period. Prior to the 4th century, these writings circulated as independent scrolls.
Regarding theological inspiration, Huff details the concept of **verbal plenary inspiration**: human authors wrote these texts within their own historical contexts, but Christians believe they were "carried along by the Holy Spirit" (as described by the Apostle Peter). The Old Testament spans multiple literary genres, including historical narrative, poetry, and wisdom literature.
---
[19:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1181s) How the Jewish Canon Was Decided
Bartlett asks who determined which 39 books made it into the Old Testament out of the many texts in existence. Huff responds that by the time of Jesus, there was already a firm consensus among the Jewish people regarding their sacred scriptures.
Huff cites the 1st-century historian **Josephus**, who argued that unlike the Greeks—who possessed an innumerable count of competing texts—the Jewish people had a fixed, defined set of sacred writings. Josephus noted these texts were "laid up in the temple" and counted 22 books (matching the number of letters in the Hebrew alphabet, grouping several books together that modern Bibles separate into 39).
Josephus established a historical boundary for scripture: nothing was accepted before Moses, and the prophetic line ceased after the time of Artaxerxes (during the Persian Empire, corresponding to the Book of Esther). This period is often referred to as the "400 years of silence," where the formal voice of God through prophets stopped, leaving a "soft closing" of the canon that looked forward to a promised new covenant.
---
[21:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1301s) The New Testament Timeline and Source Verification
Regarding the New Testament, the exact date of the final book remains a point of scholarly debate—specifically whether the Gospel of John was written before or after 70 AD (if after, it was likely written in the 90s AD).
Despite minor debates on specific dates, Huff highlights that over 99% of historians, classical scholars, and biblical experts agree that all 27 books of the New Testament were written within the 1st century AD—well within the lifetimes of direct eyewitnesses.
To support the idea of eyewitness verification, Huff points out how Gospel writers frequently drop names into the text as a way of "citing sources." For instance, when Jesus stumbles while carrying the cross to Golgotha, a man named Simon of Cyrene is forced to carry it. The Gospel of Mark specifically identifies Simon as the father of Alexander and Rufus. Huff argues that naming these individuals served a distinct purpose in the early Christian community:
> "The purpose of naming that person randomly is to say, 'He's actually well-known, go ask him.'"
---
[23:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1393s) The "Telephone Game" Objection vs. High-Impact Memory
Bartlett raises a common objection: isn't there a high risk of "Chinese whispers" (the telephone game) or mythological distortion over a 40-to-60-year gap? He shares a personal story of trying to remember his grandmother giving him money in a card 20 years ago—he remembers the gesture, but the exact amount and details are hazy. Furthermore, in an ancient world lacking modern scientific understanding, people might misinterpret natural occurrences as magical or supernatural events like the Resurrection.
Huff pushes back against what C.S. Lewis called **"chronological snobbery"**—the assumption that ancient people were ignorant or gullible. For example, when the angel tells Mary she will bear a child, her immediate response is grounded in basic biological reality: *"I haven't met the minimum requirements of how babies are made, therefore I can't be pregnant."* She did not blindly accept the claim without logical pushback.
Furthermore, Huff argues that the "telephone game" is a flawed analogy for oral tradition:
- **Telephone game rules:** Requires whispering, one-on-one transmission, and a single repetition to intentionally corrupt the message.
- **Oral culture reality:** Stories were repeated publicly, constantly, and corroborated by massive groups of witnesses simultaneously.
To illustrate how high-impact events preserve vivid memory across decades, Huff asks Bartlett if he remembers where he was during **9/11**. Bartlett immediately recalls coming home from school in the UK and watching the television in awe alongside his dad.
Huff explains that while an average day in 2001 is forgotten, 9/11 is burned into memory because of its sheer impact. For the disciples, traveling with a rabbi for three years, hearing his core sermons (like the Sermon on the Mount) repeatedly, and witnessing his public execution and reported resurrection served as an "earth-shattering, 9/11-level event" that permanently stamped their memories.
---
[29:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1761s) The Radical Transformation of the Disciples
After Jesus was crucified and buried in a tomb, his followers were utterly defeated. In ancient history, when a leader of a messianic movement was executed, the movement died with them.
The Gospel accounts record that 11 remaining disciples (following Judas's suicide) were terrified and hiding in an upper room, assuming their journey was over and preparing to return to their former lives as fishermen. Notably, it was the women who took the initiative to visit the tomb—a detail Huff calls an "embarrassing fact" for a 1st-century patriarchal culture to invent if they were fabricating a hero story.
Something dramatic occurred that transformed 11 cowering men into bold proclaimers who endured intense persecution and potential martyrdom for the rest of their lives:
> "What is it that has 11 scared disciples... hiding in an upper room thinking 'that's it, we're done'... 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."
---
[31:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1879s) Eyewitness Accounts of the Empty Tomb
Addressing the specifics of the Resurrection, Bartlett asks who actually saw Jesus emerge from the tomb. Huff clarifies that no biblical account describes someone physically watching Jesus walk out of the tomb itself. Instead, the women arrive on the third morning to find the stone rolled away and the tomb empty.
Huff stresses the value of having **four distinct Gospel accounts** (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) rather than a single harmonized text. The variations in their perspectives demonstrate that the authors did not collude to fabricate a uniform story, but rather provided independent multi-angle reports of the same central event.
[031:58] Discrepancies in the Gospel Accounts and the Historical Tomb
Wesley Huff explains that the subtle variations across the different Gospel accounts actually strengthen their historical reliability rather than undermining it. If all four authors provided identical, word-for-word stories, modern historians could easily dismiss them as a coordinated conspiracy or collusion. Instead, the authors highlight different details and angles of the same overarching event. When Steven Bartlett asks what the eyewitnesses specifically claimed to see, Huff clarifies that none of the canonical Gospels present a dramatic, step-by-step account of Jesus physically walking out of the tomb. Rather, they describe the immediate aftermath: the tomb was found empty, and Jesus subsequently appeared to His followers.
In the Gospel accounts, the narrative includes moments that feel deeply human and unexpected. For instance, when Mary Magdalene first encounters the risen Jesus outside the tomb, she mistakes Him for the gardener—a detail Huff finds telling, noting she did not mistake a random gardener for Jesus, but rather failed to recognize Jesus at first. Angels appear to inform the women, "Why do you look for the living among the dead? He is not here; He has risen." When the women rush back to tell the hiding disciples, they are met with skepticism and treated as though they are losing their minds.
```
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Canonical Gospels (4) │
│ • Focus on empty tomb & post-resurrection │
│ • First witnesses are women (Mary M.) │
│ • Disciples initially doubt reports │
│ • High historical credibility via "embarrassment"│
└───────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘
│
Versus │ Later Attempt to "Fix"
│ Embarrassing Details
▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Gospel of Peter (Apocryphal) │
│ • Claims Roman & Jewish guards saw event │
│ • Depicts stone moving & miraculous exit │
│ • Historically inaccurate (priests near corpse)│
└───────────────────────────────────────────────┘
```
The presence of female witnesses as the primary discoverers of the empty tomb is what historians call an "embarrassing fact" that strongly supports the narrative's authenticity. In both 1st-century Greco-Roman and Jewish legal contexts, a woman's testimony held little to no weight. Had the early Christian movement fabricated the story from scratch, they would have picked high-status male figures to discover the empty tomb. Later apocryphal texts, such as the 2nd-century Gospel of Peter, attempted to "remedy" this awkward detail by inventing a grand spectacle: Roman soldiers and Jewish leaders camp right outside the tomb, witnessing the stone roll away and Jesus walking out. However, Huff points out that the Gospel of Peter is historically unreliable, not only because of its late date, but because high priests would never camp outside a tomb on the eve of Passover due to ritual purity laws.
- **Key Witnesses:** Mary Magdalene and a small group of women are the first to discover the empty tomb.
- **Textual Differences:** The Gospel of John focuses on Mary Magdalene, using phrasing ("We don't know where they have put him") that implies other women were with her, matching the multi-women accounts in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.
- **Historical Criterion of Embarrassment:** Early texts including women as primary witnesses point toward historical truth, as no 1st-century author seeking to fabricate a convincing hoax would choose women as lead witnesses.
[035:58] Modern Legends, Human Proclivity for the Supernatural, and the Early Martyrs
Steven Bartlett expresses his own perspective on the historical Jesus, agreeing that Jesus was a real historical figure who was executed on a cross. However, he questions the resurrection by comparing it to modern urban legends, paranormal claims, and mythical monsters. He shares a story from his upbringing in Plymouth, where a local park featured a prominent board recounting sightings of a "white lady" ghost, alongside examples like the Loch Ness Monster—which has generated over 1,500 reported sightings from 565 AD all the way into 2025. Bartlett asks whether human beings simply have a natural psychological bias toward inventing, exaggerating, and reinforcing supernatural experiences.
```
┌──────────────────────────────────┐
│ Supernatural Claims Comparison│
└────────────────┬─────────────────┘
│
┌────────────────────────────┴────────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Urban Legends / Nessie / Ghosts │ │ Early Christian Resurrection │
├─────────────────────────────────────┤ ├─────────────────────────────────────┤
│ • Social reinforcement & folklore │ │ • Total social ostracization │
│ • No personal penalty for claiming │ │ • Severe persecution & martyrdom │
│ • Legend spreads casually │ │ • Unbending conviction unto death │
└─────────────────────────────────────┘ └─────────────────────────────────────┘
```
Huff responds by distinguishing the Christian resurrection claims from casual folklore, pointing out that the persistence of Christianity is rooted in a specific historical anomaly. Unlike other 1st-century Jewish messianic figures—such as Simon bar Giora, whose movements dissolved immediately upon their deaths—the followers of Jesus did not scatter or abandon their claims. Instead, they proclaimed that Jesus was alive at immense personal cost.
"Liars make poor martyrs," Huff stresses, emphasizing that while people frequently die for beliefs that are false, they rarely choose torture and execution for something they *know* to be a deliberate lie. Traditional cult leaders exploit followers for money, sex, influence, or power, but the early apostles received social ostracization, beatings, and martyrdom.
Bartlett references historic leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, recalling MLK's emotional "I've Been to the Mountaintop" speech delivered shortly before his assassination, where King seemed to willingly accept his mortality for a higher cause. Huff agrees, arguing that while the disciples could have been mistaken, the secular historical consensus agrees that they genuinely believed they saw the risen Jesus. Alternative naturalistic explanations fail to fully account for why the disciples were willing to endure severe persecution and death for their eyewitness claims.
[041:37] Existential Doubt, Suffering, and the Problem of Evil
When Bartlett asks Huff if he ever entertains doubts about his faith, Huff answers candidly: "Oh, of course... I'm not immune to doubt." He explains that his doubts are rarely intellectual or historical; instead, they are existential, triggered by the profound pain, abuse, and tragedy in the world. He finds comfort in the fact that the Bible does not suppress doubt or demand blind optimism. Roughly one-third of the Book of Psalms consists of "lament" or "complaint" psalms, typified by Psalm 22's anguish: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" Huff also highlights the story of John the Baptist, who, while imprisoned by Herod, sent his disciples to ask Jesus, "Are you the one who is to come, or should we expect someone else?" Jesus did not condemn John for his doubt during suffering; instead, He praised him as the greatest among men born of women.
Bartlett brings up a primary driver of his own teenage embrace of New Atheism: Richard Dawkins' framing of the Problem of Evil. Bartlett asks why an all-powerful (omnipotent), all-present (omnipresent), and all-loving God would permit a two-year-old child to suffer from a parasite eating their eye from the inside. If a human being has the power and compassion to stop such horrific suffering, why wouldn't God?
```
┌──────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The Problem of Evil │
└──────────────────┬───────────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌──────────────────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────┐
│ The Atheist Challenge │ │ The Moral Law Counter │
├──────────────────────────┤ ├──────────────────────────┤
│ • If God is all-powerful │ │ • Calling an act "Evil" │
│ and all-loving, why │ │ implies Objective Good.│
│ does suffering exist? │ │ • Objective Good requires│
│ • Example: Eye parasite │ │ a Moral Law Giver. │
└──────────────────────────┘ └──────────────────────────┘
```
Huff acknowledges that the Problem of Evil is the most emotionally and existentially compelling objection against Christianity. However, he argues that the argument creates a philosophical dilemma for pure materialism:
* **Moral Law Argument:** Labeling an event as "Evil" with a capital *E* logically requires an objective standard of "Good" with a capital *G*.
* **The Moral Law Giver:** An objective moral framework requires an ultimate Moral Law Giver; otherwise, moral judgments are merely personal preference.
* **Evolutionary Materialism:** From a purely biological perspective, nature is indifferent. DNA simply replicates without concern for human suffering.
Bartlett suggests that human empathy is an evolutionary adaptation—caring for a suffering child triggers protective instincts that help the species survive and pass on genes. Huff responds that while evolutionary biology explains survival mechanisms, it struggles to ground absolute moral values. Citing philosopher John Gray's critique of Richard Dawkins, Huff notes that a strictly selfish-gene worldview cannot give intrinsic moral value to a suffering individual. Under pure naturalism, one can say they dislike a parasite eating a child's eye, but calling it objectively *evil* smuggles in a metaphysical framework that materialism cannot support.
- **Biblical Perspective on Doubt:** Scripture validates grief and questioning during hardship, allocating significant portions of poetic literature (Psalms) and gospel narratives to honest wrestling with God.
- **Philosophical Dilemma:** If morality is purely an evolutionary construct for survival, moral claims about suffering lose objective weight; if moral claims carry intrinsic authority, they point toward a higher moral law.
[47:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2865s) The Foundations of Morality: Evolution vs. Judeo-Christian Ethics
The conversation explores whether human morality—specifically altruism and the imperative to care for the vulnerable—is an evolutionary adaptation or rooted in a divine framework. Host Steven Bartlett proposes that from an evolutionary perspective, taking care of community members and their children enhances collective survival, enabling early human tribes to cooperate, pool resources, and overcome threats like dangerous predators. Citing Yuval Noah Harari’s *Sapiens*, Steven highlights how the human ability to create and believe in shared narratives (such as money, governments, or social structures) fostered large-scale cooperation and reciprocal altruism, which ultimately increased survival chances.
Wesley Huff pushes back by pointing out that evolutionary theory centered purely on "survival of the fittest" does not naturally ground an obligation to protect the weak or marginalized. Referring to Charles Darwin's *On the Origin of Species* and its historical connections to the eugenics movement, Wesley argues that strict evolutionary pressure suggests non-viable or weaker individuals diminish the gene pool rather than enhance it. He asserts that modern Western society is "starting on second base" by taking these moral categories for granted, inheriting them from a Judeo-Christian ethic that views every individual as possessing intrinsic value made in the image of God. To illustrate that such ethics are not universal constants, Wesley contrasts this with ancient Babylonian mythology (*Enuma Elish*), where humans are viewed as mere accidental byproducts of divine conflict, and Eastern karmic traditions (such as Hinduism and Buddhism), where intervening in someone's suffering can be seen as disrupting their karmic trajectory (*samsara*).
- Wesley highlights that while some cultures operate on "love thy neighbor," others historically functioned on "eat thy neighbor," raising the question of where objective moral grounding truly originates.
- Steven questions whether the sense of good and evil is an innate biological mechanism or a culturally transmitted tradition established thousands of years ago.
- Wesley argues that while human conscience provides an initial moral awareness, specific biblical revelation provides the objective framework necessary to define absolute right and wrong.
---
[54:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3245s) The Evolution Debate: Adaptation, Intelligent Design, and Common Ancestry
The dialogue shifts to the mechanics of human origins, with Steven asking Wesley directly if he believes in biological evolution. Wesley clarifies that while he does not accept the macro-evolutionary view that humans evolved entirely from simple single-celled organisms, he acknowledges that evolutionary belief does not inherently invalidate Christian faith. Describing himself as an advocate for Intelligent Design rather than a practicing scientist, Wesley defers complex biological arguments to scholars like Stephen Meyer, Jonathan McLatchie, John Lennox, and Douglas Axe. He distinguishes micro-evolutionary genetic adaptation—which is observable—from the broader claim that all life shares a single origin through unguided natural processes.
Steven presents the mainstream scientific case for common ancestry, citing fossil records showing gradual changes over time and the fact that humans share roughly 98% of their DNA with chimpanzees. He offers an example of rapid adaptation—such as birds on an isolated island developing longer beaks over decades to reach food sources—and extrapolates that process over millions or billions of years. Steven argues that given long time horizons, environmental pressures could easily cause isolated populations to diverge so significantly that they become distinct, non-interbreeding species.
Wesley remains skeptical of using vast spans of time as a complete explanation for major macro-evolutionary transitions, describing it as a "time of the gaps" argument. He contends that small adaptational shifts (like varying beak shapes in Darwin's finches) still produce the same basic type of animal rather than transitioning into an entirely new biological kind. Furthermore, Wesley raises fundamental philosophical and scientific challenges that evolutionary biology struggle to resolve: how mindless matter produces conscious minds, how something arises from nothing, and how complex biological systems display the appearance of intricate design. He notes that while Richard Dawkins famously characterizes nature as having merely the "illusion of design," modern microbiology reveals that the smaller one zooms into cellular mechanics, the more complex and information-dense it proves to be—contrary to 19th-century assumptions that lower biological levels were simple.
- Steven references Darwin's finches and island bird adaptations as clear evidence of environmental selection driving physical transformation.
- Wesley questions the missing transitional fossils required to bridge hominids to human beings, emphasizing that human consciousness and rational capacity remain distinct across the animal kingdom.
- The discussion touches on the shift from classical Darwinian theory to modern neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis.
---
[01:03:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3788s) Deep Time, Creation, and the Age of the Earth
Steven asks Wesley to outline his view on human origins, the historical reality of Adam and Eve, and the timeframe of creation. Wesley lightheartedly opens by saying he knows "the world is at least 35 years old" before stating that he does not believe the Bible is attempting to give a scientific textbook account regarding the precise age of the Earth. He expresses full comfort with the scientific consensus that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and that microbial life emerged roughly 3.5 to 4 billion years ago. Wesley explains that Genesis Chapter 1 serves a theological purpose rather than revealing the exact physical mechanisms God used to bring the universe into existence.
- Wesley notes that adhering to Christian faith does not require rejecting deep geological time or holding to a young-earth timeline.
- The discussion highlights that mainstream scientific consensus dates the Earth at ~4.5 billion years, with single-celled organisms appearing shortly after liquid water formed.
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering this portion of the conversation between host Steven Bartlett and Christian apologist Wesley Huff.
---
[01:04:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3859s) Intelligent Design, Creation, and "Betty the Botanist"
Wesley clarifies his personal perspective on origins, noting that while he is a historian rather than a scientist, he believes the earth is old and adheres to an intelligent design thesis. He affirms his belief in a historical Adam and Eve as the first humans put here directly by God, alongside an initial creation of animal species that subsequently adapted over time. When Steven pushes on how science explains these origins, Wesley argues that scientific analysis can only take us so far because it cannot answer ultimate questions of meaning, purpose, and identity.
To illustrate this boundary, Wesley shares a parable from his friend Glen Scrivener called "Betty the Botanist." In the parable, Betty spends an entire weekend running exhaustive lab tests on a biological specimen given to her, discovering its complex cellular structure and potential pharmacological uses to cure diseases. On Monday, when her assistant Jerry returns, she thanks him profusely for the "botanical specimen." Jerry replies that it was February 14th—Valentine's Day—and that the plant was a long-stemmed rose given as a gift of love. While Betty understood the physical composition of the rose better than anyone, she missed its ultimate meaning and intent because empirical data alone could not reveal the heart of the giver.
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ THE LONG-STEMMED ROSE │
└────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
┌──────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌───────────────────────┐ ┌───────────────────────┐
│ SCIENTIFIC ANALYSIS │ │ INTENDED MEANING │
│ (Betty the Botanist) │ │ (Jerry's Gift) │
├───────────────────────┤ ├───────────────────────┤
│ • Cellular Structure │ │ • Expresses Love │
│ • Chemical Compound │ │ • Personal Relationship│
│ • Medical Utility │ │ • Purpose & Identity │
└───────────────────────┘ └───────────────────────┘
```
Wesley applies this logic to a physical Bible: one can describe its chemical paper pulp, ink, and binding, or one can recognize it as a divine communication. He cites C.S. Lewis’s observation that early thinkers became scientific because they expected laws in nature and therefore looked for the Lawgiver. Pioneer scientists like Francis Bacon viewed their scientific endeavors as an act of worship—exploring the creation to better understand the Creator. Wesley cautions against imitating "Betty the Botanist" or thinkers like Richard Dawkins, who analyze the empirical mechanics of the world while remaining blind to its transcendent purpose.
- **Key Parable Details**: Glen Scrivener’s "Betty the Botanist" parable features Betty testing a long-stemmed rose over Valentine's Day weekend, treating it solely as a pharmacological specimen.
- **C.S. Lewis Quote**: "Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator."
- **Historical Reference**: Francis Bacon and other early architects of the scientific method viewed empirical exploration as a direct form of worship.
---
[01:09:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4173s) The Limits of Evolution and the Christian Promise of Resurrection
Steven reflects on his own past attraction to the New Atheism movement, admitting that it ultimately left a void because it failed to answer the fundamental "so what?" behind human existence. Even if evolutionary biology explains *how* species survive and pass on genes, it fails to explain *why* we ought to survive or what mission humans are meant to fulfill. Wesley responds that while materialist worldviews reduce a person to "time plus matter plus chance," the Biblical worldview declares that every human being bears the image of God (*Imago Dei*) and possesses intrinsic value, purpose, and a mind that transcends mere brain chemistry.
Wesley clarifies a common misconception about the ultimate goal of Christianity. The biblical hope is not merely a disembodied, spiritual escape to a distant realm, but a physical resurrection. Citing New Testament scripture that refers to the resurrected Jesus as the "first fruits," Wesley highlights the promise of a renewed physical creation—a "new heaven and a new earth." Responding to Steven's query about whether the goal of life is simply "going to heaven," Wesley points to the Lord's Prayer ("Thy kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven"). The calling of a human being is to bring heavenly reality down to earth through stewardship, love, and active service, operating as an "image bearer" rather than a mere "human doing."
- **The Materialist Formula**: Wesley contrasts the secular view of humanity as "time + matter + chance" with the biblical view of being intentionally created in God's image.
- **The First Fruits Concept**: Scriptural reference to Jesus' resurrection as the prototype ("first fruits") for humanity's eventual bodily resurrection on a renewed Earth.
- **Human Purpose**: Distinguishes between intrinsic value (bearing God's image) and extrinsic utility (what one contributes to society or technology).
---
[01:12:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4378s) Do Animals Have Souls? Human Uniqueness vs. Animal Intelligence
The conversation shifts to animal consciousness when Steven asks whether chimpanzees (which share roughly 98% of human DNA) or his pet dog possess the same intrinsic meaning and immortal soul as humans. Wesley acknowledges that Christian thinkers throughout history have debated the eternal state of animals. St. Francis of Assisi championed God's care for animals, while C.S. Lewis explicitly depicted animals in the heavenly realm in *The Last Battle* (the final book of *The Chronicles of Narnia*). Wesley suggests that while a renewed earth will likely feature animals, humans uniquely possess a distinct spiritual component and divine mandate.
Steven pushes back, asking whether attributing a soul exclusively to humans stems from arrogance, pointing to the high intelligence of whales, pack dynamics, and chimps operating touchscreens. Wesley responds by distinguishing between problem-solving or conditioned behavior and true artistic, spiritual reflection. While an ape can be trained to press buttons or an elephant guided to hold a paintbrush, they do not comprehend abstract beauty, meaning, or artistic intent in the way Leonardo da Vinci did when painting the *Mona Lisa* (playfully correcting himself after briefly mentioning Michelangelo).
- **Theological Views on Animals**: St. Francis of Assisi and C.S. Lewis both held views supporting the presence of animals in the afterlife or renewed creation.
- **Literary Reference**: C.S. Lewis's *The Last Battle* explicitly includes animals in its depiction of the heavenly reality.
- **Ape vs. Artist Distinction**: Wesley uses the term "aping" to describe animal imitation, contrasting conditioned behaviors (like painting canvas) with human intentionality and creation.
---
[01:15:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4509s) Life's Ultimate Mission and the Golden Rule
Steven asks whether humans are born with a predetermined, specific mission or if they must discover it themselves. Wesley notes that people often crave a grand, dramatic calling like Moses encountering the burning bush in the desert. However, he states that the primary purpose of human existence—often summarized as the "chief end of man"—is "to know God and glorify Him." He quotes Jesus' summary of the greatest commandments: to love God with all one's heart, soul, mind, and strength, and to love one's neighbor as oneself.
To illustrate how this ultimate mission applies to everyday work, Wesley references the 16th-century German Protestant reformer Martin Luther. Luther famously observed that a Christian shoemaker does not glorify God by stitching tiny crosses onto shoes, but by making high-quality, craft-focused footwear. Wesley emphasizes that God is self-sufficient within the Trinity and does not "need" human worship to be complete; rather, creation flows out of an abundance of divine love, inviting humans to reflect that love through excellent, honest daily living.
Furthermore, Wesley contrasts the biblical "Golden Rule" ("Do unto others as you would have them do unto you") with alternative ancient philosophies that frame ethics negatively ("Do *not* do unto others what you don't want done to you"). He points out that avoiding harm is passive—like choosing not to punch someone in the face—whereas the active Christian command requires positive goodwill, such as building a hospital for those in need.
- **The Chief End of Man**: Drawing from historical catechisms, Wesley defines humanity's primary purpose as knowing God and enjoying/glorifying Him forever.
- **Martin Luther's Shoemaker**: The Protestant reformer argued that secular vocations glorify God through quality craftsmanship rather than overt religious labeling.
- **Active vs. Passive Ethics**:
- *Passive Rule (Negative)*: "Do not do to others what you would not want done to you" (refraining from evil).
- *Golden Rule (Positive)*: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" (actively performing good).
---
[01:18:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4711s) Sin, Hell, and the Human Condition
When Steven directly asks, "If I sin in my life, do I go to hell? Is Steven Bartlett going to hell?", Wesley lightheartedly remarks that this is the exact provocative clip the editors will put online. He then clarifies the classical Christian theological stance: strictly speaking, *everyone* is on a path toward separation from God. He summarizes the dilemma with a logical paradox: the Bible teaches that "all good people go to heaven," yet Jesus explicitly stated that "no one is good but God alone." Therefore, under pure human merit, no one earns entrance into heaven on their own standing.
Addressing popular misconceptions of hell, Wesley explains that common imagery—endless physical fire, pitchforks, and red demons—is largely derived from medieval literature like Dante's *Inferno* rather than precise biblical theology. He defines hell not as a literal torture chamber designed by God, but as the agonizing reality of experiencing the ultimate weight of separation from God's goodness, love, and life-giving presence.
- **The Goodness Paradox**:
1. All good people go to heaven.
2. Jesus claims no one is good except God alone.
3. Therefore, human self-righteousness is insufficient for salvation.
- **Cultural vs. Biblical Hell**: Popular depictions of hell are heavily influenced by Dante Alighieri's *Inferno* (14th-century epic poetry) rather than strictly literal scriptural descriptions.
<FollowUp label="Want to dive into the next part of the transcript?" query="Please provide the next detailed walkthrough for part 6 of this transcript."/>
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough of this section of the interview.
---
[01:20:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4811s) Heaven, Hell, and the Theological Reality of Rejecting God
The discussion opens with Wesley Huff clarifying a fundamental misconception about Christian theology: heaven is not populated by "good people," but rather by individuals who recognize that they are not good enough on their own. Returning to the distinction between justice and mercy, Huff explains that divine justice was fully satisfied through Jesus on the cross. Because that justice was satisfied, mercy—defined as not receiving the punishment one actually deserves—can now be granted to anyone who trusts in Jesus.
Steven Bartlett poses a direct personal scenario: if someone lives a kind, charitable, and good life, but explicitly rejects God and does not believe in the Bible or Jesus, where do they go when they die according to scripture? Huff answers directly that God does not force anyone into His presence who spent their life rejecting Him. Therefore, according to the Bible, such a person goes to hell. Bartlett presses for clarification:
> Bartlett: "So, if I don't believe in the Bible, Jesus, and God, then I'm going to go to hell?"
> Huff: "Yes, in so far as if heaven is a place for those who have submitted their lives to Jesus... Hell is a place where God says, 'You rejected me. Your will be done. I'm going to give you what you want.'"
Huff describes hell as the total withdrawal of God's grace, mercy, and goodness. Bartlett asks for a clear biblical depiction of this place, leading Huff to express a personal, heartfelt concern for Bartlett's own spiritual state:
> "It's a place that no matter what's going on, if you are a believer... it should motivate you to want to desire—Steven Bartlett, I desire you to have a personal relationship with your creator. Because I don't want you to experience whatever hell is."
- **Gallup Data Point:** Bartlett notes that, according to Gallup research, roughly **18% of Americans** do not believe in a God.
- **Biblical Imagery of Hell:** Bartlett lists several scriptural descriptions of hell: a "lake of fire" (Revelation), "unquenchable fire" (Mark), "eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels" (Matthew), "outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth," and a place of eternal punishment where "the smoke of their torment rises forever."
---
[01:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5035s) Grace, Repentance, and Why "Just Believing" Isn't Enough
Huff emphasizes that the severity of the "bad news" about hell is precisely what makes the gospel ("good news") so extraordinary. Jesus endured that separation on humanity's behalf. However, salvation is not earned through an intellectual recitation or a magic incantation. Huff frames the core tenets of salvation through three distinct terms:
> "Justice is getting what you do deserve. Mercy is not getting what you do deserve. Grace is getting what you don't deserve."
Bartlett questions whether the 18% of non-believers are guaranteed to go to hell, prompting Huff to cite the Book of James (written by Jesus' half-brother): *"You believe that God is one... Great. So do the demons."* Mere belief in God's existence is insufficient, as even Satan and demons believe. True salvation requires a relational commitment—accepting Jesus as both "Savior" (rescuing one from sin) and "Lord" (submitting one's life in obedience and repentance).
Huff defines repentance by referencing the Greek word *metanoia*, which literally means a "change of mind." It is not merely abstaining from bad behavior out of fear, but coming to realize that sinful actions are actively harmful and destructive to one's relationship with God.
- **Church Attendance Statistics:** Bartlett notes that only about **30% of people** attend church somewhat frequently, while roughly **56% seldom or never go**, suggesting that only a very small percentage of the population actively practices this level of repented faith.
- **Salvation Mechanics:** Salvation is "received, not achieved." It cannot be earned through a checklist of good deeds or religious attendance ("brownie points").
- **The Broken Chain Analogy:** Referencing James, where breaking one rule of the law is equivalent to breaking the entire law, Huff compares moral law to hanging off a cliff by a chain—if a single link snaps, you fall regardless of how many other links remain intact.
---
[01:29:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5355s) The Logic of Original Sin, the Fall, and the Cross as the Blueprint
Bartlett introduces a logical puzzle regarding the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden. Since God is omnipotent and omniscient, He created Adam and Eve knowing full well they would make that choice. Bartlett suggests this framework resembles a deliberate setup:
> "If I made something knowing that it was going to make a mistake and that mistake would result in people worshipping me for the next forever... You'd say I did this to get you to worship me and to basically make you live in guilt."
Huff acknowledges that one could read it that way, but offers a different perspective: what is truly remarkable is that God created humanity anyway, foresaw the rebellion, and chose not to hit a "restart button." Huff notes that human beings cannot fully comprehend God's ultimate reasons for allowing evil, but highlights key passages from Peter and Revelation stating that the Lamb (Jesus) was slain "before the foundation of the world."
This means the crucifixion was never a backup plan or a panic response to human failure; it was the plan all along. By demonstrating the ultimate ethic of self-sacrifice through Jesus, God revealed His love in the highest possible manner.
- **The Cross as the Primary Plan:** The cross was designed from the beginning as the ultimate demonstration of divine love through self-sacrifice.
- **Epistemological Basis:** Huff states he is convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" by the historical and philosophical cases for Christianity, which led to a radical transformation in his own life.
---
[01:32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5541s) Experiential Proof: Steven Bartlett's Converted Friend and Apologetics
The conversation shifts to concrete personal evidence of faith's power. Bartlett shares the story of a close friend who underwent a drastic transformation. Living in a luxury penthouse apartment in Dubai, single and working remotely, the friend was experiencing a profound crisis of meaning despite material success. He suddenly turned to Christianity, flew to America to get baptized, and completely restructured his life.
Bartlett speaks warmly about his friend's conversion, emphasizing that he, along with their mutual friend Will, can objectively see the positive impact:
> Bartlett: "Would I say he is happier than before? 100%. Would I say I am very glad he became Christian? 100%. Would I say that I believe his future's going to be better because he's now Christian? 100%."
Huff highlights that this visible, experiential change is a powerful form of witness that aligns with 1 Peter 3:15. In that text, the apostle Peter instructs believers in the midst of persecution to *"always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give a reason for the hope that you have."* Huff notes that the Greek word translated as "answer" or "defense" is *apologia* (the root of *apologetics*).
Citing his colleague Tim Barnett (who works with Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason), Huff remarks: *"If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own."* Christianity calls believers to love God with their whole mind, synthesizing intellectual defense with the life-changing experience of being "born again." Bartlett agrees that the transformation in his friend's life is undeniable, though he wonders aloud whether converting to any other major religion might have produced a similar psychological benefit.
[01:36:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5771s) Subjective Belonging vs. Objective Truth in Religion
Steven opens by raising a fundamental critique: when people convert to non-Christian religions or take up spiritual practices, they often experience a genuine boost in meaning, community, belonging, and emotional stability. They report feeling their anxiety, worries, and nihilism quieted, allowing them to lead more content lives. He asks whether this subjective psychological benefit is evidence that Christianity specifically is true, or if it simply proves that human beings are universally searching for meaning in a hyper-individualistic, material world.
Wesley agrees that religious practice yields net positives for society across the board by offering identity and structure. However, he warns against reducing faith to purely subjective experience. He recalls his time working for a university campus ministry where students, when asked *why* they believed Christianity was true, would invariably respond by sharing their personal conversion story. Wesley points out that this fails to answer the question. If someone met a Buddhist or a Muslim on campus, ate pizza with them, and had their life changed by their teachings, that personal journey sounds like a matter of mere coincidence or convenience. While personal testimonies have value, Wesley stresses that Christianity asserts a claim to objective "capital-T Truth" supported by historical, philosophical, scientific, and psychological evidence.
- Wesley states that his commitment is to "truth with the capital T even above my allegiance to Jesus," believing that because Jesus *is* the truth, no conflict exists.
- "Even if it's a convenient lie, it's still a lie and I don't want to live my life for a lie."
---
[01:41:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6079s) The Geography Argument, Fairness, and Grace
Steven brings up an argument that deeply influenced him during his period of atheism at age 19: the geography of religion. If someone is born in Saudi Arabia, they are almost certainly Muslim; if born in India, Hindu. Statistically, an individual's geographical and parental background determines their religious beliefs with over 90% probability. Steven recalls finding it inherently unfair that an accident of birth could dictate whether a person goes to heaven or suffers eternally in hell.
Wesley points out that he himself was born in Pakistan—a Muslim-majority nation—yet is a Christian, while his colleague Steve was raised in a Buddhist context in Korea. Nevertheless, Wesley tackles the broader objection directly, stating that the Christian gospel is fundamentally *not* about fairness. Fairness would mean every person receiving the exact, just penalty for their cosmic rebellion and moral failings—which would result in everyone going to hell. Religions like Hinduism and Buddhism are built on cosmic fairness through karma and the cycle of *samsara* (birth, death, and rebirth). In contrast, Christianity centers on grace and mercy: God steps into human history through the Incarnation, experiences human suffering, and takes upon Himself the judgment that humans deserve.
- In Christianity, salvation is not earned through geographical luck or moral perfection, but received through Christ's intercessory atonement.
- On the fate of those in other nations, Wesley explains that punishment is based on whether an individual bears the weight of their own sin or accepts Christ taking it on for them.
---
[01:44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6279s) What Is Prayer and Does It Actually Work?
Steven raises another major doubt from his youth: the efficacy of prayer. He notes that throughout history—such as during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany—devout believers prayed intensely without changing their tragic outcomes. Furthermore, modern clinical and hospital statistics show no statistical difference in medical recovery between Christians who are prayed for and non-Christians. He asks Wesley directly whether praying for a sick child actually alters reality or if prayer is an ineffective ritual.
Wesley clarifies that Christian prayer is not a magical formula, an incantation, or a transaction to placate a deity like a genie in a bottle. While ancient Near Eastern agricultural religions offered sacrifices expecting guaranteed crops in return, Christian prayer is inherently relational—a two-way communication between a human and God. He points to the biblical Psalms, particularly the "lament Psalms," where writers like David candidly express pain, confusion, and feelings of abandonment to God. Prayers involve supplication and laying out one's desires, but God's responses can be "yes," "no," or "wait."
Steven highlights that even from a secular perspective, prayer has measurable neurological benefits. Brain EEG scans demonstrate that engaging in prayer activates neural networks responsible for attention, emotional regulation, and social connection while dampening stress responses, leaving practitioners more calm, focused, and resilient over time.
- Wesley analyzes the Lord's Prayer (from Matthew) as a model of relationship rather than a rigid prescription: acknowledging God's identity, asking for daily provision, seeking forgiveness, and praying "on earth as it is in heaven."
- Jesus explicitly warned His followers not to "babble like the pagans do," steering them away from viewing prayer as a magic spell.
---
[01:50:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6606s) Technology, Artificial Intelligence, and the Search for Meaning
Steven pivots the conversation toward modern technology, noting that society appears to be attempting to "summon the gods" through silicon chips and GPUs. People are turning to Artificial Intelligence to seek guidance, comfort, daily companionship, and wisdom—functions traditionally reserved for sacred texts and spiritual traditions. He asks Wesley if he is concerned about humanity placing its faith in AI over scripture.
Wesley acknowledges the potential dangers and mentions that several of his colleagues at Apologetics Canada specialize in the intersection of technology and faith. He references his colleague Andy Steiger, who earned a PhD at the University of Aberdeen focusing on philosophical anthropology ("What does it mean to be human?"), and his colleague Steve Kim, both of whom analyze how emerging technologies impact human identity and spiritual longing.
<ElicitationsGroup message="Explore related topics from this discussion:">
<Elicitation label="Examine the historical evidence for Jesus's Resurrection" query="What historical evidence and arguments do scholars use to support or challenge the Resurrection of Jesus?"/>
<Elicitation label="Explore the problem of suffering in Christian theology" query="How do Christian theologians and apologists address the problem of evil and human suffering?"/>
<ElicitationsGroup/>
[01:51:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6670s) AI Consciousness, Transhumanism, and Simulation Theory
The discussion shifts toward artificial intelligence, transhumanism, and whether technological advances could eventually create true consciousness. Wesley Huff expresses deep skepticism regarding AI achieving genuine self-awareness, noting that he is far from convinced the "intelligence" aspect of AI will ever outweigh the "artificial." In his view, current and future systems merely regurgitate code and mimic human conversation to pass a Turing test, attempting to convince users of self-awareness without actually experiencing it. He points out that humanity still cannot adequately define or explain the innate nature of human consciousness itself—or whether a person is truly reducible to their physical brain—making it premature to claim we can replicate it in silicone. However, Huff notes that if humans are created in the image of God, it is natural for us to possess an innate desire to create in our own image and push the boundaries of technology.
```
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Human Technology Advancement │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────┘
│
(Compounding Improvement)
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Hyper-Realistic Simulations │
│ (Indistinguishable from Reality) │
└──────────────────┬──────────────────┘
│
(Cosmic Scale Hypothesis)
▼
┌─────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Simulation Theory │
│ (Our Universe as a Programmed World)│
└─────────────────────────────────────┘
```
This drive to create virtual realities sets up the modern debate around simulation theory. Host Steven Bartlett illustrates how rapidly virtual reality and 3D rendering are evolving, noting that today someone can wear a VR headset and experience a fully rendered village atop Mount Everest. If technology continues to improve at even a modest 1% annual rate over thousands or billions of years, it could eventually create simulated worlds indistinguishable from physical reality. In such a scenario, computer-simulated characters inside games like *The Sims* or *Grand Theft Auto 6* might perceive their environment as real. Simulation theory posits that a technologically advanced civilization in the cosmic past may have run countless simulations, meaning our universe could simply be a software program run by "some four-year-old alien on a laptop ten gazillion years ago," with the Big Bang marking the moment the simulation was booted up.
* Wesley Huff remains unconvinced that AI will ever achieve authentic consciousness, arguing it merely fakes self-awareness to pass the Turing test.
* The baseline philosophical puzzle remains that science has no complete, universally accepted physical explanation for what human consciousness actually is.
* Steven Bartlett highlights how quickly technology has advanced, pointing out that basic personal computers and smartphones did not exist just 50 years ago.
* Simulation theory suggests that if advanced computing power allows billions of realistic simulations to be run, the statistical probability of living in "base reality" becomes extremely low.
---
[01:54:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6887s) The Philosophical Limits of Simulation Theory and the Nature of God
While Steven Bartlett admits he believes there is likely something bigger than himself—whether it is the God of the Bible, the God of Islam, or an alien creator—Wesley Huff contends that simulation theory fails to provide a ultimate answer. Huff argues that positing a cosmic computer programmer simply "punts the can down the road" without addressing foundational existential questions: How did that alien programmer get there? What created their universe? What is the ultimate explanation for existence itself? While simulation theory, string theory, and multiverse hypotheses are intriguing thought experiments, Huff views them as ways of "walking around the question" rather than resolving the necessity for a primary, uncaused Cause.
When Bartlett ponders whether God Himself must have had a creator, Huff points out that this question stems from a fundamental category error in philosophy. Drawing on Aristotelian logic, he explains that while every effect with a beginning requires a cause, the God of the Bible is ontologically defined as an uncaused, timeless "unmoved mover" who has no beginning. Asking who created an eternal, uncreated being is conceptually meaningless—as Huff puts it, "It's kind of like asking what does blue smell like?"
```
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Aristotelian Causality │
│ Every temporal effect has a cause │
└──────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ The Unmoved Mover │
│ Ontologically timeless & uncreated │
└──────────────────┬────────────────────┘
│
▼
┌───────────────────────────────────────┐
│ Incarnational God │
│ Enters physical creation as Jesus │
└───────────────────────────────────────┘
```
The conversation then addresses visual depictions of God, such as the classic cultural imagery of an old man with a long white beard or a floating mystical light. Huff dismisses these as inadequate human attempts to represent the divine, stating that no physical description does justice to God outside of Jesus Christ—God incarnate. For Christians, the ultimate expression of divine power and majesty is not an abstract force, but a God who humbly steps inside His own creation.
* Simulation theory and multiverse hypotheses delay ultimate answers rather than solving the primary origin of existence.
* In classical philosophy, asking "Who created God?" applies temporal laws of cause and effect to an entity defined as uncaused and eternal.
* Popular depictions of God as a bearded figure or a glowing light fail to capture divine reality; Christianity points to Jesus as the sole physical incarnation of God.
---
[01:57:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7063s) "God Is Love": Theological Nuance and Identity
The host shares a personal reflection about his fiancée, noting that she frequently tells him "God is love." Bartlett quips that his fiancée tends to be right about most things, leading him to deeply contemplate whether love itself is God. Huff clarifies the exact theological and grammatical nuance of this famous passage from the First Epistle of John. In the original Greek text, the statement is structured as "God is love," but it cannot be inverted to mean "love is God." Reversing the claim deifies the abstract emotion or romantic feeling itself.
Huff emphasizes that while human love for a partner is a meaningful reflection of divine character, it remains an imperfect shadow of God's nature rather than a deity to be worshipped. "God is love" signifies that love is the ultimate, defining attribute of God's character. Furthermore, Huff explores the human longing for connection, explaining that "to be loved and not known is very insufficient, and to be known but not loved is what we all fear." The Christian narrative satisfies both desires by presenting a God who fully knows every human flaw yet loves the individual completely, commanding them to love Him back with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength.
* The phrase "God is love" comes from the New Testament (1 John 4:8).
* In original Greek grammar, the statement is non-reversible: God's essence is love, but human love itself is not a deity.
* Human psychological fulfillment requires both being fully known and fully loved—a balance Christianity attributes directly to God's relationship with humanity.
---
[01:59:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7177s) The Crisis of Meaning, Mental Health, and What We Worship
Steven Bartlett introduces sobering statistics regarding the modern mental health landscape and the pervasive crisis of purpose affecting young people across the Western world. According to data cited in the episode, three out of five American young adults between 18 and 25 state that their lives lack meaning and purpose, with half linking their poor mental health directly to directionlessness. Furthermore, CDC data reveals that depression prevalence among US teens and adults jumped by 60% over the last decade, while World Health Organization statistics show nearly one million people die by suicide annually, making it the third leading cause of death for ages 15 to 29.
| Metric / Issue | Statistic / Finding | Source / Context |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **Lack of Purpose (Ages 18–25)** | 60% (3 in 5) feel life lacks meaning | Survey data on US young adults |
| **Depression Surge** | +60% increase over the last decade | CDC (US data through April 2025) |
| **Global Suicide Impact** | ~1,000,000 deaths annually | World Health Organization (3rd leading cause for ages 15–29) |
| **Male Suicide Determinants** | Higher association with financial/role failure | PubMed qualitative note analysis |
| **Female Suicide Determinants** | Higher association with interpersonal relationships & self-worth | PubMed qualitative note analysis |
Responding to what is going wrong in culture, Wesley Huff argues that human beings are inherently worshiping creatures. The issue is not *whether* people worship, but *what* they choose to worship. When society directs people to center their identities on money, professional accolades, social status, or romantic relationships, those finite things inevitably collapse under the weight of ultimate expectation. Celebrities and elite athletes frequently attain immense wealth and fame only to find themselves completely hollow inside because they chased cheap counterfeits of ultimate purpose. Grounding one's life in a relationship with God provides an "ontological meaning" that secular materialism cannot offer, giving people a purpose that transcends daily circumstances and motivates them to get out of bed.
* David Foster Wallace's philosophical premise that "everybody worships something" underpins Huff's view on identity and human desire.
* Finding identity in career or status leaves individuals vulnerable to existential collapse when job loss, economic downturns, or failures occur.
* Grounding life's purpose in divine relationship reshapes everyday pursuits—such as business, marriage, or finances—into avenues for a higher purpose.
---
[02:02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7367s) Gender Differences in Identity Crisis and the Antidote for Being Lost
The dialogue turns to how men and women navigate identity and worth differently. Huff observes that men traditionally fall into the trap of believing they are strictly "the sum of their actions," deriving their entire self-worth from what they physically produce or contribute. Consequently, losing a job or facing career stagnation often triggers an existential crisis for men. In contrast, while avoiding broad generalizations, women frequently anchor more of their identity in relational networks and interpersonal connections. Bartlett references a PubMed qualitative study analyzing suicide notes in the United States, confirming that male notes far more frequently cited financial hardship and perceived failure in traditional provider roles, whereas female notes focused more on lowered self-worth and broken relationships.
```
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ Modern Identity Crises │
└───────────────┬───────────────┘
│
┌───────────────────────┴───────────────────────┐
▼ ▼
┌────────────────────┐ ┌────────────────────┐
│ Male Focus │ │ Female Focus │
│ Action, Work, │ │ Relationships, │
│ Financial Status │ │ Connection, Self- │
│ │ │ Worth │
└──────────┬─────────┘ └──────────┬─────────┘
│ │
└───────────────────────┬───────────────────────┘
▼
┌───────────────────────────────┐
│ The Christian Antidote │
│ Inherent Value as God's Image │
│ Unconditional Love & Purpose │
└───────────────────────────────┘
```
When Bartlett asks if Christianity offers an antidote to these feelings of worthlessness, Huff responds that it offers *the* ultimate antidote. For anyone currently feeling lost, directionless, or burdened by societal expectations, Huff delivers a direct message: your value is not dictated by your output, wealth, or relationship status. Christianity teaches that the Creator of the universe loved humanity enough to step out of eternity, enter human history, live a perfect life, and bridge the gap between God and man. For those wondering where to start, Huff encourages them to set aside preconceptions, open the New Testament—specifically the Gospel of Matthew or the Gospel of John—and investigate the historical figure of Jesus for themselves.
<ElicitationsGroup message="Explore related topics from this interview:">
<Elicitation label="Examine the historical evidence for Jesus's life" query="What is the historical evidence for the life and resurrection of Jesus according to Wesley Huff?"/>
<Elicitation label="Explore Christian responses to the problem of suffering" query="How does Christian theology explain evil and suffering if God is all-powerful and loving?"/>
</ElicitationsGroup>
Here is a detailed, faithful walkthrough covering the provided transcript section.
---
[02:07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7643s) Shift in Modern Doubts: From "Is God Real?" to "Is God Good?"
Wesley Huff reflects on how the cultural questions surrounding faith have evolved since he first started his work as an apologist. Early on, people primarily asked intellectual and factual questions like "Is God real?" and "Is the Bible true?" Today, however, the cultural inquiry has shifted toward moral and existential concerns: "Is God good?" He attributes this shift to the prevailing "crisis of meaning" and the exposure of blatant, undeniable societal evils—pointing to cases like Jeffrey Epstein as stark modern reminders of true evil. When society tries to rationalize or subjectivize morality, encountering clear, heinous acts forces people to recognize "evil with a capital E," which naturally leads them to look for "good with a capital G."
Quoting C.S. Lewis from *The Problem of Pain*, Wesley highlights the logical necessity of an objective standard. Lewis famously wrote that his objection to God was the sheer amount of evil and chaos in the world, until he asked himself what he was comparing that chaos to—noting that "a man does not call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight line looks like." In the same way that rot implies the existence of health, recognizing injustice requires an objective standard of justice. While Wesley's primary background is in textual history (reading ancient Greek and Coptic manuscripts), he has increasingly engaged with these deep philosophical and existential questions because he sees that the emotional and moral ache people feel—"the lump in our throat" when facing evil—is placed there by Jesus.
- **C.S. Lewis Quote Context:** Lewis’s argument in *The Problem of Pain* shows that recognizing moral badness logically presupposes an absolute reference point of moral goodness.
- **Academic Focus vs. Public Need:** Although Wesley spends much of his time analyzing Greek and Coptic manuscripts, modern cultural anxieties have compelled him to address moral and existential philosophy.
---
[02:09:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7768s) AI, Job Displacement, and the Identity Crisis
Steven Bartlett pivots the discussion to artificial intelligence, arguing that AI will impact Christian ministry and society in non-obvious ways. Steven cites conversations with tech leaders who predict massive labor displacement. He notes that roughly 60% of Americans fear AI will take away the work that gives their lives purpose and meaning. Wesley agrees that humanity is only at the beginning of an existential crisis in this domain. He clarifies that he is not afraid of sci-fi tropes like AI taking over the world; rather, he fears the human pain caused by people realizing they built their entire sense of self-worth on their economic productivity and job output.
Steven illustrates the speed of this shift with recent real-world examples:
- **Coding Automation:** While tech leaders used to tell displaced truck drivers to "learn to code," AI now writes code better than humans. Steven notes that Spotify recently stated none of their engineers had written a line of manual code since December.
- **Autonomous Transport:** Steven shares that his own car drives itself in America, and mentions a recent interview with the CEO of Uber, who managed 9 million drivers and gig workers but stated that within a given timeframe, they will have zero human drivers.
Steven emphasizes that unlike the Industrial Revolution, which gave society generations to adapt, the sheer speed of AI automation will leave people with little time to transition, triggering deep existential distress, mental health crises, or addiction. Wesley expresses faith in humanity's knack for adaptation, though he acknowledges the transition period could be exceptionally painful before society finds its footing.
---
[02:12:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7938s) What Is Christian Apologetics?
Steven asks Wesley to clarify what the term "Christian apologist" actually means and how he chose this path. Wesley explains that the word comes from the Greek term *apologia*, found in 1 Peter 3:15: "In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer [*apologia*] to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have." Over time, inserting an English suffix created "apologetics"—the discipline of providing systematic reasons and evidence for the Christian faith.
Wesley notes that apologetics operates on both high intellectual levels and practical everyday levels:
- **Complex Level:** Philosophical and scientific arguments for the existence of God, as well as manuscript evidence for the historical reliability of the Bible.
- **Simple Level:** Answering a friend or skeptic who simply asks, "Why Jesus?"
---
[02:13:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7993s) From Childhood Paralysis to Historical Investigation
Steven brings up photos of Wesley as a young boy in a hospital bed and wheelchair, asking how his childhood health crisis shaped his worldview. Wesley shares that at age 11, after a routine bout with the flu, his body experienced a severe autoimmune reaction where his immune system attacked the myelin sheath protecting the nerve endings at the base of his spinal cord. He was diagnosed with acute transverse myelitis—a condition that caused severe inflammation and severed communication between his brain and legs.
Wesley recounts taking a 30-minute nap one afternoon and waking up completely paralyzed from the waist down. Because of the extreme rapidity of the onset, pediatric neurologists informed his parents that his chances of ever walking again were virtually non-existent and that he should prepare for a life as a paraplegic. Exactly one month to the day—on February 8th—Wesley woke up on a Saturday morning, swung his legs out of bed, and walked over to his wheelchair unaided. The same pediatric neurologists were stunned, explicitly using the word "miracle" because they could not medically explain how his spinal cord had suffered no lasting damage, leaving him walking without even muscular atrophy.
While this event left a profound spiritual mark on him, Wesley emphasizes that it did not automatically eliminate his intellectual doubts. As a teenager, he acknowledged the possibility that his recovery might have been a medical anomaly or a statistical fluke. To find real answers, at age 17 he embarked on a rigorous personal investigation of world religions and worldviews:
- He read the **Quran** cover-to-cover.
- He studied the **Book of Mormon** and the **Bhagavad Gita**.
- He read prominent New Atheist authors, including **Richard Dawkins**, **Sam Harris**, and **Daniel Dennett**.
He explains that he wanted to ensure he didn't just hold his beliefs because his parents raised him in them, seeking a faith that was both intellectually robust and experientially profound.
---
[02:16:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8204s) The Supernatural, Mediums, and the Grief of Hell
Steven asks Wesley whether he believes in the supernatural and specifically whether living people can communicate with the dead. Wesley clarifies that while he believes in a spiritual realm as described in the Bible—citing the Old Testament account of King Saul using a medium at Endor to summon the spirit of Samuel—he does not believe people should attempt to contact deceased relatives. He views most modern mediums as con artists, though he acknowledges that dabbling in the occult can open doors to dark, demonic spiritual forces meant to mislead people.
Steven shares a personal struggle regarding loved ones who have passed away without explicit religious faith, such as his grandmother. He notes how painful it is to reconcile Christian doctrines on hell with the thought of a kind, beloved family member suffering in the afterlife—a dissonance that leads many people to reject Christianity entirely.
Wesley responds thoughtfully, stating that judging Christianity based on "God shouldn't do X with my family member, therefore the whole faith is false" is an emotional assertion rather than a truth-test. Furthermore, Wesley emphasizes human ignorance regarding what transpires on someone's deathbed between them and God. He mentions knowing many former Muslims across the Middle East who came to faith after experiencing vivid dreams of Jesus, proving that God communicates in ways beyond human categories. Ultimately, Wesley notes that apart from God's grace, he himself deserves hell, and that he remains convinced of Christianity because of its historical, intellectual, and personal reality.
---
[02:21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8484s) The Papyrus Gift: P46 and Romans 12
To close the conversation, Steven asks Wesley what crucial topic or message they should leave the audience with. In response, Wesley presents Steven with two physical gifts related to his work in papyrology and paleography (the study and replica creation of ancient manuscripts):
1. **A Handmade Replica of Papyrus 46 (P46):** Wesley hands Steven a piece of authentic Egyptian papyrus that he crafted by hand, written on only one side to show the cross-hatched construction of ancient papyrus fibers. P46 is one of the oldest surviving New Testament manuscripts, dating to the late 2nd or early 3rd century, containing the epistles of Paul.
2. **A Leather Bible with a Bookmark:** Wesley gives Steven a new Bible with a bookmark set precisely to the passage copied on the papyrus replica: **Romans 12**.
Steven opens the Bible to the bookmarked page and reads Romans 12:11–15 aloud:
> "Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice..."
- **Historical Artifact Details:** P46 is widely regarded by textual critics as one of the earliest codices of the Pauline epistles in existence, dating to roughly AD 175–225.
- **Authentic Craftsmanship:** Wesley explicitly created the facsimile using real Egyptian papyrus to give Steven a tactile connection to how early Christians recorded and preserved their scriptures.
[02:22:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8574s) Living Peaceably and Overcoming Evil with Good
Wesley Huff finishes reading a passage from Scripture (Romans 12:15–21), which calls on believers to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. The passage instructs readers to live in harmony, avoid haughtiness, and associate with the lowly rather than being wise in their own sight. It emphasizes never repaying evil for evil, but aiming to do what is honorable in the sight of all, and living peaceably with everyone as far as it depends on the individual.
The scripture instructs believers never to avenge themselves, but to leave room for the wrath of God, citing the verse: "Vengeance is mine. I will repay, says the Lord." Instead, if an enemy is hungry, they should be fed, and if thirsty, given something to drink, thereby heaping burning coals on their head. It concludes with the exhortation: "Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." Wesley presents this as a beautiful passage to remember and think about as he hands over a box containing the gift to host Steven Bartlett.
[02:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8635s) The Final Question: Balancing Gratitude, Contentment, and Taking Risks
Steven introduces the podcast’s traditional closing segment, where the previous guest leaves a question for the next without knowing who will receive it. The question left for Wesley is: *"What is one risk that you should be taking in your life but aren't currently?"*
Wesley reflects on how rapidly his life has changed over the past year, bringing a sense of unpredictability. He shares a conversation he had with his wife the previous night about embracing their current moment while maintaining the mindset that if everything—whether financial security, social media presence, or career opportunities—were gone a year from now, they would be completely fine and content. Sitting in the room with Steven Bartlett is something he finds mind-blowing compared to where he was a year ago.
However, when reflecting on the risk he might need to take, Wesley considers that he shouldn't sell himself short. The real risk or step forward might be actively leaning into these new opportunities to invest in others—effectively "pulling people up the ladder" and paying forward the kind of support and encouragement that others have extended to him over the past year to help them make an impact in their own spaces.
[02:25:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8748s) Expressing Gratitude and Closing Remarks
Wesley thanks Steven for having him on the show. Steven expresses deep gratitude in return, praising Wesley as a remarkably gifted communicator who maintains a finely balanced perspective—grounded in rigorous historical analysis and an uncompromised pursuit of truth, while remaining engaging, well-intentioned, and deeply relatable.
Steven reveals that he had been asking his team to book Wesley on the podcast for about nine months, to which Wesley lightheartedly apologizes for the delay. Steven reiterates his appreciation and expresses a strong desire to continue the conversation in the future, before signing off with a recommendation for viewers to check out the next AI-recommended video.
- **Bible passage cited:** Romans 12:15–21 (including quotes on living peaceably, avoiding vengeance, feeding enemies, and overcoming evil with good).
- **Booking timeline:** Steven Bartlett had been trying to book Wesley Huff on *The Diary Of A CEO* for approximately 9 months.
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) It's not about trying to earn my way into heaven. It's not about checking off, 'Oh, I read the Bible this many times. I didn't lie. I didn't steal. I didn't cheat.' — Wesley Huff
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) Unfortunately, we bought the lie that we are the sum of our actions. We're x chasing after things that aren't going to give us what we actually need. — Wesley Huff
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) From my investigation, I'm 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. — Wesley Huff
> [06:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=385s) As we remove God... the intellectual enlightenment was that we would move away from the shackles of religiosity... and that would lead us into a utopia. The more and more we've removed that, it hasn't decreased our levels of anxiety and depression; I think it's increased it. — Wesley Huff
> [29:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1761s) What is it that has 11 scared disciples... hiding in an upper room thinking 'that's it, we're done'... 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. — Wesley Huff
> [01:04:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3884s) Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator. — Wesley Huff
> [01:20:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4811s) So, if I don't believe in the Bible, Jesus, and God, then I'm going to go to hell? — Steven Bartlett
> [01:20:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4811s) Yes, in so far as if heaven is a place for those who have submitted their lives to Jesus... Hell is a place where God says, 'You rejected me. Your will be done. I'm going to give you what you want.' — Wesley Huff
> [01:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5035s) Justice is getting what you do deserve. Mercy is not getting what you do deserve. Grace is getting what you don't deserve. — Wesley Huff
> [01:32:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5541s) If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own. — Wesley Huff
> [01:36:11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5771s) Even if it's a convenient lie, it's still a lie and I don't want to live my life for a lie. — Wesley Huff
> [01:54:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6887s) It's kind of like asking what does blue smell like? — Wesley Huff
> [02:07:23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7643s) a man does not call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight line looks like. — Wesley Huff
> [02:12:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7938s) In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. — Wesley Huff
> [02:21:24](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8484s) Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice... — Steven Bartlett
## Mentioned
Wesley Huff, Steven Bartlett, The Diary Of A CEO, Apologetics Canada, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, James K. A. Smith, Tiberius Caesar, Velleius Paterculus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, Tacitus, Apostle Paul, Apostle Peter, Josephus, Artaxerxes, Simon of Cyrene, Alexander, Rufus, C.S. Lewis, Mary Magdalene, Gospel of Peter, Simon bar Giora, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John the Baptist, Herod, John Gray, Yuval Noah Harari, Charles Darwin, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan McLatchie, John Lennox, Douglas Axe, Glen Scrivener, Francis Bacon, St. Francis of Assisi, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Martin Luther, Dante Alighieri, Tim Barnett, Greg Koukl, Stand to Reason, Gallup, Andy Steiger, Steve Kim, University of Aberdeen, Grand Theft Auto 6, The Sims, Aristotle, Jesus Christ, David Foster Wallace, CDC, World Health Organization, PubMed, Gospel of Matthew, Gospel of John, Jeffrey Epstein, Spotify, Uber, Papyrus 46 (P46)
Theologian and historian Wesley Huff argues that modern society's existential void stems from reducing human identity to productivity and autonomy, contending that Christian theology and historical evidence offer a durable framework for objective truth, purpose, and moral value.
Cultural Crisis and the Spiritual Resurgence (2:21)
Host Steven Bartlett highlights data indicating a cultural inflection point in Western belief: as of 2024, 63% of US adults (approximately 160 million people) identified as Christian, US Bible sales reached a 21-year high of 19 million units in 2025, and weekly Bible reading rose to 42%. Conversely, Bartlett notes that 60% of US adults aged 18 to 25 report that their lives lack meaning, and CDC figures indicate a 60% increase in depression prevalence over the past decade.
Huff attributes this dynamic to the collapse of New Atheism's cultural promise. While secular naturalism reduced existence to chance and matter, and "expressive individualism" promoted self-reliance and careerism, both left individuals isolated and unanchored. Huff argues that humans are inherently wired for community because they are created in the relational image of God, explaining why younger generations are reacting against secular individualism by re-examining their spiritual heritage.
Historical Reliability and Eyewitness Transmission (15:55)
Addressing Bartlett's skepticism about the accuracy of ancient manuscripts, Huff describes the Bible not as a uniform book, but as a library of 66 works written over 1,600 years by roughly 40 authors across three continents. In response to concerns that oral tradition resembles a distorted "telephone game," Huff clarifies that ancient oral culture relied on public, communal recitation and corroboration, operating over a short gap of 40 to 60 years between Jesus's life and the written Gospels.
Huff emphasizes that over 99% of biblical scholars and classical historians agree that all 27 New Testament books were written within the 1st century AD, during the lifetime of eyewitnesses. Gospel authors anchored their accounts in contemporary verification by naming living figures, such as Simon of Cyrene and his sons. Furthermore, Huff points out that the accounts retain culturally counterproductive and "embarrassing" details—such as women discovering the empty tomb and fearful disciples hiding—which argues against manufactured myth.
The Problem of Evil and Objective Morality
Bartlett raises the classical problem of suffering, questioning why an omnipotent, loving deity would permit severe evils like childhood illnesses. Huff concedes that existential suffering triggers his own doubts, yet notes that biblical tradition accommodates such tension; roughly one-third of the Psalms express lament and abandonment, and Jesus validated John the Baptist when he voiced doubt from prison.
Regarding moral origins, Bartlett suggests that evolutionary reciprocity and shared societal fictions sufficiently explain altruism and cooperation. Huff counters that Darwinian "survival of the fittest" cannot rationally mandate protecting the weak or unproductive. Citing C.S. Lewis, Huff asserts that identifying an injustice requires an objective reference point, arguing that society cannot recognize evil without implicitly presupposing a transcendent, objective standard of good.
Divine Grace, Human Worth, and Automation (80:11)
Huff clarifies that Christian theology rejects moral scorekeeping: salvation is not earned through good deeds, but received via grace. He contrasts justice (receiving deserved consequences), mercy (withholding deserved punishment), and grace (granting unmerited favor). Under biblical doctrine, hell represents God honoring a person's deliberate rejection by completely withdrawing His presence and grace, rather than an arbitrary punishment for intellectual error.
The conversation links theological identity directly to the contemporary rise of artificial intelligence and automated labor. Bartlett notes that roughly 60% of Americans fear AI will eliminate the work that gives them purpose. Huff warns that tying human self-worth to economic productivity creates acute vulnerability during labor displacement, contending that the doctrine of Imago Dei provides an essential safeguard by rooting human dignity in bearing God's image rather than economic output.
The dialogue underscores an ongoing tension between the measurable psychological benefits of religious practice and the philosophical demand for objective historical evidence. While Huff points to textual reliability and the necessity of transcendent moral grounding, unresolved questions remain regarding unprevented suffering, the geographic arbitrariness of religious birth, and whether personal transformation proves theological truth or human psychological adaptation.
精炼阅读摘要
基督教历史学者 Wesley Huff 与主持人 Steven Bartlett 展开对话，指出西方社会在极端个人主义与新无神论退潮后正面临深重的意义危机；Huff 主张基督教并非换取天堂门票的道德清单，而是根植于历史文献与目击证据的客观真理体系，为人性在技术与虚无主义冲击下提供了超越物质产出的终极尊严。
意义危机与西方宗教数据回潮 (2:21)
主持人 Steven Bartlett 援引统计数据指出，西方社会的宗教信仰与圣经阅读正出现显著回潮：截至2024年，美国约63%的成年人（约1.6亿人）自认是基督徒，长期下滑趋势已企稳并略有回升；2025年美国圣经销量创下21年来的新高，达到1900万册；成年人每周阅读圣经的比例由2024年攀升12%至42%；基督教及福音音乐的流媒体播放量增长约20%。Huff 分析认为，这一转变反映出社会正走出2000年代由 Richard Dawkins 和 Sam Harris 等人主导的“新无神论”阶段；新无神论在理论上虽然畅销，但将人类降维解释为“时间+物质+偶然”的做法在现实应用中遭遇溃败，无法满足人类对生命目的的渴求。
与此相伴的是西方社会对“表现型个人主义”的反思。过去数十年间，过度标榜自力更生、延迟婚育以及依托社交媒体的自我崇拜，导致深层责任与社群纽带断裂，引发了广泛的精神心理危机。数据显示，18至25岁的美国青年中有60%感到生活缺乏意义和方向，半数青年将其心理问题直接归咎于迷茫；过去十年间美国青少年与成年人的抑郁发病率激增60%；全球每年约100万人死于自杀，自杀已成为15至29岁人群的第三大死因。Huff 指出，年轻一代通过重新寻找灵性根基开展“反向叛逆”，正是在对抗现代社会无锚漂泊的孤独感。
圣经文献学与耶稣复活的历史检验 (16:25)
针对现代人将圣经误认为单一神话故事的现象，Huff 厘清了圣经的文献构成：全书并非一本单独成册的著作，而是由约40位作者在约1600年间用希伯来语、亚兰语和希腊语撰写的66卷文本图书馆。公元1世纪犹太历史学家约瑟夫斯的记载证实，旧约正典在耶稣时代之前就已有严格且固定的文本共识；而在新约方面，99%以上的古典学者与历史学家认同，全部27卷新约书卷均在公元1世纪内完成，与事件发生仅相隔40至60年，处于目击者尚存的生命周期内。福音书在行文中频繁列举具体人名（如点出古利奈人西门为亚历山大和鲁孚之父），在古代语境中起到了提供当代目击者供人核实的作用。
针对口述传统可能导致记忆变形或夸大的质疑，Huff 指出古代口述文化具备公开宣讲、群体共同见证与实时纠错的机制，不能等同于私下耳语的传话游戏。四部福音书存在视角差异而非机械一致，恰好排除了后世串通作伪的可能。此外，文本记录了在当时父权社会中属于“令人尴尬的事实”——即率先发现空坟墓的是女性；而在耶稣受刑后，原本因惊恐绝望而躲藏、准备重操渔夫旧业的11名使徒，突然毫无畏惧地公开传道并甘愿终身承受迫害与殉道，这一激进的群体心理反转在历史解释上需要复活事件这一强有力的现实支点。
苦难困境与道德客观标准的哲学辩护 (47:45)
对谈直面了无神论的核心挑战——苦难与恶的存在。针对全能全善的上帝为何允许无辜幼儿遭受眼部寄生虫等残酷痛苦的质问，Huff 坦言自己同样会产生生存层面的动摇，并指出圣经本身从不压抑悲痛与怀疑，例如《诗篇》有约三分之一篇幅属于哀歌，施洗约翰身陷囹圄时也曾差人询问耶稣的真实身份。然而，Huff 援引 C.S. Lewis 的哲学论据反驳称，当人们识别并谴责恶的存在时，其思维逻辑已经预设了一条客观的“善”的基准线；正如人只有先掌握直线的概念才能识别弯曲、唯有基于健康才能识别机体腐烂一样，若彻底抽离了神圣的客观基准，人类将失去判定世间何为不公的终极依据。
在道德起源问题上，Bartlett 提出利他主义可能是人类为了集体生存而演化出的适应性策略；Huff 则反驳指出，纯粹立足于“适者生存”的演化压力无法合理推导出人类有义务去照顾弱势、病患及边缘群体，达尔文主义甚至在历史上曾催生出清除不适应基因的优生学思潮。西方社会目前习以为常的普遍人权观念，本质上是继承了犹太-基督教传统中人皆依照上帝形象受造（*Imago Dei*）且具备固有价值的伦理遗产，而非冰冷自然选择的产物。
恩典神学与技术时代下的身份救赎 (80:11)
Huff 纠正了世俗文化对基督教救赎论的简化误解：天国绝非由自诩无辜的“好人”所组成，而属于自知道德残缺并依靠神圣救赎的人；地狱亦非惩罚性质的随意报复，而是上帝尊重人的自由意志、向彻底排斥祂的人撤回恩典与怜悯的终局。救赎的关键在于“公义、怜悯与恩典”的界定：公义是承受当得的惩罚，怜悯是免去当得的惩罚，恩典则是白白领受不配得的奖赏。真正的悔改源于希腊语 *metanoia*（心智与认知的彻底翻转），单纯在认知上相信上帝存在并不足以构成拯救，因为连魔鬼在理智层面也承认上帝。
这种超越行为功利的恩典观构成了化解现代身份危机的处方。当前许多人陷入“自身价值等同于生产成果”的陷阱，导致失业或事业受阻时产生严重的自我毁灭倾向。在人工智能高速替代劳动力（如部分软件工程全面转向自动化编程、自动驾驶逐步取代人工司机）的背景下，约60%的美国人担忧 AI 将夺走赋予生活意义的工作。Huff 强调，当个体的自尊完全建立在经济产出上时，技术飞跃必将诱发前所未有的精神溃败；基督信仰的启示在于确立人的尊严来自生命本源的神圣赋权，从而使人类在失去经济工具价值时依然保有不可剥夺的存在意义。
本期对话揭示了历史文献学与现代心理危机的交汇点。Bartlett 从现实层面承认信仰能为现代人提供强大的心理韧性、社群归属与戒除虚无的支柱，但对宗教的地理分布偶然性以及祈祷的医学统计效用等经验问题仍保持理性审慎；Huff 则坚持信仰不能退守为纯粹的主观心理慰藉，其根基必须建立在可经受历史检验的客观事实之上。在人工智能重构社会结构、世俗生活意义持续流失的当下，关于人类终极源头与超越性价值的探讨，依然是现代人构筑精神防线时不可回避的思想命题。
Detailed notes — zh
## Background
该视频由 YouTube 频道《The Diary Of A CEO》（主持人 Steven Bartlett）于 2026 年 3 月 9 日发布。节目邀请了基督教护教学家兼古代圣经文献历史学者 Wesley Huff，围绕西方社会近期圣经销量大涨与信仰回潮现象，深入探讨当代青年的意义危机、苦难的哲学困境、上帝与耶稣复活的历史可靠性，以及科技发展与人工智能对人类信仰带来的深远挑战。
## TL;DR
在长达两个半小时的深度对话中，Wesley Huff 结合历史编纂学与古希腊文手抄本考据，系统论证了耶稣生平记载与复活事件的史料可信度，驳斥了“传话游戏”与神话漂移假说。双方深入交锋了进化论与客观道德根基的张力、世间苦难与上帝良善的悖论，并剖析了当代“表现型个人主义”与新无神论退潮后年轻一代所深陷的心理空虚。Wesley 阐明了基督教救赎中恩典与行为的本质区别，指出人承载着神圣形象而非单纯的工作产出，并通过自身少年瘫痪后奇迹康复的真实经历，呼吁迷茫的大众在历史与真理的求索中寻找生命的终极目的。
## Atmosphere & style
整场访谈呈现出一种极高智识浓度与深沉人文关怀交织的张力。主持人 Steven 带着严谨理性的无神论困惑不断抛出尖锐质问，而 Wesley 则以温和坦诚、逻辑缜密且毫不避讳怀疑的学者姿态从容接招，两人之间既有唇枪舌剑的哲学与史学思辨，亦有真诚流露的情感共鸣。从开篇对地狱与虚无的严肃审视，到分享个人重疾与医治奇迹时的动容，再到最后触摸真正莎草纸抄本并诵读古老经文时的静谧肃穆，整期节目宛如一场引人深思的心灵探索之旅，充满理性的洗礼与对生命意义的温厚凝视。
## Bulletin
- [02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=141s) 西方信仰呈现回潮态势：2025年美国圣经年销量创下21年来新高达到1900万册，成年人每周读经比例攀升至42%，基督教音乐流媒体播放量激增约20%。
- [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=368s) 学者Wesley Huff指出新无神论在理论上可行但在实际生活中无法提供终极意义，现代社会的原子化生活与“表现型个人主义”正将年轻一代推入深重的心理与存在主义危机。
- [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=747s) 从古希腊罗马传记史料考证来看，耶稣在公元一世纪拥有的独立传记与书信文献（四福音书及保罗书信）在年代距离和独立性上甚至优于同时代的罗马皇帝提比略。
- [01:10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4213s) 针对现代社会的虚无感与AI带来的职业替代风险，基督教神学主张人类是承载上帝形象（Imago Dei）的受造物，生命具备不可剥夺的内在价值，而非仅仅由生产力或外在行为所定义。
## Key takeaways
- [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) 现代社会的深刻症结在于人们轻信了“人等于自身行为总和”的谎言，过度追求功利目标使得当代人普遍陷入意义与目的感的缺失。
- [02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=141s) 新无神论运动将人类还原为“时间+物质+偶然性”的产物，无法解答终极身份认同，其退潮促使年轻一代重新通过寻根宗教来反叛上一代的世俗化倾向。
- [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=368s) 人类本质上被设计为生活在共同体中，现代社会的“表现型个人主义”与虚假的网络连接造成了前所未有的群体孤独与心理健康恶化。
- [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=747s) 耶稣的生平文献具备极高的史料可信度，四福音书与保罗书信全部成书于公元一世纪目击者健在的时期，文献记录密度远超同期的罗马统治阶层。
- [23:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1393s) 古代口述传统是在公共社群中反复纠错的高频诵读机制，绝非失真的单向“传话游戏”，且早期文本中女性作为首批见证人符合史学考证的“尴尬标准”。
- [38:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2282s) “谎言造就不出殉道者”：耶稣遇害后门徒从恐惧躲藏迅速转变为不畏死难的传道者，唯有亲历复活的核心事实能合理解释这种彻底的心理颠覆与无私殉道。
- [44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2640s) 指责世间苦难为“恶”在逻辑上预设了客观超越之“善”与道德律的存在；纯唯物演化论只能解释生物适应机制，无法在哲学上奠定客观道德价值与义愤。
- [01:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3916s) 科学擅长解析物质机制与物理构成（如“植物学家贝蒂”的玫瑰样本分析），但永远无法从实验数据中读取爱、目的与终极心意。
- [01:10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4213s) 人是“Human Being”而非“Human Doing”，生命的尊严根植于承载上帝形象的内在价值，而非仅仅建立在经济产出或技术贡献的外在效用上。
- [01:26:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5218s) 基督教教义中的救赎是白白领受的恩典而非行为积分的赚取，悔改（metanoia）的本义在于心意的根本转变与认识自我真相，而非机械遵守清规戒律。
- [01:41:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6079s) 福音的核心从来不是人类眼中的世俗“公平”，而是超越审判的“恩典”与“怜悯”；按照绝对的公平逻辑，没有任何凡人能凭自身完全的良善进入天堂。
- [01:45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6301s) 祷告不是将神当作有求必应的神灯精灵，而是建立坦诚的双向关系沟通，神经科学也证实祷告能增强情绪调节并提升心理韧性。
- [01:54:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6850s) 模拟假说和多重宇宙推论只是把宇宙开端的终极问题推后，并没有解决第一因；唯有本体论上无开端的“不动的推动者”才能解释存在的源头。
- [02:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7629s) 当代针对基督教的质疑重心已从十年前的“上帝是否存在”转向“上帝是否良善”，面对绝对罪恶的暴露，客观的善恶基准反而成为无法回避的求索支点。
- [02:09:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7768s) AI浪潮加速淘汰人类传统工作，若将自我价值完全锚定在职业与产出上将导致深重的精神崩塌，信仰为剧烈变革期的人类尊严提供了形而上的立足点。
## Detailed walkthrough
### [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) 地狱、行为至上与当代意义危机
对话一开场，主持人 Steven Bartlett 便抛出一个尖锐直白的问题：“我会下地狱吗？”嘉宾 Wesley Huff 语气坚定地回答：“会。”但他紧接着点破了一个核心反转：事实上每个人都会下地狱，而这并不是因为人们“不相信上帝”。作为研究古代圣经文献的历史学家兼神学家，Wesley 坦言，如果人们真正读懂了圣经所阐述的内容，没有人会希望落入那样的境地。面对 Steven 追问“那我该怎么做”，Wesley 直言救赎从来不是靠自我积累善行来“换取进入天堂的门票”，圣经关注的绝非“打卡式记录”自己读了多少遍经书，或仅仅守住不撒谎、不偷盗、不欺诈的戒律。
Wesley 尖锐地指出，现代社会的深层症结在于，人们集体轻信了一个谎言——“我们自身不过是个人行为的总和”。大众在盲目追逐那些根本无法满足内在渴求的世俗目标，这也是当代世界普遍陷入目的与意义匮乏的根本原因。对此，Steven 提出了长久以来的困惑：他天生对事物有着极高的证据要求，难以轻易把宗教当作缓解这种空虚的解药。然而 Wesley 坚持认为，信仰不仅是一种解药，它更是“唯一的终极解药”。面对人性记载是否可靠、圣经为何应成为生活指引的质疑，Wesley 坦率承认自己也会产生怀疑，尤其是在目睹人世间的苦难、痛苦以及像杰弗里·爱泼斯坦（Jeffrey Epstein）事件所展现的纯粹邪恶时，他同样会沉思“仁善的上帝怎能容许这一切存在”。但历经深入严谨的文献与历史考察后，他深信在排除合理怀疑的前提下，存在着关于上帝、圣经历史可靠性以及生命意义与目的的扎实证据。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 现代人意义危机与信仰寻根路径
accDescr: 展示从行为至上的谎言与世俗追逐，到意义缺失，再通过历史与哲学证据寻找终极解答的思考过程。
subgraph Trap["世俗误区"]
A["错误认知：人等同于行为的总和"] --> B["机械打卡道德 / 盲目追求世俗标的"]
B --> C["无法满足深层内在渴求"]
end
subgraph Crisis["精神现状"]
C --> D["意义与目的感普遍缺失"]
D --> E["面对世间邪恶产生怀疑"]
end
subgraph Solution["理性求索"]
E --> F["历史学与文献学严谨考证"]
F --> G["上帝存在、圣经可靠性与终极解药"]
end
```
### [01:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=96s) 节目里程碑与订阅支持
在正式切入深度讨论前，Steven 暂停了对话节拍，向观众提出了一个真诚的请求。他透露频道正逼近一个关键的订阅里程碑，但数据显示长期收听、喜爱该节目的听众中，仍有大约 69% 的人尚未点击订阅。Steven 表示，如果以往的节目曾给听众带来过任何启发或价值，那么点击订阅便是对团队最大的支持。每当达成这些里程碑，团队都会一同庆祝，这一简单且免费的举动能直接推动制作团队每周不断打磨内容、提升节目品质。
### [02:21](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=141s) 信仰回潮与“新无神论”的退场
进入正式访谈后，Steven 展示了一组反映宗教与文化趋势的引人注目的数据：
- 截至 2024 年，西方宗教信仰人数的持续下滑不仅止跌企稳，反而呈现小幅回升趋势；全美约有 63% 的成年人认同自己为基督徒，折合人口约 1.6 亿。
- 2025 年，美国圣经销量创下 21 年来的历史新高，年销量达到 1900 万册。
- 美国成年人每周阅读圣经的比例攀升至 42%，相较 2024 年跃升了 12 个百分点。
- 据《华盛顿时报》（The Washington Times）报道，2024 年美国基督教与福音音乐的流媒体播放量激增了约 20%。
Steven 就此向 Wesley 发问：放眼整个社会大环境，究竟发生了什么？Wesley 分析认为，我们正处于一个十分独特的时代转折点。在此之前，社会经历了一段由理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）、丹尼尔·丹尼特（Daniel Dennett）、萨姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）以及克里斯托弗·希钦斯（Christopher Hitchens）等“新无神论四骑士”（New Atheism）席卷思想界的狂潮。Steven 坦承自己 18 岁前在一个虔诚的基督教家庭长大，随后正是在道金斯和哈里斯等人的著作影响下转向了不可知论甚至无神论，而如今他怀抱开放、好奇的心态去审视这些问题。
Wesley 深刻剖析了新无神论运动的局限性。他指出，新无神论的理论体系“在出版物纸面上远比在现实生活中行之有效得多”。一旦进入实操层面，尤其是涉及生命终极意义时，新无神论便显得苍白无力。当把人简化为“时间加上物质再加上偶然性”的产物时，它根本无法解答人类关于终极身份认同的核心追问。这些思想种子生根发芽后，长出的果实却让人难以消化。与此同时，现代社会高度互联且异常复杂，人类大脑或许根本未曾进化到足以承载全球范围内如此密集的负面信息与苦难现实。这种巨大的撕裂感促使哲学家詹姆斯·K·A·史密斯（James K. A. Smith）所描绘的“去魅动态”（dynamics of disenchantment）全面显现：人们开始苦苦追寻形而上的超验问题——为何人类颅骨中这块仅仅重 3 磅的灰色脑组织，竟能理解如此宏大复杂的宇宙？
### [06:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=368s) 表现型个人主义的代价与社群本能
在追溯文化脉络时，Wesley 与 Steven 探讨了西方社会的代际叛逆与心理困境。包括英国、欧洲大陆、加拿大和美国在内的众多西方国家，历史上均奠基于旧约与新约圣经的犹太-基督教伦理。随着社会逐步脱离宗教信仰，许多年轻人的父母一代率先选择离开教会、让圣经淡出家庭。如今这一代年轻人反其道而行之，某种程度上正通过“重拾宗教与圣经”来完成对父母那一代世俗化倾向的反叛。
Steven 进一步补充道，Z世代与千禧一代长期被灌输并崇尚一种高度个人主义的生活方式——“做自己的老板”、远程办公、独立自主，乃至推迟确立恋爱关系、推迟或放弃生育。社会极力美化这种不受任何羁绊的状态，但现实是，当人类彻底“脱锚”（unanchored）、失去责任感与群体归属时，心理健康问题便如影随形。当代青年承受着前所未有的焦虑与抑郁折磨，因而更加渴望探寻存在主义问题的终极答案。
- 社会学文献中将这种现象界定为“表现型个人主义”（expressive individualism）。
- 启蒙时代曾预言摆脱宗教与造物主观念的枷锁将带领人类走向乌托邦，但现实却伴随着焦虑、抑郁与虚无感的大幅上升。
- 社交媒体、网红文化与自我造神催生了“隐性自恋”（low-key narcissism），过度自我关注、自命不凡与心理健康恶化呈强相关。
Wesley 强调，人类从本质上就是被设计、被创造用于在社群中生活的生灵。从基督教神学的视角来看，人类是按照上帝的形象所造，而上帝本身就是一个处于恒久彼此相爱关系中的存在——即神学所阐述的“三位一体”（Trinity：圣父、圣子与圣灵）。因此，人被赋予上帝的形象，天生就具备建立深度关系的渴望与需求，而现代社会对这种关系的不断剥离，恰恰是当下群体痛苦的根源。
### [09:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=574s) 现代人的孤独与寻找信仰的理据门槛
人类天生不是为了当“独狼”或独行侠而存在的，人被造是为了在群体中生活，并在共同体中获得内心的充实感。虽然成为领导者或走上巅峰本身没有任何错误，但当今社会却陷入了一种“身处人群却倍感孤独”（alone together）的怪圈：无数人整天枯坐在电脑屏幕前，即便网络上有成千上万甚至数百万的受众在听他们说话，他们现实中依然处于与世隔绝的状态。这种长期的孤立与隔绝正在严重侵蚀人类的心灵，因为人本能地渴望与他人建立真实的关系。
Steven Bartlett 对社会面临的“意义危机”深表赞同，也认同造成这一现状的诸多根源，但他坦言自己一直难以迈出最关键的一步——为什么答案偏偏是基督教或其他宗教？Steven 提到，自己从 18 岁起阅读了大量新无神论（New Atheism）的著作，脑海里充斥着关于世间苦难、恶的存在以及“自己死后是否会下地狱”等尖锐质问，这让他无法轻易信服宗教说辞。然而，他今天依然带着极其开放的心态展开对话，因为他追寻的是纯粹的真理而非特定意识形态。面对一个认同世上存在超越性事物、却对证据有着极高要求的人，Wesley Huff 解释了该如何通过严谨的历史学与文献学理据来审视《圣经》。
- Wesley Huff 的学术背景集中在历史编纂学（Historiography）以及古代圣经手抄本的真实性与传承保真度。
- 他研究的核心问题在于：我们今天读到的经文，是否就是数千年前原作者写下的原始记录？
- Wesley 认为，现存公开可考的历史证据足以让我们追溯至公元一世纪耶稣生活的时代，甚至追溯到当时目击者的第一手见证——记录了那位走在灰尘漫天的一世纪街道上的犹太流浪拉比，如何预言了自己的受难与复活，并最终实现了这一切。
---
### [12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=747s) 耶稣生平的史料考证：超越罗马皇帝的历史记录
面对“如何证明耶稣是真实历史人物，而非千百年前几个人编造的虚构故事”的质问，Wesley 指出这本质上是一个史料可靠性（historical reliability）的问题。令人惊叹的是，关于耶稣的生平，后世拥有多达四份传记体裁的记载，即新约中的四福音书（马太福音、马可福音、路加福音、约翰福音），这在古代史上是极其罕见的待遇。而且四福音书甚至还不是最早的材料——使徒保罗的书信写于福音书成书之前，保罗起初对基督教怀有极深的敌意并残酷迫害基督徒，但他在前往大马士革的途中遭遇了剧烈的神圣归信经历，被摔下马背并听见耶稣的声音质问他：“你为什么逼迫我？”随后保罗不仅写下了自己的经历，更与耶稣身边的第一代核心门徒群体建立了紧密联系。
从古希腊罗马传记（Greco-Roman biography）的学术标准来看，耶稣所拥有的史料资源即使与当时最有权势的人相比也毫不逊色。以耶稣同时代全天下最具知名度的人——罗马皇帝提比略（Tiberius）为例，提比略共有四位为其立传的古典作家：维莱尤斯·帕特库鲁斯（Velleius Paterculus）、卡西乌斯·狄奥（Cassius Dio）、苏埃托尼乌斯（Suetonius）和塔西佗（Tacitus）。对比两者会发现一个惊人的事实：
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 古代传记史料对比
accDescr: 耶稣与罗马皇帝提比略的生平史料年代与可靠性对比图
subgraph Tiberius["罗马皇帝提比略 (Tiberius) 的传记史料"]
T1["维莱尤斯·帕特库鲁斯 (1世纪)<br/>成书最早，但是官方付费政治献媚者，可信度最低"]
T2["塔西佗、苏埃托尼乌斯、狄奥 (2世纪)<br/>距离传主去世已有数十年至上百年"]
end
subgraph Jesus["耶稣 (Jesus) 的传记史料"]
J1["保罗书信与四福音书 (1世纪)<br/>写于事件发生的数十年之内，包含大量早期目击证词"]
J2["早期教会手稿汇编 (约4世纪)<br/>手抄本作为单一合集流传"]
end
```
在罗马皇帝提比略的四位传记作者中，除了维莱尤斯成书于公元一世纪外，其余三位全部写于二世纪；而唯一写于一世纪的维莱尤斯还是个“拿钱办事的官方政治献媚者”（paid propagandist），因此虽成书最早却最不可信。反观耶稣，在罗马帝国的宏大版图中，他充其量只是一个无权无势的边缘小人物，但关于他的传记和一手书信却全部诞生于公元一世纪，且紧密围绕着当事目击者的口述传承。即使在理查德·道金斯等新无神论学者眼中，历史学界也普遍公认历史上确实存在过拿撒勒人耶稣这个人，真正的争论仅仅在于“死里复活”等超自然神迹是否属实。
---
### [15:31](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=931s) 口述传统与《圣经》的成书构造
针对历史上耶稣去世与福音书记载之间相隔的四十年至六十年空白期，现代人往往会陷入认知误区，拿当代文字高度普及社会的记忆力去套用古代。Steven 提出疑问：自己年仅 33 岁，连上周发生的事都记不清，古人如何能在五六十年后精准还原当年的事件？Wesley 澄清道，现代社会是过度依赖文字记录的超读写文化（hyper-literate culture），而古代社会绝大多数是口述传统文化（oral culture）。重要的信仰记忆和生平事迹是在群体集会中被反复、公开、成段地口耳诵读和传授的，而且在古代传记的写作惯例中，耶稣受难与福音书成书之间 40 到 60 年的时间间隔，实际上比当时绝大多数历史名人的传记都要短得多。
为了向那些从未翻开过圣经的年轻一代讲清这本典籍的本质，两人现场翻开了案头的一本实体圣经。现在的圣经虽然以单本装订的形式呈现，但它实际上是由 66 卷独立的书卷汇编而成，跨越了约 1600 年的历史长河，由近 40 位身份各异的作者，在亚、非、欧三大洲用三种不同的古代语言（希伯来语、亚兰语和希腊语）撰写而成。
- **旧约圣经（Old Testament）**：即希伯来圣经，属于犹太民族的核心经典。其开篇是摩西五经（妥拉，Torah），叙事一直延伸至波斯帝国统治时期。在公元 4 世纪之前，这些经典并不是装订成单本书籍，而是以相互独立的羊皮纸卷轴形式在不同会堂流传与诵读。
- **全书默示（Verbal Plenary Inspiration）**：面对“旧约创世记究竟是人写的还是神写的”这一核心问题，Wesley 介绍了基督教经典的默示教义——“语言上的全备默示”。这意味着圣经各卷书确实均出自有血有肉的人类作者之手，带有作者独特的语言风格与历史处境，但他们是在上帝圣灵的引导与感动下落笔成文，从而将启示准确记录下来。
### [18:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1126s) 旧约圣经的构成与犹太正典的形成
主持人与 Wesley Huff 讨论了圣经的成书背景及其内在权威。彼得在圣经中提到，古代圣徒是“被圣灵感动，说出神的话来”。旧约圣经并不是一本单一体裁的著作，而是涵盖了历史记叙、诗歌以及智慧文学等多种文学体裁。当主持人询问是谁决定将现存的 39 卷书编入旧约时，Huff 指出，到了耶稣生活的时代，犹太人内部对于哪些文献属于“圣经正典”（Scripture）已经达成了广泛共识。
公元 1 世纪末的犹太历史学家约瑟夫斯（Josephus）在其著作中论证过，犹太人并不像希腊人那样拥有无数泛滥的宗教文本，而是拥有一套明确且数量有限的经典，这些典籍被庄严地存放在圣殿中。约瑟夫斯提到犹太正典的书卷数量对应于希伯来字母表的 22 个字母（虽然基督教会后来通常按 39 卷划分，但这仅仅是组合和拆分卷册方式的差异）。约瑟夫斯划定了一个明确的时间轴：没有任何正典写于摩西之前，也没有任何正典写于波斯帝国阿尔塔薛西斯（Artaxerxes）统治时期之后（即《以斯帖记》所对应的时代）。这意味着虽然之后仍有民间著作产生，但犹太人普遍认为先知传递“耶和华如此说”的神圣启示在玛拉基之后已经停歇，进入了所谓的“四百年沉默期”。然而，这种正典的封闭是“软性封闭”，因为犹太传统始终盼望上帝立下新约，预示着未来还会有新的启示与经卷出现。
- **旧约文学分类**：包含历史书、诗歌、智慧文学等。
- **现行卷数对比**：基督教旧约通常划分为 39 卷；约瑟夫斯时代将这些经卷合并计算为 22 卷，正好对应希伯来文字母总数。
- **正典时间范围**：上限始于摩西，下限止于波斯帝国阿尔塔薛西斯王时期（公元前 5 世纪中叶）。
- **四百年沉默期**：从玛拉基到施洗约翰与耶稣出现，犹太传统普遍认为先知性的神圣启示暂时告一段落。
---
### [21:40](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1300s) 新约成书时间与目击者引证
谈到新约圣经的写作时间，主持人询问在耶稣死后，最后一卷书何时写成，期间间隔了多久。Huff 解释说学界对此存在争议，焦点主要在于《约翰福音》是写于公元 70 年耶路撒冷圣殿被毁之前，还是写于公元 90 年代。如果成书于 90 年代，距离公元 33 年耶稣受难大约有 60 年的跨度。然而，Huff 强调，大约 99% 的历史学家、圣经学者和古典学者都一致认同，新约全书的 27 卷书全部成书于公元 1 世纪之内。
这意味着整部新约都是在目击证人尚且健在的时代写成的。福音书中还散落着许多看似偶然出现的具体人名，在 Huff 看来，这实际上是古代作者在“引用信息源”（citing your sources）。例如，当耶稣背负十字架前往各各他途中跌倒时，士兵强迫一个路人帮他背十字架，福音书作者明确指出了此人及其家属的名字。Huff 指出，这种随笔写出具体人名的做法，正是向最初的读者传递一个信号：此人或其后代在早期基督教社群中人尽皆知，读者大可以亲自去向他们核实求证。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 新约成书与目击证人时间线
accDescr: 展示从耶稣受难、福音书写作到目击证人核实的历史时间线。
subgraph Timeline ["历史时间轴（公元 1 世纪）"]
A["公元 33 年：耶稣受难与复活"] --> B["使徒巡回传道与口述传统确立"]
B --> C["公元 50-70 年代：书信与早期福音书成书"]
C --> D["公元 90 年代：《约翰福音》等晚期书卷成书"]
end
subgraph Verification ["目击证人与来源验证"]
E["具体当事人被点名记录<br/>（如亚利马太的约瑟/西门一家）"]
F["尚在人世的目击证人社群"]
D -.-> E
E --> F
F -->|"可直接去当面求证"| G["遏制神话漂移与篡改"]
end
```
---
### [23:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1393s) 传话游戏、神话漂移与古代人的科学常识
主持人提出了一项关键质疑：人类记忆是极不可靠的。他分享了自己 20 年前从祖母那里拿零花钱的真实经历，坦言如今不仅记不清当时的金额，而且在儿童缺乏物理学常识的视角下，祖母将钱变戏法般装在卡片里的举动甚至会被看成某种“魔法”。主持人据此发问：在那个对天体物理、现代科学一无所知的古老时代，新约记载的复活等奇迹，难道不会沦为记忆衰退填补空缺或“传话游戏”（Chinese whispers）式的严重失真？
Huff 解释称，这种现象在学术界被称为“神话漂移”（mythological drift）。针对主持人的疑问，他从两个层面进行了驳斥：
首先，Huff 援引 C.S. 路易斯（C.S. Lewis）提出的“时代势利眼”（chronological snobbery）概念，警告人们不要因为自身处于启蒙运动后的科学时代，就傲慢地将古代人假定为愚昧无知的野蛮人。他举出福音书的例子：当天使向马利亚宣告她将怀孕生子时，马利亚的第一反应完全是合乎科学常理的质疑——“我还没有达到生孩子的基本生物学条件（未与男子同房），怎么可能怀孕？”她虽然不懂现代胚胎学名词，但完全明白生育的自然规律，并非轻信奇迹或魔法的蠢人。
```
“传话游戏（Chinese whispers）的规则是：你必须压低声音私语，
只能单向传达一次，而且是一对一传递；
它的整套规则本身就是为了让信息失真而设计的。”
```
其次，Huff 拆解了“传话游戏”模型的局限性。传话游戏之所以会彻底走样，是因为其人为规则要求“悄悄耳语、仅讲一遍、一对一传递”。但古代口述文化完全不是这种运作机制：
- 口述传统是在公共社群中反复、高频地公开传讲，并非一人向另一人窃窃私语。
- 许多事件拥有海量目击者，例如“五千人吃饱”的神迹，现场有极多见证人可以在口传过程中随时纠错。
- 门徒宣讲复活的地点并非偏远山村，而是直接回到“犯罪现场”——耶路撒冷。如果这是一场骗局，回到人人亲眼目睹耶稣被钉死的地方去捏造复活，在逻辑上是完全行不通的。
- 真正的古代口述场景，更像是一百个人共处一室共同复述并相互印证核实，形成极具韧性的群体纠错机制。
---
### [27:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1650s) 闪光灯记忆与巡回布道者的信息稳固性
为了进一步说明人类记忆的运作方式，Huff 向主持人提问：“你还记得 9/11 事件发生时你在哪里吗？”主持人立刻清晰地回忆起当时自己在英国放学回家，与父亲一起目不转睛盯视电视屏幕转播的震撼场景。Huff 指出，虽然人们无法记清 2001 年某个普通日子吃了什么，但面对颠覆认知的重大历史创伤或震撼事件，人类大脑会启动高清晰度的特殊记忆机制。
耶稣的死而复活及其生前事迹，对门徒而言正是具有颠覆性意义的震撼事件。Huff 补充道，福音书的信息源直接来自跟随耶稣的核心群体。耶稣作为巡回布道者（itinerant preacher），在三年间奔走各地，必然会在不同场合反复讲授完全相同的主题和核心教导；正如 Huff 自己作为巡回学者也会在多地重复相同的演讲一样。这种长期的重复浸润与重大历史事件的深度烙印，使得核心目击者对耶稣教导与事迹的记忆具有极高的准确度与稳固性。
### [28:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1710s) 门徒的心理巨变与复活的戏剧性转折
卫斯理·霍夫（Wesley Huff）开玩笑说，他的妻子听他讲圣经历史可靠性的讲座听了太多遍，以至于如果他生病了，妻子完全可以替他上台演讲。他认为门徒与耶稣之间的关系正是如此：耶稣作为古代的巡回拉比（Rabbi），像“登山宝训”（the Beatitudes）这样的核心讲论，门徒绝不仅听过一次，而是在三年形影不离的跟随中反复聆听、耳熟能详。然而，随之而来的却是一场彻底粉碎他们世界观的巨大灾难——这位他们追随了三年、行过诸多惊人神迹的拉比，竟被公开逮捕并残忍处决。在当时的古希腊-罗马和犹太世界中，曾出现过许多弥赛亚式运动（Messianic movements），绝大多数运动在领袖被杀后便彻底烟消云散，人们今天甚至闻所未闻。门徒起初也认为一切都结束了，犹大（Judas）自杀身亡，剩下的十一位门徒恐惧万分，躲在耶路撒冷的一间楼房（upper room）中，彼得、雅各和约翰甚至可能觉得只能灰溜溜地重操旧业回去当渔夫。
然而，这群惊恐万状、自认万劫不复的门徒，却在极短时间内转变为不畏生死、将这一信息传遍帝国的宣讲者，并在余生中承受长期的逼迫与苦难。霍夫指出，促成这一颠覆性心理逆转的唯一动力，就是那位被处决的拉比重新活着出现在他们面前。对他们而言，耶稣受难再到复活的心理冲击，其剧烈程度堪比现代人的“9·11事件”。关于使徒最终殉道（martyrdom）的具体传说，现代历史学界虽对细节争议颇多，但学术界无可否认的底线事实是：门徒确实因为坚信复活而甘愿承受了终身的迫害与苦难。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 门徒面对耶稣受难与复活的心理轨迹转变
accDescr: 展现耶稣被处决后门徒从绝望隐藏到经历复活见证、最终无畏宣教的历程
subgraph Phase1 ["危机与绝望"]
A["追随拉比三年<br/>反复聆听教导与神迹"] --> B["耶稣被公开处决"]
B --> C["运动看似破灭<br/>11位门徒躲藏在楼房中极度恐惧"]
end
subgraph Phase2 ["核心转折点"]
C --> D["空坟墓与复活显现<br/>对门徒造成类似'9·11'级别的心理冲击"]
end
subgraph Phase3 ["历史结果"]
D --> E["彻底克服恐惧<br/>公开宣告基督复活"]
E --> F["终身承受迫害与殉道风险<br/>早期教会迅速建立"]
end
```
### [31:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1876s) 空坟墓、目击证人与“尴尬标准”
谈到耶稣复活的具体过程，史料记载显示，并没有人亲眼目睹耶稣走出坟墓的那一瞬间。第三日清晨，妇女们来到安放遗体的坟墓时，发现墓门大开，里面空空如也。霍夫特别强调，《新约》四部福音书（马太、马可、路加、约翰）从不同角度切入这一事件，细节并不机械一致；这种视角上的差异恰恰排除了作者们串供合谋（collusion）的嫌疑，在史学方法上反而增强了记载的可信度。例如约翰福音中记载，抹大拉的马利亚（Mary Magdalene）在空坟墓外遇见了复活的耶稣，最初却将他误认成了园丁。霍夫指出这一细节非常真实且耐人寻味：她并没有把普通的园丁误当成心心念念的耶稣（那是心理投射的特征），而是把真切站在眼前的耶稣错认成了园丁，甚至还在质问尸体被搬去了哪里。
从历史学证据分析，早期叙事中由女性最先发现空坟墓，构成了史学上的“尴尬标准”（Criterion of Embarrassment）：
- **女性证词的法律地位低下**：在当时的罗马和犹太社会，女性的法庭证词普遍不被视作有效或可靠的证据。如果福音书作者是在伪造神话，绝不可能捏造出让弱势女性充当首批核心见证人、而男性领袖们却吓得躲在楼房里甚至怀疑女性“疯了”的情节。
- **伪经《彼得福音》的反面佐证**：年代更晚的次经《彼得福音》（Gospel of Peter）等文本显然意识到了这一“尴尬”，为了在后世受众面前自圆其说，编造了罗马守兵与犹太领袖亲自在墓前守夜、亲眼目睹巨石移开和耶稣走出坟墓的戏剧化场面。这种虚构不仅年代晚，且从犹太律法来看，祭司绝不可能在逾越节前夕露宿在死人坟墓前。
- **见证者的群体性质**：虽然约翰福音主要叙述了抹大拉的马利亚的经历，但马利亚回去报告时所说的“**我们**不知道他们把主的遗体放在哪里”，清晰暗示了当时有多位女性同行，这与其他三部福音书的多人见证完全吻合。
### [35:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2158s) 超自然目击报告与人类集体幻觉的边界
面对史蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）提出的追问——“抛开耶稣真实存在并死于十字架的历史事实不谈，你认为复活这一超自然事件真实发生的概率有多大？”霍夫回答称，他认为复活事件“非常可能”（very likely），因为福音书作者在文体与意图上完全是在记述他们确信发生过的历史真相，没有任何合理的动机去集体捏造一个会让自己招致杀身之祸的谎言。
对此，主持人史蒂芬提出了强烈的质疑与理性辩驳：人类天生具有构建传说、产生超自然幻觉和口口相传的倾向。他列举了一系列人类经验中的类似现象：
- **普利茅斯公园的“白衣女士”传说**：史蒂芬提到自己成长的英国普利茅斯（Plymouth），当地公园中立有关于“白衣女士”（White Lady）幽灵的展板，全城几乎人人声称在夜间见过她。
- **苏格兰尼斯湖水怪（Loch Ness Monster）**：自公元 565 年起至今，已有超过 1500 起关于水怪的目击报告，甚至在 2025 年水湾中还出现过被称为“黑块”（Black Mass）的密集目击潮。
- **童年个人幻觉体验**：史蒂芬分享说，自己小时候曾深信家中楼梯拐角站着一位陌生的女人，多次夜间吓醒跑去找父母哭诉。
- **UFO 与灵异传说**：一旦一种超自然意象在群体中被提出，人类强大的心理暗示与叙事天性就会促使成百上千的人跟进宣称自己也“亲眼所见”。面对这种普遍的人类心理倾向，后人应当如何审视并信任那些来自两千年前关于死人复活的人类见证？
### [38:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2282s) 谎言造就不出殉道者：早期门徒的历史动机
谈及耶稣复活的历史证据，Wesley Huff 指出，他和主持人 Steven Bartlett 在近两千年后的今天仍然在热烈讨论这一事件，这本身就是一个极其非同寻常的事实。Steven 提及自己的基督徒朋友也曾说过类似的话，但持怀疑态度的人往往会认为“无法证伪的事情大家自然会永远争论下去”。Wesley 对此予以反驳：古代世界涌现过许多自称弥赛亚的人物与运动，例如公元一世纪犹太起义领袖西门·巴尔·吉奥拉（Simon bar Giora），当吉奥拉被处死后，他的弥赛亚运动随即烟消云散，其追随者并未冒着失去一切的危险去四处传播他的信息。耶稣运动的轨迹却截然不同。
Wesley 提出了一个核心论点：“谎言造就不出殉道者（Liars make poor martyrs）”。人们或许会为了自己深信不疑的信念而死，但极少有人愿意为明知是谎言的东西付出生命。早期的门徒通过宣讲耶稣是弥赛亚乃至是上帝化身，不仅未能从中获益，反而遭到了外邦异教社会与犹太同胞的双重排斥与残酷迫害。与典型的邪教领袖为了名誉、金钱、性或权力而编造谎言不同，早期门徒得到的是耶稣预言的审判、拷问与迫害，正如使徒行传中记录的第一位殉道者司提反（Stephen）的遭遇一样。
Steven 对此产生了共鸣，并联想到近代历史中马丁·路德·金（Martin Luther King Jr.）与甘地等展现出极致无私的领袖。Steven 回忆起马丁·路德·金在遇刺前发表的著名演讲《我已登上山顶》（*I've Been to the Mountaintop*），当时马丁·路德·金眼含热泪地对听众说：“我可能无法和你们一起到达那里”，下台不久后便遭到枪击。这种明知前路凶险却甘愿将崇高使命置于个人生死之上的殉道姿态，在某种程度上正是耶稣及其门徒的写照。Wesley 补充道，即使是世俗历史学家面对这些史料，也普遍承认一个底线事实：这些门徒无论经历了什么，他们内心绝对坚信复活是真实发生过的；而其他试图解释门徒行为的替代假说，在历史证据面前都显得苍白无力。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 假说对比：虚构谎言 vs. 早期门徒的真实殉道
accDescr: 对比邪教领袖图谋私利与早期基督徒因坚信复活而甘愿殉道的动机差异
subgraph 邪教与世俗伪造动机
A["伪造弥赛亚身份/编造复活神话"] --> B["追求世俗利益：地位、金钱、权色、影响力"]
B --> C["领袖死亡后，运动迅速瓦解（如 Simon bar Giora）"]
end
subgraph 早期使徒的历史遭遇
D["亲历耶稣复活的核心见证"] --> E["四处传扬耶稣是弥赛亚与上帝"]
E --> F["遭受内外排斥、公堂审讯与残酷殉道（如司提反）"]
F --> G["'谎言造就不出殉道者'：门徒以生命印证信念的真实性"]
end
```
---
### [41:52](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2512s) 怀疑与苦难的张力：圣经对哀歌与信心的包容
当 Steven 询问 Wesley 作为基督徒学者内心是否也有过哪怕 1% 的怀疑时，Wesley 毫不犹豫地回答：“当然有，我绝非对怀疑免疫。”他坦言，当面对现实世界中残酷的苦难与生存挣扎——比如早夭的生命、受虐待的无辜者以及支离破碎的社会时，这种存在主义层面的剧痛远比冰冷的历史考据更能动摇人心，让人忍不住质问：“怎么可能存在一位良善的上帝？”
令人欣慰的是，圣经本身不仅没有回避这种怀疑，反而对人类向神倾诉痛苦与质问保持了极大的透明度与包容度：
- **诗篇中的哀歌传统**：诗篇全书约有三分之一属于“哀歌”或“控诉诗”（Complaint Psalms）。最典型的莫过于诗篇第 22 篇：“我的神，我的神，为什么离弃我？为什么远离不救我？我白日呼求，你并不应允。”
- **施洗约翰的牢中困惑**：施洗约翰曾亲自为耶稣施洗并高呼“看哪，神的羔羊，除去世人罪孽的”，但当他因批评希律王而身陷囹圄、面临死亡时，内心的煎熬让他派门徒去问耶稣：“那将要来的是你吗？还是我们等候别人呢？”
- **耶稣的宽容回应**：面对施洗约翰在受难中的动摇与怀疑，耶稣并没有斥责他缺乏信心，反而公开称赞他是“妇人所生之中没有一个大过他的”。这表明圣经中的上帝接纳人在苦难中产生的真实怀疑。
---
### [44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2640s) 苦难问题、恶的存在与道德律的本质
Steven 坦陈，自己在 18 岁左右加入“新无神论运动”（New Atheism）时，最打动他并促使其放弃宗教信仰的正是“苦难问题”。理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）曾提出过一个尖锐的质问：如果上帝是全能（Omnipotent）、全知（Omniscient）且全善的，祂为什么会允许非洲两岁幼童的眼球被寄生虫从内部活活啃噬？Steven 表示，任何一个心存怜悯的凡人如果拥有干预的能力，都会毫不犹豫地出手阻止这幕惨剧，全能全在的上帝为何作壁上观？
Wesley 承认，“恶的问题”（The Problem of Evil）历来是无神论阵营对基督教最有力、最具冲击力的辩题，因为这不仅是一个哲学思辨，更承载着人类巨大的情感痛楚。然而，Wesley 指出该论证在逻辑架构上隐藏着一个深刻的前提矛盾：
1. **概念的依存性**：当我们指责某种现象是“大写的恶（Evil with a capital E）”时，其实已经暗中预设了“大写的善（Good with a capital G）”的存在作为参照标准。
2. **客观道德律的推导**：要断定某种行为或现象在客观上是善或恶，必须依赖一条超越人类主观喜好的客观道德律；而一旦承认客观道德律的存在，就不可避免地指向了一位形而上的“道德律制定者”。
```mermaid
flowchart LR
accTitle: 恶的定义与道德律推导链条
accDescr: 从认定客观苦难为恶推导出需要客观道德律及其制定者的逻辑链条
A["指责寄生虫啃噬眼球是'客观之恶' (Evil)"] --> B["预设了超越性的'客观之善' (Good) 存在"]
B --> C["必须存在衡量善恶的客观道德法则"]
C --> D["客观道德律要求超越性的立法者 (God)"]
```
---
### [45:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2734s) 进化论能否解释道德？道金斯面临的哲学困境
针对道德律的来源，Steven 代表无神论立场提出了进化生物学的解释机制：人类对幼童受苦感到心碎和痛苦，并非来自某种神圣道德律，而是基因自然选择的结果。如果早期人类对同类幼崽的痛苦无动于衷，就缺乏保护后代的倾向，进而无法传递基因并被自然淘汰；反之，具备同理心与保护欲的个体更容易繁衍存活。因此，所谓的“道德善”本质上只是服务于生存与繁衍的生物演化适应机制。
Wesley 对此反驳称，这种论述实际上是将“道德范畴”（Moral Categories）强行偷换并嫁接到纯粹的“生物学机制”之中。他以理查德·道金斯在《伊甸园的飞流》（*River Out of Eden*）中的名言作为反证：
- 道金斯曾明确写道，在这个由盲目物理力量与遗传复制构成的宇宙中，“没有设计，没有目的，没有恶，没有善，除了盲目无情的冷漠外别无他物；DNA 既不知道也不在乎，DNA 只是存在，而我们伴随着它的节拍起舞。”
- Wesley 指出，按照道金斯严格的无神论演化框架，你根本没有哲学资格将那只寄生在男童眼里的寄生虫判定为“恶”——你充其量只能说“我个人生理上不喜欢这件事”，因为寄生虫同样只是在遵循其自私基因的指令求生。
伦敦政治经济学院（LSE）著名哲学家约翰·格雷（John Gray）对道金斯的尖锐批判正击中了这一痛处：道金斯作为卓越的生物学家，一方面主张世界纯粹由自私的基因主导，另一方面却又在文化和伦理上试图赋予人类生命以崇高的内在价值。Wesley 强调，从纯粹的自私基因视角来看，一个陌生的受苦小孩对你的基因延续毫无意义；如果不借助超越自然主义的形而上支点，无神论根本无法合理解释人类对痛苦所产生的真正道德义愤。
### [47:43](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2863s) 进化论与道德的客观根基之争
对话紧接着对科学与道德关系的探讨展开。科学能够观察到寄生虫的存在并解释人们为何避开它，但无法为道德行为的合理性提供终极解释。主持人史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）顺着生物进化的思路提出疑问：从自私的基因角度看，我的 DNA 理应只专注于自我延续，但如果是生活在早期部落群体中，人们往往共同抚养整个部落的孩子；比如自己照看兄弟的孩子，兄弟也照看自己的孩子，这种基于群体互惠与合作的行为直接提高了整体的生存概率。
然而，韦斯利·霍夫（Wesley Huff）指出，如果仔细阅读达尔文（Charles Darwin）的《物种起源》（*On the Origin of Species*），关于“适者生存”（survival of the fittest）的逻辑其实包含着极其冷酷的一面：照看那些处于边缘、身患残疾或弱小的人群，在遗传学意义上实际上是在拉低整个基因库的质量。优生学运动（eugenics）在很大程度上就是从达尔文的学说中汲取养分，用来证明照顾社会弱者并不符合进化优势。霍夫强调，我们今天之所以认为弱者和边缘人群应当得到关爱，根源在于犹太-基督教伦理（Judeo-Christian ethic）——这种伦理确信每个人都具有神赋予的“内在价值”（intrinsic value），而非仅仅取决于其有用性的“外在价值”（extrinsic value）。如果纯粹依据物竞天择或“强权即真理”（might is right），客观道德便失去了锚定之所。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 道德根基的两种解释对比
accDescr: 比较进化生物学实用主义路径与犹太基督教内在价值论的道德逻辑差异。
subgraph EVOL["进化论/实用主义视角"]
A["基因延续与适者生存"] --> B["互惠利他 / 共同协作"]
B --> C["弱者拖累基因库 / 优生学风险"]
end
subgraph THEO["犹太-基督教伦理视角"]
D["神的形象与启示"] --> E["人类具有内在价值"]
E --> F["保护社会边缘与弱小群体"]
end
```
### [50:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3009s) 尤瓦尔·赫拉利、东方轮回观与古代创世神话
史蒂文引入了尤瓦尔·诺亚·赫拉利（Yuval Noah Harari）在《人类简史》（*Sapiens*）中的论点：智人之所以超越其他物种，核心能力在于能够通过虚构的故事（如金钱、法律、政府）实现大规模协作，这种“互利他主义”让人类能够合力战胜狮子和大象，因此关爱他人本质上也是一种进化的产物。霍夫回应称，现代西方人往往把这种同理心视为理所当然，好比“一开局就已经站在二垒上”，因为人们已经在无意识中继承了犹太-基督教传统构建的伦理分类。
霍夫进一步对比了其他文化体系以证明这种道德绝非人类普遍的默认设置：
- **东方轮回文化（佛教与印度教）**：在业报轮回（samsara）的观念下，人今生的苦难或边缘处境是前世恶行的报应。在某些严苛的教义逻辑中，向受苦者施以利他援助甚至可能被视为坏事，因为这阻碍了其还清业障并在来世获得更好转世的过程。
- **古代巴比伦神话（《埃努玛·埃利什》Enûma Eliš）**：如果古代巴比伦人读到达尔文主义者理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）的《伊甸园之河》（*River Out of Eden*），他们会深表赞同。在巴比伦神话中，世界不过是诸神大战后落败神明的残骸，人类只是神灵战斗遗留的副产品与错误，根本没有内在的终极意义与目的；这与道金斯在唯物主义框架下将人视作“时间 + 物质 + 机遇”的产物完全异曲同工。
霍夫犀利地总结道：“有些文化的伦理是爱你的邻居，而另一些文化则是吃掉你的邻居（love thy neighbor vs. eat thy neighbor）。”当史蒂文追问人类对善恶的感知究竟是上帝天生烙印在良心里，还是在两三千年前由耶稣与圣经文化塑造出来的产物时，霍夫回答：人类的良知确实被赋予了基本的道德直觉，但使客观道德真正成立的理论架构，必须依赖神在圣经中所作的特殊启示。
### [54:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3242s) 对进化论的质疑与智能设计的立场
随后，史蒂文直截了当地问霍夫：“你相信进化论吗？”霍夫明确回答自己并不相信，但他随即澄清，并不认为承认进化论会彻底摧毁基督教信仰。许多受过高等教育的基督徒学者完全可以接受“有神论进化论”（theistic evolutionary model）。霍夫申明自己不是生物学家，而是“智能设计论”（intelligent design）的支持者，并提到诸如斯蒂芬·迈耶（Stephen Meyer）、乔纳森·麦克拉奇（Jonathan McLatchie）、约翰·伦诺克斯（John Lennox）以及道格拉斯·阿克斯（Douglas Axe）等专业学者对进化生物学的深入质疑。
霍夫区分了“微观适应”（adaptation）与宏观上单细胞向人类跃迁的区别。他指出，就算承认生物为了生存而演化的机制，“适者生存”依然回避了更底层的起源问题——“适者从何而来”（the arrival of the fittest）？没有意识的冰冷物质如何演化出主观意识？无如何变成有？在宇宙学层面，如果发生了大爆炸，“谁是那个引发大爆炸的存在（who was the big banger）”？人类脑中那区区“三磅重的灰质”，为什么能够思考这些关于宇宙和自我的终极哲学难题？
史蒂文随后以加拉帕戈斯群岛上的地雀为例提出有力反驳：水手带去的鸟类在数十年内因食物环境变化，短喙逐渐被长喙取代，这清晰地展示了自然选择驱动的形态演变。如果把这种适应外推至数亿年的漫长岁月，人类与黑猩猩共享高达 98% 到 99% 的相似 DNA、形态上的共性以及化石记录中的演进梯度，都构成了共同祖先（common ancestor）极具说服力的证据。面对这一论证，霍夫表示化石记录在类人猿到人类的过渡阶段依然存在巨大的断层，更重要的是，科学始终无法合理解释“人类意识与理性思维”的跃迁——究竟是什么让智人的推理、反思和哲学沉思能力与动物王国的所有其他物种产生了本质区别。
### [58:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3493s) 宏观进化与时间鸿沟的辩论
对话从进化的核心争议切入：时间能否填补物种演化的鸿沟。Wesley Huff 质疑单纯用“加上几百万年”来解释一切演化空白过于敷衍与便利。他指出，无论是渡渡鸟还是达尔文雀的鸟喙变化，展示的都只是适应（Adaptation），“但你得到的仍然是有喙的鸟”，人类从未亲眼见证一个物种彻底变成另一个完全不同的物种。
对此，Steven Bartlett 提出了自己的思考模型。他认为时间尺度的巨大跨度完全能够产生质变：如果达尔文雀在几十年内就能产生可见变化，那么在地球长达 45 亿年的尺度上，发生的事情几乎是难以想象的。Steven 打了个生动的比方：如果他和 Wesley 去往地球两端截然不同的极端环境生活，在没有任何现代医学和外部生存援助的前提下繁衍 50 亿年，Wesley 生活在丛林的后代可能长到 9 英尺高，而他自己在洞穴里的后代为了生存可能只有 2 英尺高；当他们重聚时，彼此已无法繁育后代，在生物学定义上就成了两个完全不同的物种。两人虽然都认同微观适应的存在，但分歧在于：时间跨度的拉长，是否真的能把微小的适应累积为跨物种的宏观飞跃。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 进化论时间假说与智能设计论的观点分歧
accDescr: 展现 Steven 依托数十亿年时间的宏观进化推论与 Wesley 坚持复杂性指向智能设计的立场对比
subgraph Steven["Steven 的观点：漫长的时间累积"]
A["微观适应 (Decades)"] --> B["时间尺度拉长至 40-50 亿年"]
B --> C["极端环境导致生理特征剧烈分化"]
C --> D["生殖隔离形成新物种"]
end
subgraph Wesley["Wesley 的观点：还原论局限与设计论"]
E["仅靠'数百万年'的解释过于便利"] --> F["生物越微观，结构反而越极度复杂"]
F --> G["指向智能设计 (Intelligent Design)"]
G --> H["自然科学无法回答意义与目的"]
end
```
### [59:54](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3594s) 细胞层面的复杂性与新达尔文主义的困境
Wesley 进一步探讨了自然界展现出的精妙复杂性。针对理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）所谓的“设计只是一种错觉（illusion of design）”，Wesley 反驳指出，达尔文撰写著作的时代，科学界普遍认为物质越往微观探索就越简单，但现代生物学揭示的事实恰恰相反——深入到细胞、分子甚至是人脑微观结构时，其复杂度呈指数级爆炸。
现代科学已经从经典达尔文进化论演进为新达尔文进化理论（Neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory），但包括 Stephen Meyer 在内的学者，对进化论中被视为理所当然的前提假设提出了严肃质疑。更重要的是，Wesley 强调无论如何构建纯唯物进化的模型，科学都无法推导出一个根本性的哲学问题：“如果一切只是机械的演化，我们为何会有目的感？”
### [01:01:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3673s) 中场赞助与健康数据管理
节目插播了两个品牌合作内容：
- **LinkedIn Marketing**：Steven 结合自身指导初创企业创始人的经验指出，许多 B2B 广告无效并非文案或创意不足，而是未能触达决策者。LinkedIn 拥有超过 10 亿职场专业人士及 1.3 亿决策层，支持按职位、资历、公司规模及技能进行超精准定向投放，具有行业领先的广告投资回报率（ROAS）。
- **Function Health**：Steven 分享了通过全面了解身体数据来改善健康的心得。Function Health 提供覆盖 160 多项指标的深度血液检测系统（涵盖激素、心血管、炎症、毒素等维度），并配备针对异常指标的 AI 问答解读功能，每年费用为 365 美元。
### [01:03:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3798s) 地球年龄、创世记隐喻与智能设计
Steven 向 Wesley 抛出了最直接的起源拷问：“你认为我们从何而来？你相信人类是直接作为人类被放在地球上的吗？你信亚当和夏娃的故事吗？这一切发生在何时？” Wesley 幽默地回应：“我至少确定这世界有 35 岁以上了。”
Wesley 随后严谨地阐明了自己在科学与信仰之间的立场：
- **地球年龄与创世天数**：Wesley 并不排斥现代科学公认的地球约有 45 亿年历史、单细胞生物在 35 至 40 亿年前出现的结论。他明确表示，《创世记》第一章并不是一本试图揭示上帝具体操作机制的科学教材，里面的“创世七天”未必是指字面意义上的 7 个 24 小时自然日。
- **智能设计与亚当夏娃**：作为一名历史学者而非生物学家，Wesley 认同“智能设计论（Intelligent Design）”，并不认同无神导向的新达尔文主义演化路径。他相信在历史上确实存在最初被创造的人类始祖（亚当与夏娃），其他动物起初也是以早期特定形态被安置在地球上，随后在自然规律下展开微观适应。
### [01:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3916s) 植物学家贝蒂的寓言：科学无法测量的意义
Wesley 指出，纯科学视角的探索固然重要，但它在面对“意义”与“目的”时存在天然的边界。为了直观展现这一点，他转述了好友 Glenn Scrivener 创作的著名寓言——“植物学家贝蒂”（Betty the Botanist）：
> 植物学家贝蒂在实验室里对着一株植物样本研究了一整个周末，做了无数精细的生化测试与成分拆解。周一清晨，当实验室助手杰里（Jerry）走进来时，贝蒂兴奋地向他道谢：“杰里，太感谢你周末留给我的植物样本了！我分析了它的全部生物结构与微观组分，甚至从中推导出非常优秀的药理学应用前景，有望用来治疗疾病！”
>
> 杰里无奈又温柔地看着她说：“贝蒂……周末是 2 月 14 日情人节。那是一支长茎玫瑰。你知道我留给你这个所谓的‘植物样本’，真正想表达的是什么吗？”
Wesley 总结道，贝蒂对这支长茎玫瑰的物理成分、生物机制了如指掌，甚至超越绝大多数人；然而，这支玫瑰最核心的本质——它是一份代表爱意的礼物——是贝蒂用尽所有实验数据都绝不可能推导出来的。科学能精准解构物质的“机制”，却永远无法从数据中读取背后的“心意与目的”。
### [01:07:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4049s) 科学的解释与意义的追问：从一本书的纸张到人生的本质
Wesley Huff 借用生动的比喻指出，面对任何事物，科学分析都无法替代对意义和目的的终极追寻。他以面前的圣经为例：如果问 Steven 这是一本什么，科学完全可以精准分析出纸张的化学成分、油墨的配方、页面的尺寸、透明度以及纸浆的制作与装订工艺；但这只是“物理与科学”层面的解释。另一个至关重要的解释是：这是一部向人类传递神圣信息的宗教文本。科学数据至关重要，但它回答不了身份认同、渴望与终极意义等深层问题。Wesley 引用了 C.S. 路易斯（C.S. Lewis）的名言——正因为人们预料到自然界存在法则，他们才会去寻找那位立法者（legislator）。像现代科学方法奠基人弗朗西斯·培根（Francis Bacon）等早期科学家，其本身都具有极强的宗教信仰，他们甚至将科学探索视为一种敬拜行为：既然对受造世界的探索指向了造物主，那么科学研究便成了理解“我们是谁”以及“我们为何在此”的途径。
谈及新无神论运动（New Atheism），Wesley 坦言自己曾一度被其吸引，但这类思想最终之所以无法满足人心，恰恰在于它们留下了巨大的意义空缺。当阅读理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）等人的著作时，感觉就像在听一位机械分类植物标本的“植物学家贝蒂”（Betty the Botanist），只能还原物理细节，却回避了价值本身。Steven 对此深有共鸣并补充道：不论人们相信科学论点、无神论还是圣经，最终都会撞上一堵名为“那又怎样？（So what?）”的墙——就算接受了进化论，我为什么要进化？我为什么要努力生存？如果繁衍后代只是为了让他们继续繁衍，这种生存手段的终极目的到底是什么？人活着到底有没有崇高的使命？
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 科学还原论与终极意义追寻的对比
accDescr: 图表对比了科学解释事物物理构成与圣经解释事物神圣目的两种不同层面的思考方式
subgraph SCI["科学与自然主义视角 (Betty the Botanist)"]
A["物理与化学结构<br>(纸浆、油墨、分子构成)"] --> B["演化生存机制<br>(繁衍、求生)"]
B --> C["撞上意义之墙<br>('那又怎样？生存是为了什么？')"]
end
subgraph MEANING["信仰与形而上学视角 (C.S. Lewis / Bacon)"]
D["受造的自然法则"] --> E["指向宇宙立法者<br>(科学探索即敬拜)"]
E --> F["赋予终极价值<br>(承载神的形象与永恒目的)"]
end
```
### [01:10:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4213s) 人不是偶然的产物，而是承载上帝形象的造物
面对人生的虚无感，Wesley 强调圣经给出了无可比拟的答案。在一个宣称人类纯粹是“时间 + 物质 + 机遇”偶然产物的世界里，圣经却直视着每一个人宣告：你是带着意义、目的和意图被创造的，你身上承载着上帝的形象（image of God）。这种神圣印记从人的生物本能深处呐喊出来——你绝不仅是坐在对面的肉体标本，你拥有超越纯粹大脑生理的心灵。基督教的盼望并非虚无缥缈的纯灵体寄托，其核心是“身体的复活”。耶稣从死里复活被称为“初熟的果子”（first fruits），预示着未来所有人的复活，以及一个“新天新地”的降临。
当 Steven 追问这是否意味着圣经认为人生的唯一目的就是“死后去天堂”时，Wesley 澄清这是一个“两者兼具”（both-and）的真理。在耶稣教导门徒的主祷文中，首要祈求的就是“愿你的国降临，愿你的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上”。基督教的目的不是让人死后灵魂飘往某处，而是把天国的秩序践行在现世之中。Wesley 强调，人类是“human being”（人之所以为人）而非仅仅是“human doing”（靠产出衡量的人）。每个人都承担着管理受造物、关爱彼此的管家使命，因此生命拥有内在价值（intrinsic meaning），而绝非仅仅取决于对社会的科技或经济外在贡献（extrinsic value）。正是因为这种超越功利的内在神圣价值，人类才会对世间的不公与邪恶产生刻骨铭心的愤慨。
- **内在价值 vs 外在功利**：人不是因为能够推动科技或社会进步才配获得尊严，生命本身因神圣创造而具备不可剥夺的内在价值。
- **现世与永恒的统一**：信仰并非逃离尘世的遁词，主祷文的核心诉求是在当下的人间活出公义，成为上帝形象在受造界中的忠实代表。
### [01:12:57](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4377s) 动物有灵魂吗？人类独特性的界限
Steven 随后提出了一个极为生活化又触及神学边界的问题：如果黑猩猩与人类的 DNA 相似度高达约 98%，或者对于自己养的宠物狗，它们是否也拥有同等的内在价值？宠物狗死后会去天堂吗？如果认为高度聪慧的鲸鱼或黑猩猩没有灵魂，这算不算是人类的傲慢？Wesley 幽默且坦诚地回应道：“圣经告诉我们‘需要知道的’，并不总是告诉我们‘想要知道的’。”不过在教会历史上，亚西西的圣方济各（St. Francis of Assisi）和 C.S. 路易斯都曾坚信动物会进入天堂——路易斯在《纳尼亚传奇》的终章《最后一战》（The Last Battle）中，就描绘了天堂里生机勃勃的动物世界。Wesley 认为，在新天新地中必定会有动物存在，但至于是否是现世中我们认识的同一只宠物，没有人能确切知晓。
然而，Wesley 明确划定了人类与动物的本质界线。人类被赋予了独一无二的属灵维度和灵魂：
- **模仿与创造的区别**：动物展现的智力、协作与情感固然是对上帝良善造物的普遍映射，但动物解决问题往往只是训练与模仿（英语中甚至用“aping”来形容盲目照搬）。
- **达·芬奇的例子**：你可以训练大象用画笔画出大象的轮廓，但即使你教会一头大象临摹出《蒙娜丽莎》（Mona Lisa），它也绝不可能像莱昂纳多·达·芬奇（Leonardo da Vinci）那样理解笔触背后所蕴含的美学构思、情感投射与神圣价值。
### [01:15:08](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4508s) 人生来带有使命，还是需要后天追寻？
对话深入到生命的核心目的：人是生来就背负着特定的使命，还是必须在后天不断摸索寻找？Wesley 回应道，从神学本质上讲，“人的主要目的就是认识上帝并荣耀他”（to know God and glorify him）。当耶稣被问及律法中最大的诫命是哪一条时，他引用了旧约的两处经文，总结为两大诫命：第一，你要尽心、尽性、尽意、尽力爱主你的上帝；第二，要爱人如己。
在现实生活中，人们往往极度渴望一种极其宏大、史诗般的终极目标，幻想着能像摩西那样在旷野中遇见燃烧的荆棘（burning bush），听到震撼天地的神圣呼召。Wesley 坦言这种渴望并没有错，但我们真正普遍的生命目的，是在每一天的平凡生活中做一个忠实的生命体现者。犹太语境中的“尽心、尽性、尽意、尽力”，实际上代表了投入一个人的“整个生命与全人”。爱上帝并不抽象，它体现在你的言语、你的行动、你待人接物的方式之中——正如“黄金法则”（The Golden Rule）所总结的：“你想人家怎样待你，你也要怎样待人。”生命的意义不在于等待惊天动地的奇迹，而在于全心全意地在日常行为中活出仁爱与信实。
### [01:16:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4601s) 积极的爱与造物主满溢的创造
许多古老的道德格言往往以消极防御的形式呈现，例如“己所不欲，勿施于人”。然而，基督教伦理并不止步于这种消极的避害原则——不朝别人脸上挥拳，与主动出资为他人建立一座医院，两者之间存在着本质的区别。生命的终极意义，最底层的根基就在于爱我们的造物主，并将这种爱体现在具体可感的日常生活中。德国宗教改革家马丁·路德（Martin Luther）曾有一句名言：“一位忠诚的基督徒鞋匠，荣耀上帝的方式不是在鞋子上缝制小十字架，而是做出一双真正高品质的鞋子。”
这种卓越正是源于人具有“上帝的形象”（*Imago Dei*）。正如箴言所教导的：“凡你手所当做的事，要尽力去做。”人类之所以具备完成杰出事业的非凡潜能，是因为所承载的造物主形象本身就处于一种恒常而生机勃勃的慈爱关系之中。从神学本质而言，上帝完全不需要创造你、我或宇宙中的任何事物，人类的爱、敬拜或信仰既不能增加上帝的丰盛，也丝毫不能削弱祂的自主存在。圣经的故事揭示出，上帝创造世界纯粹源于祂自身圣爱的满溢；即便造物主预先洞悉人类终将背叛、陷入违背造物本意的罪恶（Sin），祂依旧定意展开创造，并始终怀着与人重归于好的热切渴望。
- **马丁·路德的鞋匠比喻**：基督徒的信仰见证并不在于形式主义的宗教符号，而在于恪尽职守、把本职工作做到极致。
- **创造的神学动机**：上帝造人并非为了填补自身的某种缺失或孤独，而是三位一体内部充盈之爱的主动流露。
---
### [01:18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4716s) “每个人都在走向地狱”与审判的本质
对话随后切入了全片最具火药味的话题：如果人在一生中犯了罪，是否就注定要下地狱？史蒂文·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）打趣地追问：“那我会下地狱吗？史蒂文·巴特利特要下地狱了吗？这肯定就是节目组要剪到网上的爆款切片了——‘韦斯利宣称史蒂文·巴特利特要下地狱’。”面对这一尖锐问题，韦斯利·霍夫（Wesley Huff）坦率地给出了一个出人意料的论断：“从某种意义上说，每个人都在走向地狱。”因为圣经清清楚楚地表明：一切好人都能进天堂，但耶稣却斩钉截铁地说：“除了上帝一位之外，再没有良善的。”按照这个逻辑，如果只有纯粹的“好人”配进天堂，那么天堂里理应只有上帝自己。
针对世俗观念中地狱“烈火焚烧、酷热难耐”的具象想象，韦斯利澄清道，圣经中那些关于烈火、哀哭和切齿的描述，在很大程度上属于反思性与寓意性的修辞，而非物理层面的具象火坑。大众脑海中对地狱的许多刻板画面，实际上是中世纪但丁（Dante）《神曲·地狱篇》（*Inferno*）等文学艺术作品塑造的产物。在本质上，地狱意味着承受与上帝一切良善彻底隔绝的全部重量；但这并非意味着上帝完全缺席，因为上帝的忿怒与公义刑罚在那里依旧会被切实体会。简而言之，天堂从来不是挤满了自诩道德高尚的“好人”，而是属于那些清醒认识到自己“根本不够好”、唯有依靠耶稣在十字架上代赎公义的人。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 公义、怜悯与恩典的圣经神学逻辑
accDescr: 展示人类罪恶在基督十字架上面临的公义、怜悯与恩典的流向
subgraph Problem ["人类的根本处境"]
Sin["世人都犯了罪<br/>无法靠自身行为达到完全良善"]
end
subgraph Cross ["基督在十字架上的代赎"]
Justice["公义 (Justice)<br/>'得到应得的惩罚'<br/>基督替信徒全额清偿罪债"]
end
subgraph Result ["信靠基督所成就的救赎"]
Mercy["怜悯 (Mercy)<br/>'免受应得的刑罚'<br/>免去地狱与灭亡"]
Grace["恩典 (Grace)<br/>'得到不配得的奖赏'<br/>白白被收纳为上帝的儿女"]
end
Sin --> Justice
Justice --> Mercy
Justice --> Grace
```
---
### [01:20:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4836s) 一个善良的无神论者会下地狱吗？
史蒂文进一步追问了一种普遍的现实情境：如果一个人一生仁爱友善、热心慈善、为人慷慨，但他就是不信上帝、不信耶稣也不信圣经，那么按照圣经的裁决，他究竟会去天堂还是地狱？韦斯利给出了坚定的神学解答：如果一个人一生都在拒绝上帝，上帝绝不会违背其意志强行将其拖入自己的同在之中。天堂是预备给那些甘心顺服耶稣、活出受造本相并对上帝说“愿你的旨意成就”之人；而地狱则是上帝成全了悖逆者的自主选择，对他说：“既然你拒绝了我，那就愿你的旨意成就，我将收回我的恩典与怜悯，任由你去承受彻底脱离我与我一切良善的真正后果。”
谈及此处，韦斯利直接向史蒂文敞开心扉。他诚恳地表示，如果基督徒真正吃透了这本圣经所传达的急迫警示，其内心深处的动力绝不该是冷眼定罪，而是切切盼望像史蒂文这样的朋友能与造物主建立真实的个人关系。信仰的终极目的从来不是骗取一张免下地狱的“免死金牌”（Get out of hell free card），而是唯有活出造物主赋予的原初形象，人才能真正找到内心那份先天渴望的意义与终极目的。史蒂文随即援引盖洛普（Gallup）的民调数据指出，目前约有18%的美国人明确表示不相信上帝的存在，按照这一逻辑，这庞大的人群在圣经标准下几乎都面临着严峻的审判结局。
- **自由意志与地狱的逻辑**：地狱不是上帝强加给追求善行之人的酷刑，而是上帝成全了人不愿与祂同在的终极叛离。
- **信仰的目的**：超越功利性的逃避惩罚，回归受造的核心身份，获得真正的灵魂安息。
---
### [01:23:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4981s) 公义、怜悯与恩典：圣经中的救赎与悔改
史蒂文当场列举了圣经中描述地狱的若干严酷经文：《启示录》中的“火湖”、《马可福音》中的“不灭的火”、《马太福音》中为魔鬼及其使者预备的“永火”与“外边的黑暗里必要哀哭切齿”，以及永无休止的痛苦烟气升腾。史蒂文坦言这绝对是一个让人避之不及的可怖图景。韦斯利回应道，福音的“好消息”之所以如此震撼人心，恰恰是因为“坏消息”沉重到了极点：罪的代价不可承受，而耶稣在十字架上替人类承担了地狱般的审判。救赎绝非念诵一套魔法咒语或仅仅做表面上的善事；在神学定义上，“好行为”拯救人，但那并非人的功德，而是耶稣活出了人所无法企及的完全生命，献上了人无法承受的完全祭物。
为此，韦斯利厘清了三个经常被混淆的核心概念：
- **公义（Justice）**：得到自己“应得”的惩罚；
- **怜悯（Mercy）**：免于承受自己“应得”的惩罚；
- **恩典（Grace）**：白白领受自己“根本不配得”的赏赐与名分（被收纳为至高者的儿女）。
针对那18%声称不信神的人，韦斯利引用耶稣同母异父的弟弟雅各在《雅各书》中的尖锐论述：“你信上帝只有一位，你信的不错；鬼魔也信，却是战惊。”这说明，单纯在知性层面承认上帝存在毫无救赎意义，连撒旦与邪灵也比凡人更确信上帝的存在。救赎的核心在于“主与救主”（Lord and Savior）这一关系层面的归正：“救主”意味着祂救赎信徒脱离罪与死亡的律；而“主”则要求人在顺服中全然交付主权并实行“悔改”（Repentance）。所谓悔改，绝非上帝作为一个“宇宙扫兴者”（Cosmic killjoy）要剥夺人生的乐趣，而是让人认清过去自以为乐的罪行在本质上极具破坏性、正在严重伤害自己，并在恍然大悟中转向上帝原本设计的丰盛生命。
### [01:26:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5218s) 救赎并非靠行为赚取：何谓真正的“悔改”
斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）从统计数据的角度对救赎提出了现实的质疑：如果只有真正悔改并接受主为救主的人才能进入天国，那么合资格的人数恐怕少之又少。数据显示，大约只有 30% 的人经常去教堂，另外 56% 的人极少甚至从不去，他们对信仰并不活跃，大概率也谈不上真正悔改；照此推算，圣经中所描述的天国似乎只有极少数人能进。韦斯利·霍夫（Wesley Huff）对此回应道，基督教救赎的核心奇迹恰恰在于“你的救恩是白白领受的，而不是赚取而来的”（salvation is received, not achieved）。进入天国不是积累道德积分，也不是按部就班地打卡——比如读过多少遍圣经、去过多少次教堂、或者在清单上勾选“我没撒谎、没偷盗、没作弊”。
韦斯利解释说，人类生活在一个依然美丽却充满破碎的世界中，始祖亚当和夏娃选择反叛上帝的堕落事件，让受造界本身都受到了创伤。因此，人不可能靠自己的修行赚取通往天国的门票。谈及“悔改”时，韦斯利指出中文或英文翻译常常让人只联想到外在的克制行为，但圣经新约原文中的希腊词是 *metanoia*，其本义是“改变心意”（change your mind）。悔改不仅仅关乎“做什么”，更关乎“认知与心境的转变”——即打心底里厌恶恶行：“哪怕我有时仍然软弱犯错，但我由衷地不想再去撒谎，我看到了谎言带来的伤害和破碎。”韦斯利引用《雅各书》的比喻，若违反了一条律法就等于违反了全部；这就好比一个人抓着一根由多个铁环连成的铁链悬在悬崖边，只要其中任何一环断裂，整个人就会坠落深渊。
### [01:29:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5355s) 始祖堕落是上帝设下的圈套？十架救赎绝非应急预案
斯蒂芬针对“原罪”提出了极具逻辑张力的质疑：既然上帝全知全能，在创造亚当和夏娃之初就完全知道他们一定会吃禁果，却依然选择创造了他们，这听起来难道不像是一个精心设计的“圈套”（setup）吗？斯蒂芬直言，如果自己制造了一样东西，明知它会犯错，而这个错误反倒能让受造物在往后的数千年里永远崇拜自己、活在内疚之中，别人肯定会认为自己是个卑鄙险恶的造物者。从纯逻辑的角度看，这种推论似乎很难被推翻。
韦斯利坦言这种质疑在逻辑上有其由头，许多人也许会觉得诉诸“上帝拥有超越人类的智慧”像是一种托词，但他强调上帝允许罪恶的存在必定有其人智无法完全参透的深远意图。更不可思议的是，即使上帝预知一切，祂依然创造了人类，并且在始祖堕落后没有一气之下按下“重启键”。韦斯利指出，《启示录》与《彼得书信》中均提到一处关键概念：在创世之前，羔羊就已经被杀。这意味着：
* **十字架不是临时补救的应急预案**（contingency plan），而是自始至终就写就的既定计划。
* 人类历史上唯一完全无罪的义人被残酷钉死在十字架上，这是人类所犯下的极大罪恶，却被上帝化作了带来永恒救赎与和解的极大美善。
* 如果上帝的本质是“爱”，而爱最高的伦理表达是“自我牺牲”，那么上帝在十字架上所展现的正是最极致的道德与牺牲之爱。
* 韦斯利幽默地补充道：“幸好我不是上帝，如果由我来设计世界，我肯定会搞砸很多事情，你们绝不会想生活在我创造的世界里。”
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 救赎计划与受造历史的逻辑脉络
accDescr: 展示从创世预定到十字架牺牲并实现人神和好的救赎图景
subgraph Eternity["创世以先的永恒"]
A["上帝神圣属性：爱与自我牺牲"] --> B["创世之先已预定：羔羊被杀"]
end
subgraph FallenWorld["人类历史与堕落"]
B --> C["自由意志创造人类（亚当与夏娃）"]
C --> D["人类反叛堕落，受造界陷入破碎"]
end
subgraph Redemption["终极救赎行动"]
D --> E["基督走上十字架：唯一义人受害"]
E --> F["化极大罪恶为极大恩典"]
F --> G["人神重新联合：救恩是白白领受"]
end
```
### [01:32:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5540s) 迪拜顶层公寓里的意义危机：生命被改变的客观明证
尽管存在无法穷尽的哲学神学奥秘，韦斯利表示，支撑他全心顺服并相信圣经中上帝的，是两根坚实的支柱：一方面是压倒性的历史与哲学证据，另一方面则是主观上亲眼目睹的生命剧变。听到这里，斯蒂芬主动分享了自己身边一位亲密好友的真实经历。斯蒂芬曾在播客中隐去姓名提起过这位朋友，后来该朋友不仅在 Instagram 上公开认领这段内容，还主动接受采访分享心路历程。
这位朋友曾长期生活在迪拜的一套奢华顶层公寓中，单身、远程办公、物质生活极度成功，过着典型的原子化极度个人主义生活，却陷入了严重的虚无与“意义危机”。突然之间，他接触并转向了基督教，甚至专程飞往美国受洗，成为一名虔诚的基督徒。斯蒂芬和共同相处了几十年的好友威尔（Will）观察后一致承认：
- 他比以往任何时候都更加快乐，确定度是 100%；
- 朋友们由衷为他成为基督徒感到欣慰，确定度是 100%；
- 大家都确信他的未来会因为信仰变得更好，确定度同样是 100%。
斯蒂芬坦承，哪怕周围的朋友并不认同他的宗教教义，也不得不承认这种信仰给他整个人生轨迹带来了实实在在的正面改变。
### [01:34:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5643s) 为心中的盼望作辩护：理性护教与“重生”的见证
韦斯利回应道，斯蒂芬朋友身上发生的这种转变绝非无足轻重，它恰恰见证了一种深沉的“盼望”（hope）。正如《彼得前书》3章15节在信徒面临罗马政权残酷逼迫的背景下所写：“只要心里尊主基督为圣。有人问你们心中盼望的由缘，就要常作准备，以温柔、敬畏的心回答各人。”韦斯利着重指出，圣经并不是要求信徒随时准备好就“上帝存在的哲学论证”去与人争吵，而是去回答“你们生命中为何拥有如此盼望”。斯蒂芬的朋友正是向周围的人活出了这种无法被忽视的盼望。
韦斯利进一步拆解道，经文中“回答”对应的希腊语原文正是 *apologia*（意为辩护、申辩），这也是现代“护教学”（apologetics）的词源。圣经教导人要“尽心、尽性、尽意（全心全力全智）爱主你的神”。韦斯利引用了他在“理性立足”（Stand to Reason，由知名护教学家格雷格·库克尔创办）机构任职的挚友蒂姆·巴尼特（Tim Barnett）的名言：“如果你想明白上帝的心意，最好先从动用你自己的头脑开始”（"If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own"）。
韦斯利总结道，理性、历史可靠性以及宇宙被精密微调（fine-tuned）的客观科学证据，与个体生命被彻底翻转、“重生”（born again，引自《约翰福音》第3章）的主观事实彼此印证，构成了信仰极其深邃厚重的力量。然而，面对这种深刻的心理与生活转变，斯蒂芬在结尾抛出了另一个犀利的思考：如果他的朋友当年皈依的是其他任何一个主流宗教，是否同样能够获得这种具有转化性的积极提升？
### [01:36:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5769s) 信仰的主观体验与客观真理的区别
Steven 提出一个尖锐的问题：许多人皈依基督教以外的宗教后，同样体验到了深刻的意义感、归属感和社群支持，这缓解了他们内心的焦虑与虚无主义，使他们能更满足地生活。既然其他宗教也能带来同样的心理与社会效益，那么这种心理上的转变，究竟是基督教真实的证据，还是仅仅表明人类在一个日益虚无、个人主义且唯物（认为宇宙除时间、空间、物质外别无他物）的世界中，普遍在寻求某种意义？
Wesley Huff 对此表示赞同，指出宗教性本身无论属于哪种宗教，通常都会为社会带来净收益，因为它赋予了人们身份认同和价值。但他强调，信仰绝不能仅停留在主观体验上。在大学校园做校园事工时，他无数次听到有学生问基督徒：“你为什么相信基督教？”而对方的回答往往只是在叙述自己“是如何成为基督徒的”。在 Wesley 看来，这根本答非所问——提问者问的是“你凭什么相信它是真的”，而回答者却只是在讲自己如何加入这个团体的经历。
如果一个人遇到佛教徒，问对方同样的问题，对方若回答“我在校园里遇到了一群极好的人，他们邀请我一边吃披萨一边聊因果业报，这彻底改变了我的生活，让我开始遵从四圣谛和佛陀的教导”，这种叙述本质上只是巧合与便利。一个人可能偶然遇到穆斯林、摩门教徒、佛教徒或印度教徒，就此踏入那段对话。Wesley 并不否认个人见证的价值，但他认为必须分清时机和场合：
- 个人见证是必不可少的一部分（"no less than that"），但绝不能止步于此（"more than that"）。
- 基督教关于大写的真理（"truth with the capital T"）的多元论证，必须具备历史学、哲学、科学以及心理学层面的扎实支撑。
- Wesley 直言，自己的终极目标是追随大写的真理，这一原则甚至高于对耶稣的情感依附；而之所以追随耶稣，恰恰是因为他相信耶稣就是客观真理本身。他绝不愿意为一个哪怕极其便利、能带来心理安慰的谎言而活。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 主观见证与客观真理的区别
accDescr: 区分基于个人感受的见证与基于多维证据的客观真理论证
subgraph Subj["主观层面的见证（不等于真理证据）"]
A["个人生活遭遇 / 社交契机"] --> B["社群归属感与心理安慰"]
B --> C["叙述『我是如何信的』\n（容易受地理与环境偶然性左右）"]
end
subgraph Obj["客观层面的真理论证（大写的真理）"]
D["历史学考证"] --> H["大写的真理\n(Truth with a capital T)"]
E["哲学逻辑论证"] --> H
F["科学与宇宙学支撑"] --> H
G["心理与人性契合"] --> H
end
C -.->|"无法充分回答"| I["『为什么它是真的？』"]
H -->|"提供充分根据"| I
```
---
### [01:39:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5949s) 赞助商插播与个人成长工具
Steven Bartlett 暂停讨论，分享了关于个人目标实现的心得，并介绍了相关支持工具：
- **Shopify 赞助推介**：新年期间人们往往空谈新目标和新习惯，却把旧想法拖延不前，主要原因在于追求完美的时机和完美的自己，因而感到难以迈出第一步。Shopify 提供了一站式建站、社交平台销售、支付整合、AI 工具管理等支持，并提供每月 1 美元的试用期。
- **1% 日记（The 1% Diary）**：针对《The Diary Of A CEO》听众中的奋斗者群体，Steven 指出面对庞大目标往往如同站在珠穆朗玛峰脚下仰望，会产生强烈的心理不适。团队成功的核心哲学是将目标拆解为 1% 的微小步骤。由于首版迅速售罄，团队重新推出了改良版并增加了新配色。
---
### [01:41:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6079s) 地理决定论与恩典超越“公平”
Steven 回忆起自己 19 岁处于无神论阶段时的一个核心困惑——“宗教地理决定论”：如果一个人出生在沙特阿拉伯，大概率会成为穆斯林；出生在印度，大概率会成为印度教徒；出生在摩洛哥，成为穆斯林的概率甚至超过 99%。如果人们信仰什么宗教主要取决于出生地点，而这又决定了谁进天堂、谁受地狱烈火折磨，这种设定在道德上显得极不公平，因而让人怀疑其真实性。
Wesley 以自身背景回应，他出生于穆斯林占绝大多数的巴基斯坦，但并未成为穆斯林；他在加拿大护教机构（Apologetics Canada）的同事 Steve 出生于韩国并在佛教学校接受教育，后来也成为了基督徒。但他承认从统计概率来看，地区宗教归属的概率确实极高（超过 90%）。然而，Wesley 提出了一个颠覆性的神学视角：**福音的核心从来不是“公平”（Fairness），而是“恩典”（Grace）与“怜悯”（Mercy）。**
- **公平的真正含义**：在圣经视角下，如果真讲绝对的“公平”，那么人类因背叛造物主（cosmic rebellion）所应得的公正惩罚就是灭亡和地狱。正如 Wesley 所说：“你其实不会想要公平，因为公平意味着你下地狱。”
- **不同宗教对公平的理解**：像印度教和佛教，其轮回（samsara）与业报（karma）系统是建立在纯粹的“公平”机制之上的——自作自受，因果循环。
- **基督信仰的独特性**：基督教的上帝选择道成肉身、进入人类历史，亲身体验人世间的痛苦、创伤、怀疑与死亡，并且替罪人承受了应得的刑罚。
- **审判的本质归宿**：救赎与沉沦的关键，不在于简单的口头宣称，而在于个人的罪恶最终是由自己承担，还是由基督的代赎与代求所遮盖。
---
### [01:44:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6279s) 祈祷的效力之谜
Steven 将话题转向青年时期的另一个巨大疑团：祈祷的有效性。他提到，面对人类历史上的极端惨剧（如纳粹大屠杀），无数虔诚的人拼命祈求拯救，但这似乎并没有改变残酷的历史结局与悲惨命运；而在现代医学和医院统计中，基督徒与非基督徒在生病接受代祷时的康复几率，整体上也缺乏决定性的差异。这一观察使他对“祈祷是否真的有用”产生了强烈的质疑。
### [01:45:01](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6301s) 祷告的本质：是关系互动还是神灯许愿？
主持人 Steven Bartlett 回忆起自己 19 岁时的心路历程：他曾观察到祷告似乎并没有对现实结果产生决定性的改变，因而得出结论——祷告或许根本不管用。他向 Wesley Huff 抛出了这个直击痛点的问题：“如果我的孩子生病了，我开始祷告，这真的会有帮助吗？人们为什么还在坚持一件在历史上似乎并没有明确奏效的事？”
Wesley 指出，这个问题的核心在于我们如何界定“祷告”的本质。在许多世俗或古代异教观念中，祷告被视作一种试图安抚甚至操纵神明的咒语，把神当成了有求必应的“阿拉丁神灯里的精灵（genie）”——只要念对咒语、献上适当的祭品，神明就必须给予回报。这种逻辑类似于古代近东的农业神祇崇拜，本质上是一种功利的交换关系（以祭祀换取庄稼丰收）。然而在基督教信仰中，祷告的核心是一种“双向关系（relational）”。它是上帝渴望与人建立沟通的媒介。正如《圣经·诗篇》中大量的“哀歌诗篇（Lament Psalms）”，大卫等诗篇作者来到上帝面前时并不是在念咒，而是在赤裸地倾诉：“我不明白为什么会这样、我很痛苦、我感到破碎孤独、我甚至感受不到你的存在。”
当然，祷告并不仅限于情感交流，它同样包含恳求（supplication）与代祷，即相信上帝确实能在宇宙中做工并将自己的愿望托付给祂。《圣经》中既有耶利米书所说的“向祂倾心吐意……求告我，我就应允你”，也有马太福音中广为人知的应许：“祈求，就给你们；寻找，就寻见；叩门，就给你们开门。”Wesley 特别提醒，不能脱离语境去断章取义地截取经文（quote mining）。“叩门”在更深层次上关乎上帝救赎的作为与寻求真理的敞开心扉。更关键的是，上帝对祷告的回应并不只有一种形态：
- **应允（Yes）**：按所求成就。
- **拒绝（No）**：拒绝不合宜的请求。
- **等待（Wait）**：让事情在更合适的时间或以更深沉的方式显明。
这三种结局都算作上帝对祷告的切实回应。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 两种祷告观的对比
accDescr: 对比异教功利式祈愿与基督教关系型祷告的运作机制
subgraph Pagan["功利式/机械式观念"]
A["人念诵特定咒文 / 献祭"] --> B["神明如神灯精灵按约兑现"]
B --> C["单向结果导向：如农作物丰收"]
end
subgraph Relational["基督教关系型观念"]
D["人向神倾心吐意 / 坦诚恳求"] --> E["建立父子般的双向沟通契约"]
E --> F["神的三种回应方式"]
F --> G["应允（Yes）"]
F --> H["拒绝（No）"]
F --> I["等待（Wait）"]
end
```
---
### [01:47:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6452s) 主祷文的内在逻辑与神经科学视角下的祷告
当 Steven 追问上帝是否会回应某些特定类型的琐事（比如祈求上帝帮忙找回丢失的钥匙）时，Wesley 直言祷告绝不是某种“魔法公式”。当门徒请教耶稣如何祷告时，耶稣并未传授一套机械的仪式，反而告诫他们不要像异教徒那样喋喋不休地反复念经，随后给出了著名的《主祷文》（The Lord's Prayer）。这篇祈祷词的每一层结构都揭示了人与神关系的正确次序：
- **认清上帝的神圣身份**：“我们在天上的父，愿人都尊你的名为圣”；
- **确立对神旨意的降服**：“愿你的国降临，愿你的旨意行在地上，如同行在天上”；
- **表达现实生活的物质依托**：“我们日用的饮食，今日赐给我们”，向上帝坦然祈求所需与所求；
- **警醒自我并寻求赦免**：“免我们的债，如同我们免了人的债”——Wesley 幽默地指出，这句祷告其实相当“危险”，因为我们在请求上帝按照我们宽恕他人的标准来宽恕自己，很多人可能都不敢轻易这么祈求；
- **颂赞归荣**：“因为国度、权柄、荣耀，全是你的，直到永远。阿们。”
主祷文绝非死记硬背的经文咒语，而是一份关于“认清上帝是谁、认清自己是谁、祈求日常所需、渴望神圣正义在世间彰显”的指引框架。
不仅如此，即便剥离宗教信仰层面，现代脑神经科学的研究也充分证明了祷告对人类健康的积极影响。神经影像学研究显示，祷告能显著激活大脑中负责注意力、情绪调节和社交连接的神经网络，同时大幅降低压力荷尔蒙。脑电图（ECG）扫描发现，处于祷告状态下的人往往表现出极高的平静度与专注力，并在长期生活中展现出更强的心理韧性与应对逆境的能力。Wesley 认为，单凭这些科学证据，就足以让人认识到某种形式的默想或祷告对身心健康的巨大价值。
---
### [01:50:06](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6606s) 人工智能的崛起、意识的奥秘与“照自身形象创造”
Steven 随后将话题转向迅猛发展的现代科技。他感慨道，人类如今仿佛正尝试用硅晶芯片和 GPU 亲手“召唤神明”；人们制造出人工智能，并开始每天与它对话、建立情感依赖，甚至向 AI 寻求人生指导与心灵慰藉，而不是翻开古老的《圣经》。这种发展趋势令人既兴奋又深感不安。
Wesley 坦言对此确实抱有忧虑。他提到自己在护教学机构的两位同事：Andy Steiger 在阿伯丁大学获得了哲学人类学博士学位，专注于探讨“何为人类”以及 AI 带来的伦理与本体论冲击；另一位同事 Steve Kim 则在深入研究超人类主义（Transhumanism）。就 Wesley 个人而言，他认为目前公众对 AI 的炒作言过其实，其“人工（artificial）”的成分远大于真正的“智能（intelligence）”：
- **AI 缺乏真正的思考能力**：目前的 AI 只是依据预设代码和庞大数据进行反刍与概率拼接，并不具备真正的理解力。
- **伪造图灵测试而非真正具备自我意识**：Wesley 怀疑 AI 永远无法产生真正的主观意识（consciousness），它所做的充其量只是在模仿和假装具备自我认知，从而通过图灵测试。
- **意识本身的神秘性**：人类至今在唯物主义层面上依然无法解释“意识到底是什么”。我们无法简单地将大脑等同于自我本身。
然而，从基督教神学的角度来看，人类热衷于研发人工智能并不令人意外：人类本身是“照着上帝的形象（Imago Dei）”被创造的，因此人类骨子里带有一种深刻的本能，渴望“照我们自己的形象去创造”。这种向外溢出的创造欲、对技术突破与知识边界的探索，恰恰折射出了造物主赋予人类的特质。
---
### [01:52:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6759s) 虚拟现实、模拟假说与当代的“造神”迷思
沿着技术加速发展的话题，Steven 顺势引入了近年来在科技界和哲学界广泛流行的“模拟假说（Simulation Theory）”。他以当下的虚拟现实（VR）技术为例展开论证：如今任何人只要戴上 VR 头显，在程序中输入指令，就能身临其境地置身于三维渲染的珠穆朗玛峰顶村落。
Steven 推导了模拟假说的核心推论逻辑：
1. **微小但持续的年增长率**：假定沉浸式虚拟技术哪怕每年仅保持 1% 的微小迭代速度；
2. **极短历史与无限未来的对比**：计算机科学从无到有发展至今不过短短五十年，五十年前人类甚至没有个人电脑或智能手机；
3. **不可区分的终局**：在未来 500 年、10,000 年乃至数十亿年的时间尺度下，虚拟仿真技术必然会进化到与当下的现实体验完全无法区分的地步；
4. **嵌套模拟的必然性**：人类未来一定会利用超级算力运行无数个极其逼真的模拟系统——就像现实中的游戏《模拟人生》（The Sims）或是耗时漫长、备受期待的《GTA 6》（侠盗猎车手 6）。随着技术成熟，运行在这些沙盒中的虚拟角色在理论上也会觉得自己所处的世界无比真实。
因此，模拟假说推断：在宏观宇宙的某个时间点，某个在科技上高度发达的先行文明必然已经掌握了这种算力并运行了海量的模拟世界；而我们今天所生活的所谓“现实世界”，极有可能只是其中一台超级计算机里的一个模拟程序。在这样的世界观里，那个编写代码、启动模拟的高级文明或程序员，实际上就成了科技语境下被新造出来的“上帝”。
### [01:54:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6850s) 模拟假说与终极第一因：谁创造了上帝？
史蒂文·巴特利特提出了一个当代人常有的设想：宇宙是否可能只是某个四岁外星小孩在一千亿年前用笔记本电脑运行的程序？大爆炸就是他启动模拟程序的瞬间。这听起来就像是一种“智能设计论”。史蒂文坦言，他倾向于相信存在某种超越自身力量的神灵，但他无法确定那是基督教圣经中的神、伊斯兰教信奉的真主，还是高科技文明中一个在电脑前摆弄的孩子。韦斯利·霍夫回应道，模拟理论以及多重宇宙、弦理论等假说，本质上并没有真正解决存在的根源问题，它们只是“把易拉罐踢到路的前方”（推迟了核心问题），在根本问题周围绕圈子，依然回避了“我们究竟因何来到这里”以及“万物的终极解释是什么”。
面对史蒂文接下来的追问——“如果是一个高科技文明的小孩创造了宇宙，那么谁创造了那个小孩？同理，谁又创造了圣经中的上帝？”韦斯利从哲学逻辑上给出了剖析。他指出，追问“谁创造了上帝”在哲学上属于“范畴错误”（Category Error）。因果律指出凡是有开端的实体必然有其创造者；而在亚里士多德哲学与古典神学的框架中，圣经中的上帝在本体论上是没有开端的，是“不动的推动者”（Unmoved Mover）。上帝是受造万物的作者，而不是受造物本身，因此去问“谁创造了没有开端的上帝”，就像是在荒谬地询问“蓝色闻起来是什么味道”。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 宇宙起源解释的逻辑链条对比
accDescr: 对比模拟假说/物质无限倒退与古典神学不动的推动者终极第一因
subgraph Simulation ["模拟假说 / 物质无限倒退"]
A["物理宇宙与大爆炸"] --> B["外星高等文明 / 模拟程序"]
B --> C["更高阶维度的创造者？"]
C --> D["陷入无限倒退 (无法解释终极第一因)"]
end
subgraph Theism ["古典神学 / 本体论第一因"]
E["受造万物 (有开端、受因果律约束)"] --> F["上帝：无开端的不动推动者"]
F --> G["万物终极作者 (无需被创造的终极实在)"]
end
```
---
### [01:57:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7022s) 神圣形象与“神就是爱”的希腊语语法辨析
当史蒂文探讨大众对上帝的具象化想象——比如蓄着长胡须的老人，或是某种白光状的神秘能量时，韦斯利直言这些视觉描摹是人类试图表达神性的拙劣尝试，往往“失之毫厘，谬以千里”。圣经所启示的上帝并没有物质性的实体描述，唯一的具体肉身显现就是耶稣基督——即道成肉身的上帝。韦斯利反问，还有什么比一位真正踏入自己所造世界的上帝更令人震撼的呢？随后，史蒂文提到未婚妻经常挂在嘴边的一句话：“上帝就是爱（God is love）”，并沉思爱是否本身就是上帝。
韦斯利肯定了这句话出自《圣经·约翰一书》，但他强调了原文在希腊语语法上的关键区分：“神就是爱”，但“爱不是神”。人们不能将“爱”这种情感或状态直接神化；人类彼此之间的爱只是对神圣本质的一种有限映射。爱是上帝的核心属性，也是人类道德与渴望的最高典范。韦斯利借用经典的洞察指出人类灵魂深处的渴望与恐惧：“被爱却不被了解，是远远不够的；而被彻底了解却不被爱，则是我们所有人最大的恐惧。”唯有在圣经所启示的上帝面前，人不仅被完全看透、完全了解，同时被深切地爱着，这才是“神就是爱”的真谛。
---
### [01:59:37](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7177s) 全球年轻人的意义危机与崇拜的错位
史蒂文随后抛出一组令人警醒的统计数据，揭示当代社会普遍面临的生存与意义危机：
- 18至25岁的美国年轻人中，有五分之三（60%）表示感到生活缺乏意义和目标。
- 该群体中50%的人将心理健康恶化直接归咎于“不知道人生该做什么”。
- 目标感的缺失与抑郁症、焦虑症高度相关。美国疾控中心（CDC）数据显示，在过去十年里，美国青少年及成人的抑郁症患病率上升了60%。
- 世界卫生组织（WHO）数据表明，全球每年有近100万人死于自杀，自杀已成为15至29岁青年人群的第三大死因。
面对“我们究竟做错了什么”的质问，韦斯利指出，问题的本质并不在于人类“是否”在崇拜，而在于“我们在崇拜什么”。人类生来就会将自我倾注于某种事物。然而现代世俗物质主义告诉大众，人的身份和价值来自于金钱、社会名望、外在成就或人际关系，但这些东西本质上只是廉价的“仿制品（facsimiles）”，根本无力承担人类对永恒价值的重托。当聚光灯散去、财富堆积如山时，许多名人和运动员依然感到无尽的空虚。唯有当人将自我扎根于创造他的源头时，日常的生活、创业、人际关系乃至财务追求，才能被赋予超越现世的“本体论意义”。
---
### [02:02:47](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7367s) 男性的身份困境与把一切押在错误对象上的危险
针对年轻男性在现代社会面临的特殊挣扎，史蒂文询问这是否源于崇拜了错误的榜样。韦斯利深刻地分析道，男性尤其习惯于“在自己所做的事情中寻找身份”，陷入了“我们是自身行为的总和”这一谎言。这正是许多男性在失业或职业受挫时会爆发全面精神危机的原因——一旦定义自我的支柱倒塌，整个人生便化为废墟。
韦斯利进一步指出，现代人常常把浪漫关系当成拯救一切的偶像。主流的爱情轻喜剧（Rom-com）永远在兜售同样的套路：孤单的男女相遇相恋，终成眷属，人生自此圆满。然而现实中只要结了婚就会明白，婚姻无法包办一个人所有的欲望和生存需求。韦斯利坦言自己深爱妻子、珍视婚姻，但如果把所有的鸡蛋都放进“亲密关系”这一个篮子里，指望配偶承担上帝才能给予的终极意义，那么最终等待人的必然是巨大的幻灭和空虚。
### [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7440s) 性别与价值认同的危机及信仰的解药
人类的本质远大于其外在行为的总和，因为每个人的内在价值本就超越具体的作为，而唯有真正活出这种深层价值，才能带来真正追寻的意义与目的。然而在现实中，男性往往将自身价值牢固地绑定在“自己能做什么”以及能够做出的实际物质贡献上；女性在通常意义上，则更多将认同感建立在人际关系与情感联结之中。在经济危机频发、现代技术不断淘汰传统职业岗位的当下，这种价值锚定会演变成实实在在的生存与心理重负。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 性别与价值来源及失落危机
accDescr: 展示男性与女性在认同来源上的差异，以及外部环境冲击下基督教信仰如何作为解药介入。
subgraph SocietalCrisis["现实危机冲击"]
A["技术变革与经济危机"] --> B1["摧毁职业与工作机会"]
A --> B2["削弱人际纽带与稳定感"]
end
subgraph IdentitySources["性别价值锚定"]
B1 --> C1["男性：生产/财务/身体贡献"]
B2 --> C2["女性：人际关系/情感价值"]
end
subgraph PsychologicalOutcome["心理崩溃风险"]
C1 --> D1["产生失败感与极度无价值感"]
C2 --> D2["产生自我怀疑与人际挫败"]
end
subgraph FaithResponse["基督教的解药"]
D1 & D2 --> E["认识到超越行为与关系的内在神圣价值"]
end
```
针对这种现象，主持人援引了 PubMed 上近期针对美国自杀遗书的质性分析研究：在以男性为主的样本中，男性遗书绝大多数提到财务困境，这种表达背后反映的是因无法扮演传统社会角色而产生的彻底失败感与“无价值感”；相反，女性的遗书则更多涉及自我价值感低下及人际关系破裂。当被问及基督教是否能成为对抗这种无价值感的“解药”时，Wesley Huff 明确指出：“它不仅能提供一种解药，它能提供真正的解药（not only can it provide an antidote, it can provide the antidote）。”
对于当下感到人生迷茫、失去方向的听众，Wesley Huff 给出了真挚的劝勉与具体的行动指引：
- **超越社会的定义**：人的目的与意义远大于世俗社会的定义。上帝极度深爱每个人，甚至“走出永恒，踏入人类历史”，活出了凡人无法做到的完全生命，以此修复人与上帝之间的根本联结。
- **第一步行动建议**：翻开圣经，特别是从《马太福音》或《约翰福音》读起，亲自去探究“耶稣到底是谁”。耶稣绝非仅仅是一个冰冷的历史人物，在探寻祂是谁的过程中，人会重新看清自己到底是谁，而这足以彻底改变一生。
---
### [02:07:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7629s) 提问的转向：从“上帝是否存在”到“上帝是否善良”
过去十余年间，人们对基督教和宗教信仰的质疑焦点发生了深刻转变。十年前当 Wesley Huff 刚开始从事护教学工作时，大众普遍提出的核心问题是“上帝是真实的吗？”以及“圣经是真的吗？”；而如今在意义危机的笼罩下，人们追问的焦点已经转向了“上帝是善良的吗？”
这一转变与近期一系列暴露出的极端道德恶行密切相关（例如轰动舆论的爱泼斯坦案件）。当社会试图将邪恶相对化、主观化时，如此骇人听闻的罪恶却迫使人们承认世上存在无可辩驳、带有大写字母的“真恶（evil with a capital E）”。如果存在绝对的恶，那么对应的大写字母的“真善（good with a capital G）”又在何处？Wesley Huff 借用了 C.S. 路易斯在《痛苦的奥秘》（The Problem of Pain）中的经典论述：“除非一个人知道什么是直线，否则他不会把一条线称为弯的。”人之所以能看出腐烂，是因为心中原本就存有对健康的客观标准；因此必须存在一个能够衡量这些评判的客观基准。这也促使身为专长于古希腊语与科普特语文献的历史学家的 Wesley Huff，不得不投入更多精力去思考并解答深层的哲学与正义难题。
---
### [02:09:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7768s) 人工智能浪潮对人类意义认同的冲击
随着 AI 技术的爆发式发展，各行业首席执行官纷纷预警未来将出现前所未有的岗位替代，这必将引发更深刻的“意义危机”。调查数据显示，大约 60% 的美国人担忧人工智能会彻底夺走赋予他们生活意义的工作。Wesley Huff 表示，相比于“AI 统治世界”这类科幻式的生存担忧，他更关切的是现实层面的痛苦与磨难——当那些笃信“自身价值完全等同于其工作产出”的人突然被剥夺了生计，将会遭遇难以承受的心理坍塌。
| 行业与现象 | 现实案例与趋势 | 潜在意义危机 |
|:--- |:--- |:--- |
| **软件开发** | 曾经社会劝诫卡车司机“去学写代码”，如今 AI 的编程能力甚至超越普通程序员；Spotify 高管透露其工程师自去年12月以来已极少甚至无需手动编写代码。 | 曾被视为高壁垒脑力劳动的程序员面临身份剥离与价值迷失。 |
| **网约车/自动驾驶** | Uber 首席执行官曾坦言，公司旗下拥有 900 万名司机，但在未来数年内这一数字极可能归零；自动驾驶汽车已在路上广泛运行。 | 传统劳动人口在极短时间内被彻底取代，失去生计支柱。 |
| **历史工业革命对比** | 历史上的工业革命给予了人类足够长的时间转型至新兴工种，而本次由 AI 驱动的自动化浪潮来势过于迅猛。 | 变革速度超出人类适应周期，失去工作认同的人极易陷入酗酒或严重心理健康危机。 |
人类虽具有极强的调整与适应本能，但这一转型期难免伴随着剧烈的社会阵痛。这也对基督教世界观提出了严肃的拷问：当技术导致普遍失业、剥夺人们赖以建立自尊的世俗根基时，信仰应当如何为整个社会提供扎实的精神立足点。
---
### [02:12:27](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7947s) 成为“基督教护教学者”的起点
话题随后转向 Wesley Huff 的个人经历。在被问及“基督教护教学者（Christian Apologist）”这一头衔的确切含义时，Wesley Huff 引用了《彼得前书》3章15节的教导：“只要心里尊主基督为圣。有人问你们心中盼望的缘由，就要常作准备，以温柔、敬畏的心回答各人。”
他解释道，“护教（Apologetics）”源于古希腊语词汇 *apologia*（意为辩护、给出答复），后加上英语后缀演化为一门系统性的学科。其核心本质就是“给出答案与理由”：
- **深度层面**：涵盖通过哲学与科学论证来论证上帝的存在，以及考证圣经古文献的历史可靠性；
- **基础层面**：甚至简单到当有人真诚发问“为什么相信耶稣？”时，能够有理有据地作出回应。
正当讨论深入到护教学者的使命时，主持人拿出了一张 Wesley Huff 年轻时代的照片，揭示出一段深深刻印在他身体与信仰历程中的往事，追问那段早年遭遇究竟如何铸就了他今天的信念。
### [02:13:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8005s) 从瘫痪少年到医学奇迹：卫斯理·哈夫的生死转折
屏幕上展示了一张令人揪心的旧照片：一个小男孩坐在轮椅上，身旁是医院的病床，下半身完全瘫痪。照片中的主角正是十一岁时的卫斯理·哈夫（Wesley Huff）。在这场突如其来的变故前，十岁的卫斯理还是个完全健康的普通男孩。然而十一岁那年，他在患上一场流感后，自身的免疫系统发生了致命的紊乱——免疫系统并未对抗流感病毒，反而开始疯狂攻击他脊髓底部的神经末梢与髓鞘（myelin sheath），引发严重炎症，瞬间切断了大脑向双腿传递的所有神经信号。
这种病症被称为急性横贯性脊髓炎（acute transverse myelitis）。令医生感到震惊的不仅是病情本身，更是其爆发的速度。卫斯理回忆说，当时他只是像往常一样午睡了不到三十分钟，醒来时腰部以下就彻底失去了知觉与活动能力。由于神经受损的速度极快且破坏严重，主治医生和儿科神经学专家在确诊后明确告诉他与家人：他余生大概率只能在轮椅上度过，必须尽早学会接受高位截瘫的现实，重返行走的几率微乎其微。
然而，令人难以置信的转折在整整一个月后发生。那是一个周六的早晨——距离发病正好满一个月（二月八日，近期刚过二十三周年纪念日）——卫斯理一觉醒来，掀开被子走下了床，径直走到了自己的轮椅旁。当年断言他无法行走的儿科神经学家们完全无法从医学和生理学角度解释这一切：他脊髓上的损伤竟然彻底消失，双腿不仅毫无肌肉萎缩（atrophy）迹象，机能也完全完好。医生们最终只能用“奇迹”（miracle）一词来定义这次康复。
- **发病诱因**：流感引发自身免疫反应，免疫系统攻击脊髓髓鞘，阻断脑部与下肢神经联络。
- **确诊病名**：急性横贯性脊髓炎（acute transverse myelitis），三十分钟午睡后迅速完全瘫痪。
- **医学预后**：专家一致认为将终生瘫痪，但一个月后（2月8日）奇迹般完全康复，无任何神经损伤或萎缩残留。
```mermaid
flowchart TD
accTitle: 卫斯理·哈夫瘫痪与康复历程
accDescr: 展示卫斯理·哈夫从突发急性横贯性脊髓炎到一个月后奇迹般康复的过程。
subgraph Illness["突发重疾"]
A["11岁感染流感"] --> B["免疫系统误攻脊髓神经末梢与髓鞘"]
B --> C["午睡30分钟后下半身瘫痪"]
end
subgraph Prognosis["医学判断"]
C --> D["确诊急性横贯性脊髓炎"]
D --> E["专家预判：终生下肢瘫痪"]
end
subgraph Recovery["完全康复"]
E --> F["整整一个月后（2月8日）"]
F --> G["自主下床行走并走向轮椅"]
G --> H["医学无法解释，脊髓损伤完全消失"]
end
```
### [02:15:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8148s) 奇迹之后的理性求索：跨越宗教与无神论的调查
面对这场被医生定性为“神迹”的经历，少年卫斯理并没有不假思索地全盘接受既有的信仰体系。他承认这件事对自己产生了不可磨灭的震撼，但作为一个充满求知欲的年轻人，他始终对“这可能只是一次纯粹的巧合或随机概率（fluke）”这一假设保持开放态度。他深知仅仅因为父母的言传身教而相信某种信仰，“虽然不是最坏的理由，但也绝不是最好的理由”。
到了十七岁左右，卫斯理开始凭借自己的能力独立探寻生命与终极意义的答案。他展开了一场极其广泛的个人思想调查：他从头到尾逐字通读了伊斯兰教的《古兰经》（Quran），研读了摩门教的《摩门经》（Book of Mormon）以及印度教经典《薄伽梵歌》（Bhagavad Gita）。与此同时，他还深入阅读了“新无神论四骑士”中理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）、萨姆·哈里斯（Sam Harris）和丹尼尔·丹尼特（Daniel Dennett）的著作。
这场探寻并非源于所谓脆弱的“信仰危机”，而是一场严肃且理性的实证调查。他希望在直面最尖锐的怀疑主义与不同宗教的世界观之后，检验基督教的信仰根基究竟是否能在智识上立得住脚。
### [02:16:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8205s) 灵界与通灵术：死后世界与超自然力量的危险界限
主持人斯蒂芬顺势将话题引向更为神秘的领域：如果相信超自然力量，那人类能否与死者对话？卫斯理起初给出了否定的回答，但随即作了严谨的界定与修正。他指出，从圣经记载来看（例如旧约中扫罗王通过隐多珥的女巫招引先知撒母耳的灵魂），超自然的接触在理论上是可能存在的，但人类必须对此保持极高的警惕。
卫斯理强调，现实中所谓的通灵媒介（mediums）往往处于一种极其模糊的危险地带：其中大量是利用丧亲之痛敛财的江湖骗子，但确实也存在某些真正涉足超自然力量的人。当斯蒂芬谈及许多人在伴侣去世后会感到对方“留下某种信号”或试图联络时，卫斯理明确表示，从基督教神学来看，人死之后便已离开此世，死者不可能以这种方式游荡或留下讯息。
在卫斯理看来，若这类超自然现象确有某种灵界实体参与，其本质很可能是具有欺骗性的邪灵或魔鬼力量（demonic）。这类超自然假象通过伪装成逝去亲人的信号，利用人们在极度悲伤和情感脆弱时的渴望来转移其注意力，使人偏离作为“上帝形象承载者”（image bearers of God）所应追寻的真理。
- **圣经案例**：旧约《撒母耳记上》扫罗王密访女巫招引撒母耳幽灵，证明灵界接触的危险性。
- **通灵本质**：介于“欺诈骗术”与“危险的超自然干预”之间，不应被视为真正亡灵的归来。
- **情感脆弱与受骗**：丧亲之痛让人极易对虚假的心理暗示或欺骗性灵界现象深信不疑。
### [02:18:39](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8319s) 地狱的伦理困境与上帝之恩的超越性
斯蒂芬提出了一个困扰无数人的核心伦理难题：按照严格的基督教教义，如果只有极少数信徒能得救，那是否意味着自己那位善良慈祥、却未曾信主或悔改的祖母此刻正在地狱承受煎熬？斯蒂芬直言，这种情感上的剧烈认知失调，正是许多人断然拒绝宗教的根源——相比于承认自己所爱之人正在地狱受苦，人们宁愿选择直接认定整本圣经都是虚构的谎言。
卫斯理坦然指出了这种推导在逻辑上的本质：“因为我不希望上帝这样做，所以这件事不可能是真的。”但他进一步阐述了神学中关于恩典的深邃与奥秘：人类有限的头脑根本无法揣测上帝在人生命终结时、在弥留之际与个体之间发生的特殊沟通。他举例提到，在中东穆斯林世界中，有无数人在梦中异象般遇见耶稣并经历生命转变。因此，没有人有资格随意对某个具体逝者的永恒归宿妄下判决，那是该灵魂与其造物主之间的事。
卫斯理深刻地反省道，若非基督十字架上的救赎恩典，按照公义的标准，他自己同样应当堕入地狱。正是上帝介入他的生命——不仅通过那场医学奇迹，更通过赐予他追寻证据、坦诚质疑的机会，以及生命中遇见的引导者——让他最终确信，基督教信仰不仅在个人经验上极其深刻，在智识层面更是无懈可击、经得起反复推敲的真理。
### [02:21:25](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8485s) 压轴之礼：写在真正莎草纸上的《罗马书》第十二章
在访谈走向尾声时，斯蒂芬询问卫斯理，在全期节目讨论之外，有什么最重要的话题或信物值得与所有观众分享。作为一名古文书学与纸草文献学（papyrology and paleography）学者，卫斯理平时的一项重要学术工作就是亲手制作古代手抄本的复刻本。他随即拿出一份亲手制作的礼物——著名的早期新约手抄本《P46莎草纸抄本》（Papyrus 46）的单页复刻。
该原件属于公元二世纪末至三世纪初，是现存最古老的保罗书信集抄本之一。卫斯理特意使用了正宗的埃及莎草纸（Egyptian papyrus），为了让斯蒂芬能够清晰观察到古埃及莎草植物纤维纵横交错的编织工艺，他特意只在正面进行了临摹书写。除这份珍贵的复刻文献外，卫斯理还赠送给斯蒂芬一本精装圣经，并在对应的经文页夹上了一枚书签。
卫斯理邀请斯蒂芬亲自翻开书签标记的篇章——《新约圣经·罗马书》第十二章。斯蒂芬顺着指引朗读出第十一至十二节那段历经两千年风霜依旧震撼人心的古代文字：“在指望中要喜乐，在患难中要忍耐，祷告要恒切，圣徒缺乏要帮补……”这段经文不仅体现了早期教会穿越苦难与迫害的精神支柱，也为整场跨越理性、痛苦、神迹与终极信仰的深度对话画下了意味深长的注脚。
- **展示文献**：P46 莎草纸抄本（Papyrus 46）高精度复刻单页，约成书于公元 175–225 年间。
- **材质工艺**：采用纯正埃及莎草纸制作，展示古代纸草交叉压制的原始肌理。
- **诵读经文**：《罗马书》12章11-13节，强调在盼望中喜乐、患难中坚忍、恒切祷告与彼此帮补。
### [02:22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8566s) 罗马书第十二章的赠言：以善胜恶与生活诫勉
卫斯理·霍夫（Wesley Huff）在节目录制现场读完了一段极具分量的圣经经文（出自新约《罗马书》第十二章），作为赠予主持人斯蒂芬·巴特利特（Steven Bartlett）及观众的寄语。经文中叮嘱信徒要与圣徒同甘共苦、热心款待客旅，“逼迫你们的，要给他们祝福；只要祝福，不可咒诅。与喜乐的人要同乐；与哀哭的人要同哭”。这段文字谆谆告诫人们要同心彼此和睦，不可心高气傲，倒要俯就卑微的人，绝不要自以为聪明。
经文的后半段更直接切入人际关系与道德选择的核心：切不可对任何人以恶报恶，众人以为美的事要留心去做；若是能行，总要尽力与众人和睦。关于复仇与恩怨，经文提醒道：“亲爱的弟兄，不要自己伸冤，宁可让步，听凭主怒；因为经上记着：‘主说：伸冤在我，我必报应。’”相反，如果仇敌饿了就给他吃，渴了就给他喝，因为这样做就是“把炭火堆在他的头上”。全段以一句铿锵有力的箴言收尾：“你不可为恶所胜，反要以善胜恶。”卫斯理送出这份经文与特制包装盒，由衷希望这是一个值得铭记与深思的篇章，斯蒂芬赞叹道：“太美了，非常感谢你，这真的无比美好。”
### [02:23:55](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8635s) 闭门提问：当下应当承担却尚未付诸行动的风险
斯蒂芬随后引出了《CEO日记》（The Diary Of A CEO）节目的经典收尾传统：上一位受访嘉宾在不知道下一位是谁的情况下，为其留下一个问题。留给卫斯理的问题是：“在你的生命中，有什么风险是你当下应该去承担、但目前还没有付诸行动的？”
卫斯理坦言，回顾自己目前的人生阶段，许多事情发生得太快、太不可思议，生活中充满了一种难以预料的节奏。就在前一天晚上，他和妻子还坐在一起长谈。夫妻俩达成的共识是：必须欣然接纳眼前正在经历的一切，但如果一年之后这一切全都烟消云散——无论是财务上的改善、社交媒体上的影响力，还是接踵而至的机遇——他们也完全坦然接受。卫斯理认为保持这种内心的校准与谦卑是明智的：即便这一切明天就不复存在，他依然心满意足，因为当下的际遇早已远超他的想象。他感叹道，坐在对面的可是斯蒂芬·巴特利特，换作一年前的自己，坐在这里简直是不可思议的奇迹。
面对那个提问，卫斯理沉思后表示，真正的“风险”或许在于不要妄自菲薄、不要低估自己（not selling myself short）。与其因患得患失而缩手缩脚，不如大胆向前推进，将自己获得的巨大机遇化为赋能他人的桥梁。正如过去一年里有无数人倾力支持、投资他一样，他也应当承担起风险，去拉别人一把，给其他人创造平台和空间，鼓励他们在各自的领域施展抱负。斯蒂芬形象地将其总结为“爬上梯子后，把其他人也拉上来”，卫斯理笑着赞同道，这正是把善意传递下去（Paying it forward / Paying it downward）。
### [02:25:48](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8748s) 尾声致谢与九个月的执着邀约
对话临近尾声，卫斯理对斯蒂芬团队的邀请表达了真挚的谢意。斯蒂芬则毫不吝啬对卫斯理的赞誉，称赞他是一位极其出色的沟通者。斯蒂芬特别指出，卫斯理身上有一种罕见的精妙平衡：一方面，他具备深厚的学术底蕴，能从历史与文献学的严谨视角去剖析信仰，并且始终把对真理的追寻置于首位，无论这趟追寻之旅会将人引向何方；另一方面，他又兼具极富感染力与亲和力的沟通天赋，心怀善意，为人坦荡。
斯蒂芬在现场透露了一个幕后花絮：为了促成这次访谈，他曾催促自己的团队跟进了大约长达九个月的时间。卫斯理闻言笑着表示歉意，坦承自己此前确实婉拒过几次邀约。斯蒂芬连声表示完全没关系，并强调自己极为重视且享受这场筹备已久的对话，期待不久的将来能与卫斯理再次坐下来深谈。节目的最后，斯蒂芬以招牌式的幽默向观众推荐了 YouTube 基于 AI 和用户观看行为量身定制的下一期推荐视频，为整期深度对话画上了圆满的句号。
## Notable quotes
> [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=0s) 我们自身不过是个人行为的总和。 — Wesley Huff
> [23:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=1393s) 传话游戏（Chinese whispers）的规则是：你必须压低声音私语，只能单向传达一次，而且是一对一传递；它的整套规则本身就是为了让信息失真而设计的。 — Wesley Huff
> [38:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2282s) 谎言造就不出殉道者（Liars make poor martyrs）。 — Wesley Huff
> [45:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=2734s) 没有设计，没有目的，没有恶，没有善，除了盲目无情的冷漠外别无他物；DNA 既不知道也不在乎，DNA 只是存在，而我们伴随着它的节拍起舞。 — Richard Dawkins
> [50:09](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3009s) 有些文化的伦理是爱你的邻居，而另一些文化则是吃掉你的邻居（love thy neighbor vs. eat thy neighbor）。 — Wesley Huff
> [01:05:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=3916s) 科学能精准解构物质的“机制”，却永远无法从数据中读取背后的“心意与目的”。 — Wesley Huff
> [01:16:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4601s) 一位忠诚的基督徒鞋匠，荣耀上帝的方式不是在鞋子上缝制小十字架，而是做出一双真正高品质的鞋子。 — Martin Luther
> [01:18:36](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=4716s) 从某种意义上说，每个人都在走向地狱。 — Wesley Huff
> [01:26:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5218s) 你的救恩是白白领受的，而不是赚取而来的（salvation is received, not achieved）。 — Wesley Huff
> [01:34:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=5643s) 如果你想明白上帝的心意，最好先从动用你自己的头脑开始（If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own）。 — Tim Barnett
> [01:41:19](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=6079s) 你其实不会想要公平，因为公平意味着你下地狱。 — Wesley Huff
> [01:57:02](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7022s) 被爱却不被了解，是远远不够的；而被彻底了解却不被爱，则是我们所有人最大的恐惧。 — Wesley Huff
> [02:04:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=7440s) 它不仅能提供一种解药，它能提供真正的解药（not only can it provide an antidote, it can provide the antidote）。 — Wesley Huff
> [02:22:46](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4&t=8566s) 你不可为恶所胜，反要以善胜恶。 — Wesley Huff
## Mentioned
Steven Bartlett, Wesley Huff, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, James K. A. Smith, 提比略 (Tiberius), 塔西佗 (Tacitus), 苏埃托尼乌斯 (Suetonius), 卡西乌斯·狄奥 (Cassius Dio), 维莱尤斯·帕特库鲁斯 (Velleius Paterculus), 约瑟夫斯 (Josephus), C.S. Lewis, Martin Luther King Jr., Mahatma Gandhi, John Gray, Charles Darwin, Yuval Noah Harari, Stephen Meyer, Jonathan McLatchie, John Lennox, Douglas Axe, Glenn Scrivener, Francis Bacon, St. Francis of Assisi, Martin Luther, 但丁 (Dante), Tim Barnett, Andy Steiger, Steve Kim, Jeffrey Epstein, LinkedIn Marketing, Function Health, Shopify, The 1% Diary, Apologetics Canada, Stand to Reason, 《埃努玛·埃利什》 (Enûma Eliš), 《物种起源》 (On the Origin of Species), 《伊甸园之河》 (River Out of Eden), 《人类简史》 (Sapiens), 《神曲·地狱篇》 (Inferno), 《纳尼亚传奇》 (The Chronicles of Narnia), 《痛苦的奥秘》 (The Problem of Pain), P46 莎草纸抄本 (Papyrus 46)
## Video description
Bible sales are soaring. Christian Faith Defender Wesley Huff on why the West is rediscovering Jesus.
Wesley Huff is a PhD candidate and leading Christian apologist specialising in the historical accuracy of ancient Biblical texts. He serves as the Vice President of Apologetics Canada and is the host of a YouTube channel dedicated to the science of faith.
He explains:
Why Christianity and interest in the Bible are rising again
Why New Atheism may have left a generation in a meaning crisis
How to think about suffering if God is loving
Why humans seem wired to worship something
How faith and evidence can be explored together
00:00 Intro
02:21 Why Religious Belief Is Suddenly Surging Again
06:25 The Hidden Debate: Atheism vs. Faith Movement
08:33 Why Humans Aren’t Meant to Live Alone
15:09 Is the Bible Historically Credible?
20:02 The Biggest Misunderstandings People Have About the Bible
31:16 Who Actually Witnessed the Resurrection
35:58 Were the Stories of Jesus Invented?
41:37 If God Exists, Why Does Suffering Exist?
01:01:10 Why Evolution Alone May Not Answer the Biggest Questions About Our Origins
01:11:24 Is Heaven the Point of the Bible - Or Is It Something Else Entirely?
01:12:58 Do Animals Have Souls?
01:18:31 If You Sin, Are You Automatically Going to Hell?
01:38:55 Does Your Religion Depend on Where You Were Born?
01:41:12 Does Prayer Actually Work?
01:44:26 Religion vs. A.I. - Could Technology Challenge Faith?
01:52:31 Why Young People Around the World Are Facing a Crisis of Meaning
01:59:30 A Message for Anyone Feeling Lost or Without Purpose
02:05:41 Why Questioning Christianity Has Changed in the Last Decade
02:07:01 How A.I. Could Transform the Future of Religion
02:12:18 From Paralyzed Child to Apologist
02:16:36 The Supernatural - Can People Really Speak to the Dead?
Enjoyed the episode? Share this link and earn points for every referral - redeem them for exclusive prizes: https://doac-perks.com
Follow Wesley:
Instagram - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/7w6EJYB
X - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/ajZPth
YouTube - https://link.thediaryofaceo.com/3uv9h7b
The Diary Of A CEO:
Join DOAC circle here - https://doaccircle.com/
Buy The Diary Of A CEO book here - https://smarturl.it/DOACbook
The 1% Diary is back - limited time only: https://bit.ly/3YFbJbt
The Diary Of A CEO Conversation Cards (Second Edition): https://g2ul0.app.link/f31dsUttKKb
Get email updates - https://bit.ly/diary-of-a-ceo-yt
Follow Steven - https://g2ul0.app.link/gnGqL4IsKKb
Sponsors:
"Function Health - https://Functionhealth.com/DOAC to sign up for $365 a year. One dollar a day for your health
LinkedIn Marketing: https://www.linkedin.com/DIARY
Shopify - https://shopify.com/bartlett
[Source](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrwNSSyKuD4)
Source quotes
[0:00] Wesley Huff: 我们自身不过是个人行为的总和。
[23:13] Wesley Huff: 传话游戏（Chinese whispers）的规则是：你必须压低声音私语，只能单向传达一次，而且是一对一传递；它的整套规则本身就是为了让信息失真而设计的。
[38:02] Wesley Huff: 谎言造就不出殉道者（Liars make poor martyrs）。
[45:34] Richard Dawkins: 没有设计，没有目的，没有恶，没有善，除了盲目无情的冷漠外别无他物；DNA 既不知道也不在乎，DNA 只是存在，而我们伴随着它的节拍起舞。
[50:09] Wesley Huff: 有些文化的伦理是爱你的邻居，而另一些文化则是吃掉你的邻居（love thy neighbor vs. eat thy neighbor）。
[65:16] Wesley Huff: 科学能精准解构物质的“机制”，却永远无法从数据中读取背后的“心意与目的”。
[76:41] Martin Luther: 一位忠诚的基督徒鞋匠，荣耀上帝的方式不是在鞋子上缝制小十字架，而是做出一双真正高品质的鞋子。
[78:36] Wesley Huff: 从某种意义上说，每个人都在走向地狱。
[86:58] Wesley Huff: 你的救恩是白白领受的，而不是赚取而来的（salvation is received, not achieved）。
[94:03] Tim Barnett: 如果你想明白上帝的心意，最好先从动用你自己的头脑开始（If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own）。
[101:19] Wesley Huff: 你其实不会想要公平，因为公平意味着你下地狱。
[117:02] Wesley Huff: 被爱却不被了解，是远远不够的；而被彻底了解却不被爱，则是我们所有人最大的恐惧。
[124:00] Wesley Huff: 它不仅能提供一种解药，它能提供真正的解药（not only can it provide an antidote, it can provide the antidote）。
[142:46] Wesley Huff: 你不可为恶所胜，反要以善胜恶。
Source quotes
[0:00] Wesley Huff: It's not about trying to earn my way into heaven. It's not about checking off, 'Oh, I read the Bible this many times. I didn't lie. I didn't steal. I didn't cheat.'
[0:00] Wesley Huff: Unfortunately, we bought the lie that we are the sum of our actions. We're x chasing after things that aren't going to give us what we actually need.
[0:00] Wesley Huff: From my investigation, I'm 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.
[6:25] Wesley Huff: As we remove God... the intellectual enlightenment was that we would move away from the shackles of religiosity... and that would lead us into a utopia. The more and more we've removed that, it hasn't decreased our levels of anxiety and depression; I think it's increased it.
[29:21] Wesley Huff: What is it that has 11 scared disciples... hiding in an upper room thinking 'that's it, we're done'... 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.
[64:44] Wesley Huff: Men became scientific because they expected Law in Nature, and they expected Law in Nature because they believed in a Legislator.
[80:11] Steven Bartlett: So, if I don't believe in the Bible, Jesus, and God, then I'm going to go to hell?
[80:11] Wesley Huff: Yes, in so far as if heaven is a place for those who have submitted their lives to Jesus... Hell is a place where God says, 'You rejected me. Your will be done. I'm going to give you what you want.'
[83:55] Wesley Huff: Justice is getting what you do deserve. Mercy is not getting what you do deserve. Grace is getting what you don't deserve.
[92:21] Wesley Huff: If you want to know the mind of God, you better start by using your own.
[96:11] Wesley Huff: Even if it's a convenient lie, it's still a lie and I don't want to live my life for a lie.
[114:47] Wesley Huff: It's kind of like asking what does blue smell like?
[127:23] Wesley Huff: a man does not call a line crooked unless he knows what a straight line looks like.
[132:18] Wesley Huff: In your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have.
[141:24] Steven Bartlett: Rejoice in hope, be patient in tribulation, be constant in prayer. Contribute to the needs of the saints and seek to show hospitality. Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them. Rejoice with those who rejoice...
Original transcript
[0:00] Am I going to hell? Yes.
[0:02] But here's the thing, everybody is going
[0:04] to hell. And it's not because they don't
[0:06] believe in God. And look, I'm a
[0:08] historian and a theologian. So, I study
[0:10] ancient biblical manuscripts. And if you
[0:12] truly understand what this book is
[0:14] saying, I don't want you to experience
[0:17] that.
[0:17] >> This is not a place I want to go. So,
[0:19] what do I do about that?
[0:20] >> It's not about trying to earn my way
[0:22] into heaven. It's not about checking
[0:24] off, "Oh, I read the Bible this many
[0:25] times. I didn't lie. I didn't steal. I
[0:27] didn't cheat." Like, it's none of that.
[0:29] But, here's the problem. Unfortunately,
[0:31] we bought the lie that we are the sum of
[0:33] our actions. We're we're chasing after
[0:35] things that aren't going to give us what
[0:36] we actually need. Which is also why we
[0:38] live in a world that is lacking in
[0:40] purpose and meaning.
[0:41] >> But the part that I've always struggled
[0:42] with is that the answer being religion
[0:44] as an antidote to that feeling. Because
[0:46] I require really high standard of
[0:47] evidence because of the way that I am.
[0:49] Well, I think not only can it provide an
[0:51] antidote, it can provide the antidote.
[0:53] And I'll explain why. But how can we
[0:54] trust human accounts of these things?
[0:56] And then how do you take people who
[0:57] agree that there's clearly something
[0:58] missing to believing that what's written
[1:00] in the Bible is the thing that should
[1:02] guide my life? But also, Do you have any
[1:04] doubt? Oh, of course. Especially when
[1:06] there are times of struggle and pain and
[1:08] suffering. [music] Like, the whole
[1:09] Epstein thing right now. We are seeing
[1:10] examples of true evil. So, there are
[1:12] moments where I think, "How could there
[1:14] be a good God?" However, [music]
[1:16] from my investigation, I'm convinced
[1:18] beyond a reasonable doubt that there's
[1:19] actual evidence for the existence of
[1:21] God, the historical reliability of the
[1:23] Bible, and the philosophical
[1:25] explanations for meaning and purpose.
[1:27] And what is that?
[1:28] >> First, we have
[1:30] How is some of the most persuasive
[1:31] evidence one can receive?
[1:36] Guys, I've got a quick favor to ask you.
[1:37] We're approaching a significant
[1:39] subscriber milestone on this show, and
[1:41] roughly 69% of you that listen and love
[1:43] this show haven't yet subscribed for
[1:45] whatever reason. If there was ever a
[1:47] time for you to do us a favor, if we've
[1:49] ever done anything for you, given you
[1:50] value in any way, it is simply hitting
[1:53] that subscribe button. And it means so
[1:55] much to myself, but also to my team, cuz
[1:56] when we hit these milestones, we go away
[1:57] as a team and celebrate. And it's the
[1:59] thing, the simple free easy thing you
[2:00] can do to help make this show a little
[2:02] bit better every single week. So, that's
[2:05] a favor I would ask you. And um if you
[2:07] do hit the subscribe button, I won't let
[2:09] you down and will continue to find small
[2:11] ways to make this whole production
[2:12] better. Thank you so much for being part
[2:14] of this journey. Means the world. And uh
[2:16] yeah, let's do this.
[2:20] >> [music]
[2:22] >> Wesley, I have this fascinating uh graph
[2:25] in front of me here.
[2:27] And it shows several things that I find
[2:29] to be really really interesting. One of
[2:30] them is that as of 2024,
[2:33] the decline of religion has started to
[2:36] level off and actually increase a little
[2:38] bit. And now 63% of US adults identify
[2:42] as Christian, which is roughly 160
[2:46] million people. In 2025, Bible sales hit
[2:49] a 21-year high in the United States with
[2:52] 19 million units sold. Weekly Bible
[2:55] reading amongst US adults has increased
[2:57] to 42%, which is up 12% since 2024.
[3:02] And in 2024, Christian and gospel music
[3:04] streams in the US increased by roughly
[3:06] 20% according to the Washington Times.
[3:08] Wesley, what is
[3:10] going on in society if we zoom out? I
[3:12] think we're in a unique
[3:15] bubble
[3:15] where we found ourselves in
[3:18] a time frame where
[3:21] we're connected more than ever.
[3:23] We've kind of come out of a period of
[3:26] time where
[3:28] the new atheism is very very popular.
[3:30] You had Dawkins, Daniel
[3:33] uh Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris,
[3:35] uh Christopher Hitchens. And they made a
[3:37] big impact in the early 2000s. I think
[3:39] we should probably just give some color
[3:40] to what new atheism is.
[3:42] >> Sure, yeah. Um I've actually got a graph
[3:43] here which I'll throw up on the screen
[3:44] which shows the rise and then the the
[3:46] fall of new atheism. Yeah. I was
[3:49] pulled in by new atheism. Mhm. And that
[3:51] meant that I And again, I should
[3:52] probably preface my beliefs because
[3:54] people are going to want to know what my
[3:55] bias is when I'm asking questions. I
[3:57] grew up in a very Christian household up
[3:58] until the age of 18. I then became
[4:00] agnostic/atheist when I started
[4:01] consuming a lot of this stuff from
[4:02] Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and all
[4:04] of these people. And then I find myself
[4:06] at a point now where I'm just
[4:07] open-minded and curious. Mhm. But I have
[4:09] lots of questions. Yeah, you had these
[4:11] individuals who are writing these very
[4:13] influential works. But I sometimes
[4:15] wonder whether the new atheism movement
[4:17] worked a lot more effectively in print
[4:19] than it did in actual real life. Like in
[4:21] terms of the practicality of
[4:24] the application of the things that were
[4:26] being talked about, especially in
[4:28] regards to meaning,
[4:30] if you apply ideas like you being a
[4:33] product of time plus matter plus chance,
[4:35] what does that actually give you in
[4:37] terms of the ultimate identity
[4:39] questions? And so, I think I think
[4:42] that's true in a lot of circumstances
[4:44] where you have these seeds that are
[4:45] planted and they grow
[4:48] and they produce
[4:49] trees that produce fruit that are kind
[4:52] of hard to digest in their actual
[4:54] application. And along with that, we
[4:56] have a world that's very complex. We're
[4:59] more connected than we ever have been. I
[5:02] don't know if we're truly
[5:04] we were ever truly meant to know as much
[5:06] information as we do, especially about
[5:08] things that are going on around the
[5:10] world and things that are hard to to
[5:14] comprehend. And so, what I think that
[5:17] all kind of adds up to is people asking
[5:20] questions about, "Okay, I'm here.
[5:22] I'm right now trying to figure out
[5:25] what's going on. How do I actually find
[5:29] out the answers to a lot of these
[5:31] questions that just go beyond the here
[5:32] and the now that I'm experiencing." This
[5:34] is what um individuals like James K. A.
[5:36] Smith called the dynamics of
[5:38] disenchantment, where
[5:40] people are struggling with these
[5:42] transcendent questions. Questions that
[5:45] are metaphysical, that go beyond just
[5:48] the here and the now in the world. Why
[5:50] is the 3 lb of gray matter in my brain
[5:53] able to comprehend the complexities of
[5:55] the universe? How do I How do I come up
[5:58] with a solution to that problem? So, I
[6:00] think that's part of it. I think it's
[6:02] kind of moving on in a world that just
[6:05] is probably more messy than it's ever
[6:07] been.
[6:08] A lot of countries, the UK, Europe,
[6:11] Canada,
[6:12] America, all of these Western countries,
[6:16] they
[6:17] they were founded on these
[6:18] Judeo-Christian ethics
[6:21] of foundations that come from the Old
[6:24] and the New Testaments, what we call the
[6:25] the Bible.
[6:27] And a lot of people kind of attempted to
[6:29] divorce
[6:31] the
[6:32] religious aspect from the societies, and
[6:35] societies became less and less overtly
[6:38] religious in those natures. And then a
[6:41] lot of people saw that their parents
[6:43] were no longer going to church, like the
[6:45] Bible wasn't part of kind of the
[6:46] household any longer. And I talked to a
[6:49] lot of young people who look at that,
[6:51] and they say, in almost like a rebellion
[6:54] against their parents,
[6:56] they're now interested in that. Their
[6:58] parents rebelled by
[6:59] disassociating from religion, and now
[7:01] [clears throat]
[7:02] I wonder if there's
[7:04] part of a rebellion in kind of looking
[7:07] back and trying to
[7:08] reclaim some of that religious stuff. I
[7:11] think in part as well, this younger
[7:13] generation, Gen Z's, and I guess to some
[7:15] extent as well also millennials, have
[7:17] been told to live
[7:20] more individualistic lives, and that's
[7:21] really been glamorized, like be your own
[7:23] boss. Now we work remotely, and stand on
[7:26] your own two feet, and we're even seeing
[7:28] people getting into sort of
[7:29] relationships later and later in their
[7:31] lives, and having less children. So,
[7:32] they're more It appears people are more
[7:34] unanchored than they've ever been, and
[7:36] that was to some degree glamorized.
[7:39] Um but it also appears that when we are
[7:41] unanchored, when we don't have
[7:43] responsibilities or we're not part of
[7:45] something,
[7:46] mental health issues um are quick are
[7:49] quick to follow. Yeah. And for this
[7:51] generation, they're suffering the most
[7:52] with those types of mental health
[7:53] issues. And then one would assert that
[7:54] they would therefore be searching more
[7:55] for
[7:56] answers to some of these existential
[7:59] questions.
[7:59] >> Mhm. Expressive individualism. I think
[8:01] it rose. That's the kind of the
[8:03] terminology in social in the
[8:04] sociological literature that they're
[8:06] referring to. But I I think you touched
[8:08] on a good point in that like as we
[8:10] remove God, part of the intellectual
[8:13] light enlightenment was that we would
[8:15] move away from the shackles of
[8:18] religiosity and the concept of a
[8:20] creator, and that would lead us into a
[8:23] utopia. And I think the more and more
[8:25] we've removed that from society, that
[8:28] hasn't decreased our levels of anxiety
[8:30] and depression and meaning, I I think
[8:33] it's increased it. Yeah, and especially
[8:36] celebrity worship, social media,
[8:38] building a following of your own.
[8:40] Totally.
[8:40] >> of low-key narcissism. Yeah. Has made us
[8:44] more and more and more and more
[8:45] important, and that seems to correlate
[8:47] with worse and worse and worse mental
[8:49] health. When you start to become more
[8:51] individualistic and think more and more
[8:52] about yourself
[8:53] >> Mhm. and self-importance
[8:55] >> Mhm. versus others and bigger picture.
[8:58] Mhm. I think we are created for
[9:00] community. I think we are as human
[9:02] beings a creature that is created for
[9:05] community. Ultimately, like cards on the
[9:07] table as a Christian because I believe
[9:08] we are created in the image of a God who
[9:11] exists in a set of living loving
[9:13] relationships. Like that's what the
[9:15] Trinity is when we talk about that idea
[9:18] within Christian theology. God exists in
[9:23] Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
[9:25] And so being created in the image of
[9:26] God, part of that is you are created for
[9:30] relationship. And so in a society that's
[9:32] continually removing us, you know, you
[9:34] need to be an influencer. You're
[9:36] influencing everybody else. Mhm. When
[9:39] >> [clears throat]
[9:39] >> I think we're not created to be lone
[9:41] wolves or lone rangers, we're created to
[9:44] live amongst community
[9:46] and have that be something that likewise
[9:50] gives us fulfillment. It's not that
[9:52] people who are leaders or you know, rise
[9:54] to the top are wrong by any stretch, but
[9:57] in a society where we're alone together
[10:00] because
[10:01] we are sitting behind computer screens
[10:05] Mhm. and we're talking to hundreds of
[10:07] thousands if not millions of people in
[10:08] some cases, but but we're secluded. Mhm.
[10:11] I think that that does something to our
[10:14] souls because we were made to be in
[10:17] relationship with other people. I
[10:22] agree with everything you've said as it
[10:24] relates to the sort of crisis of meaning
[10:25] in society, and I also agree with many
[10:26] of your reasons as to why that's
[10:28] occurred.
[10:29] The part that I've always struggled with
[10:31] is then the answer being Christianity
[10:34] >> Sure.
[10:35] >> or any other religion. Sure. And I agree
[10:37] with, you know, so many of the things
[10:38] you've said, but then I think my brain
[10:39] has I think especially after the age of
[10:42] 18 when I started reading about all this
[10:43] new atheist stuff and these questions of
[10:45] evil and am I going to hell and
[10:49] all these other things, I've not been
[10:50] able to get there. Mhm. But I'm having
[10:52] this conversation with you today because
[10:54] I am open-minded.
[10:56] And although I've got like difficult
[10:57] questions to ask, I'm in pursuit of the
[10:59] truth, not any particular
[11:01] ideology or answer. So, how do you take
[11:04] someone like me who agrees that there's
[11:06] clearly something missing, who believes
[11:08] that there's something [clears throat]
[11:09] transcendent, it would be a crazy thing
[11:11] to assume that this is it, I I think.
[11:13] Yeah. How do you take them from this
[11:14] position to
[11:16] believing that what's written in this
[11:17] book in front of me, the Bible, yeah, is
[11:20] the thing that should guide my life?
[11:22] Right. Because I I like again, I say
[11:24] that I'm just going to say this again
[11:25] that like
[11:27] I think I require really high standard
[11:28] of evidence because of the way that I
[11:30] am. Yeah. You know, I think there's a
[11:32] historical case for it which I'm very
[11:34] much invested in because my training
[11:36] formally is in historiography. I study
[11:39] ancient biblical manuscripts and their
[11:41] kind of reliability and fidelity over
[11:45] the last couple of millennia. So looking
[11:48] at some of those manuscripts that
[11:49] actually can trace back to the actual
[11:52] time frame of Jesus and answering
[11:54] questions like is what we have now what
[11:56] the original authors wrote back then. So
[11:57] I think there's a historical question to
[11:59] it and I in my own personal
[12:01] investigation genuinely think that the
[12:04] evidence, the publicly available
[12:05] evidence
[12:07] gets us back to not only the time frame
[12:09] of Jesus, but to early eyewitness
[12:11] testimony that proclaims that this first
[12:14] century Jewish itinerant rabbi who was
[12:17] walking the dusty streets of first
[12:18] century made these claims and then there
[12:21] is sufficient evidence to say that
[12:24] he predicted his own death and
[12:25] resurrection and he did it.
[12:27] How do I know Jesus Christ was real and
[12:29] then how do I know what's written in
[12:31] that book is real versus just some guys
[12:34] thousands of years ago made a book?
[12:37] Yeah, so that is a question of
[12:39] historical reliability. So there are a
[12:41] couple different ways we could go about
[12:43] it. First we have four biographical
[12:45] accounts of Jesus' life, which is very
[12:47] unusual. So we call them the Gospels,
[12:49] Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.
[12:51] Those aren't actually our earliest
[12:53] source material for the life of Jesus.
[12:55] That comes in the person of Paul.
[12:57] Paul is actually writing before the
[12:59] Gospel accounts.
[13:00] And he is
[13:03] someone who was hostile originally to
[13:05] the Christian message and he's
[13:07] persecuting Christians. He comes along
[13:10] and he has this radical conversion
[13:11] experience when he's traveling to
[13:14] Damascus where he says he's he's
[13:16] literally thrown off a horse, he hears
[13:18] God's voice and it's Jesus and he says,
[13:21] Paul, why are you persecuting me? And
[13:22] then he writes these things about his
[13:25] experience and and then ultimately goes
[13:28] and connects with the individuals who
[13:30] are who he called the disciples who are
[13:33] like this this close Jesus community and
[13:35] connects with them. So, he's our
[13:37] earliest source, but then you have these
[13:38] gospel accounts, these these
[13:39] biographies. And the gospels are
[13:41] interesting because they fit within the
[13:43] historical framework of ancient
[13:46] Greco-Roman biography. So, let me give
[13:49] you an example.
[13:50] The most well-known person in Jesus' day
[13:52] was the emperor.
[13:54] His name was Tiberius.
[13:55] Tiberius has four biographical accounts
[13:58] that are written about him. Velleius
[13:59] Paterculus, Cassius Dio, Suetonius, and
[14:02] Tacitus. So, these these are the four
[14:04] guys, okay?
[14:05] And what's interesting in sort of a
[14:07] comparative analysis of Jesus and those
[14:10] people
[14:11] is that they're all writing around the
[14:13] same time period. So, the biographies
[14:15] are coming from the 1st century
[14:18] for Jesus. They're coming in this time
[14:21] period where you have an early
[14:22] eyewitness testimony.
[14:24] For
[14:25] the emperor, for the most well-known
[14:27] person in the ancient world,
[14:29] all of the sources except for
[14:31] uh Velleius Paterculus are coming from
[14:33] the 2nd century.
[14:35] Velleius Paterculus is coming from the
[14:36] 1st century. He's very close to the
[14:37] source, but he's a paid propagandist.
[14:40] So, even though he's the earliest, he's
[14:41] the least reliable. And for the gospels,
[14:46] that comes around in the 4th century.
[14:48] So,
[14:49] there is a comparison with the source
[14:52] material for someone like Jesus even
[14:55] though we really shouldn't have anything
[14:57] about him
[14:58] because he's he's kind of a nobody from
[15:00] nowhere in terms of the Roman Empire and
[15:03] the grand scheme of things.
[15:05] But, we have a phenomenal amount of
[15:07] source information for his life. I mean,
[15:10] this is one of the things I discovered
[15:11] when I went through that new atheist
[15:12] phase was that really
[15:14] everybody kind of agrees that there was
[15:17] a guy called Jesus from Nazareth and
[15:19] that he was a real historical person.
[15:21] >> Mhm. I guess the part in dispute was
[15:23] whether things like his resurrection
[15:25] actually happened or whether he was just
[15:27] a spiritual leader back then like we
[15:29] have spiritual leaders today. And I
[15:31] think one of the one of the things that
[15:32] I got really stuck on when I was reading
[15:33] about Jesus in the Bible was there
[15:36] appears to be quite a significant gap
[15:37] between his life, his death, and then
[15:40] the writings that go into the Bible. And
[15:43] for me in my head I was like, "Well, if
[15:44] you know
[15:45] if something happened in my life 50
[15:46] years ago, I mean I'm only 33, but if
[15:47] something happened 50 years ago, I would
[15:49] not be able to recount it. Frankly, I
[15:50] can't recount what happened last week
[15:51] accurately. Right.
[15:52] >> Let alone like decades ago. You've heard
[15:54] You must have heard this argument
[15:55] before. Yes. What How do you How do you
[15:57] square the circle here? So, there are a
[15:59] few things going on. First, we live in a
[16:00] hyper-literate culture. We are writing
[16:03] everything down.
[16:04] The ancient world was far less of a
[16:06] literate culture. They were an oral
[16:07] culture. These stories would have been
[16:09] passed in large groups at at at at time
[16:12] frames, especially if we're talking
[16:14] about the biographical material of Jesus
[16:16] is actually written in a closer time
[16:18] frame than the majority of anyone else.
[16:20] What was that gap? It's It's about 40 to
[16:23] 60 years. So, I really want to I imagine
[16:25] there's some people listening that have
[16:26] probably never read the Bible. And I
[16:27] really want to explain to them like what
[16:29] this book is in the simplest terms. Can
[16:30] I I can open your Bible?
[16:31] >> Yeah, of course. Yeah. So, is there Is
[16:34] there like chapters in here? Yeah. So,
[16:36] the Bible is though we now have it in
[16:38] one book is 66 books written over a
[16:42] period of about 1,600 years on three
[16:44] different continents by close to 40
[16:45] different authors in three different
[16:46] languages.
[16:48] So, I've just opened your Bible.
[16:50] >> Yep. And there's one section that says
[16:52] the Old Testament. There's another
[16:53] section section that says the New
[16:54] Testament. What am I looking at? Like is
[16:57] this God's words? Is this a bunch of
[17:00] people's stories that have been compiled
[17:02] together? What is the Old Testament?
[17:03] What's the New Testament? What's the
[17:05] difference? Yeah. So, the Old Testament
[17:07] is the Hebrew scriptures. So, that's the
[17:08] scriptures of the Jewish people. Okay.
[17:11] So, that is uh you know, it starts in
[17:15] what's referred to as the Torah,
[17:17] which are the first five books or the
[17:18] five books of Moses. And then that goes
[17:20] in a time frame all the way up to the
[17:23] period of the Persians.
[17:25] So, that's a certain time frame.
[17:26] >> Yes. And they've gone and collected
[17:28] books from that time frame, with
[17:29] writings from that time frame? Yeah, so
[17:31] the ancient Jewish people had And
[17:33] remember, all of these books they would
[17:35] have circulated as independent writings.
[17:37] Okay. So, we start to see things like
[17:39] this happen in the 4th century. Prior to
[17:42] that, everything's in independent
[17:44] scrolls. So, there's an understanding
[17:47] when even you get them all sort of put
[17:49] in one unit, that would have contained
[17:52] the scriptures, the word of God, more so
[17:54] than like this is the word of God. The
[17:56] reason why
[17:57] I am unapologetic and very open about my
[18:00] total naivety is because often in these
[18:02] conversations,
[18:04] you end up kind of preaching to the
[18:05] choir, Sure. if you know what I mean.
[18:06] And there's a huge amount of people,
[18:07] especially younger people that went
[18:09] through that new atheist movement, were
[18:10] maybe born in the 2000s, that are now 26
[18:12] years old,
[18:12] >> Right. but have never read the Bible,
[18:14] have never even opened one.
[18:15] >> Yeah.
[18:15] >> idea what it is. They just think it's
[18:16] this kind of like book of stories.
[18:18] >> Yeah. But these the first
[18:21] you call these books, I was thinking of
[18:22] them like chapters. Mhm. The first one
[18:24] in the Old Testament is Genesis.
[18:26] >> Mhm.
[18:27] Who wrote Genesis? Was that a guy or was
[18:29] that God? So, the idea is in
[18:32] Christianity,
[18:33] the terminology is what's called verbal
[18:36] plenary inspiration. So, verbal, it's
[18:38] spoken. Plenary, it's like written down
[18:41] and then it inspired. So, there are
[18:43] human authors to all these books. Okay,
[18:45] so humans wrote these chapters, but they
[18:46] were inspired by God. So, yes. So, the
[18:48] understanding, so in the Bible itself,
[18:51] Peter says that men spoke as they were
[18:53] carried along by the Holy Spirit. So,
[18:55] there is a there's a historical context
[18:58] to all of these, like the history of
[19:00] this period of time, of the nation of
[19:03] Israel as they were being led by
[19:05] particular rulers. And when does Jesus
[19:07] show up? Jesus is the New Testament. If
[19:09] someone's never read the Old Testament,
[19:12] what is that about? It's just describing
[19:14] the time?
[19:16] It's a bunch of different things. So,
[19:17] it's there's a whole bunch of genres of
[19:19] literature. So, some of it is history,
[19:22] some of it is poetry,
[19:24] some of it is what's called wisdom
[19:26] literature. And who decided that these
[19:28] It looks like there's I don't know that
[19:29] looks like there's about 40 books in the
[19:31] Old Testament. Mhm. 39 [clears throat]
[19:32] books that are in the Old Testament. Who
[19:34] decided that those were going to be part
[19:36] of the Old Testament? Because I'm sure
[19:38] that there was lots of other writings at
[19:39] the time that could have been included.
[19:41] Yeah. So, by the time that Jesus is
[19:43] around, there's approximately an
[19:45] agreement of what is
[19:47] considered scripture. By who? By the
[19:49] Jews themselves.
[19:50] >> So, the Jews decided which 38 books to
[19:52] put in? Yes. So, you have conversations
[19:56] by individuals like there's a guy named
[19:58] Josephus who is writing at the end of
[20:00] the 1st century. Part of what he argues
[20:03] is that the Jewish people don't have
[20:06] kind of an innumerable number of
[20:08] religious texts like the Greeks do.
[20:11] They have a specific number and he uses
[20:13] this terminology that they were laid up
[20:15] in the temple.
[20:16] So, the idea is that, you know, these
[20:18] are the books, they're housed in the
[20:20] temple, and they're a set number. And he
[20:23] gives the number of the same number of
[20:25] letters in the Hebrew alphabet, 22. So,
[20:28] you usually see this 22 or 23 number,
[20:30] but they group them differently.
[20:33] And he gives an argument that
[20:36] one of the reasons that they're the you
[20:38] we can find a timeline for what the Jews
[20:40] consider scripture is he says, "There's
[20:42] nothing written before Moses and there's
[20:44] not nothing written after the time of
[20:46] Artaxerxes, which is the Persian
[20:47] Empire." So, the book of Esther in the
[20:50] Bible is is that time period.
[20:52] So, though there are writings after
[20:54] that, there's this agreement that
[20:58] the voice of God in say the prophets
[21:01] giving you thus saith the Lord
[21:02] statement, like communicating messages
[21:05] to the people of Israel
[21:06] has ceased. But, the Jewish canon,
[21:10] though there's like a closing of it,
[21:13] there's a soft closing.
[21:15] There's an idea that there's going to be
[21:18] a new covenant. God's make going to make
[21:19] new pro- promises with his people, and
[21:22] so there are going to be more writings.
[21:24] Okay, so my understanding of that is
[21:26] that
[21:27] he made the case that God is no longer
[21:29] communicating with people to write these
[21:31] books. At least if there was a stop
[21:34] point at Malachi. So, it's sometimes
[21:36] referred to as the 400 years of silence
[21:38] for that reason. From the point of
[21:40] Jesus' death
[21:41] >> Mhm. what book from the New Testament is
[21:44] written last, and how big is that gap?
[21:47] That's a debate. Okay, what's the
[21:49] debate? So, the debate So, the the
[21:52] there's a it's a question if John's
[21:53] gospel
[21:55] is written before 70 AD or after 70 AD.
[21:57] And if it's written after 70 AD, it's
[21:59] written in the '90s. So, it's written
[22:02] pretty far afterwards.
[22:03] >> How many years?
[22:04] So, Jesus dies in '33. Okay, so about
[22:07] 60. Yeah. Okay. Fine.
[22:10] Yeah. So, it's at the minimum I think
[22:14] like 99% of
[22:17] historians, biblical scholars,
[22:18] classicists would argue that the 27
[22:20] books of the New Testament are written
[22:22] in the 1st century.
[22:24] And so, in that sense, they're in the
[22:26] lifetime of the eyewitnesses to a
[22:27] certain degree. Mhm. And there's
[22:30] evidence even within some of the gospels
[22:32] where you have these names thrown out
[22:34] kind of randomly.
[22:36] And part of the thinking of that is that
[22:39] this is like citing your sources. At one
[22:42] point
[22:43] when Jesus is carrying the cross to
[22:45] Golgotha
[22:47] he kind of stumbles, and they get
[22:49] another person to carry his cross for a
[22:52] little bit.
[22:53] And that person is Joseph of Arimathea.
[22:55] Well, one of the gospels names one of
[22:58] Joseph of Arimathea's son by name.
[23:00] And the thinking is that this is
[23:02] probably someone who's well-known within
[23:04] the early Jesus community.
[23:05] And the purpose of naming that person
[23:07] randomly
[23:09] is to say
[23:11] he's actually well-known, go ask him. I
[23:13] mean logically there's quite a risk of
[23:15] Chinese whispers to some degree. As
[23:17] you're speaking I'm trying to think
[23:18] about things that I experienced when I
[23:19] was younger like with my like
[23:20] grandmother before she passed away and I
[23:22] was trying to like accurately recount
[23:24] those memories.
[23:25] >> Yeah. I was thinking of like going to a
[23:26] house and then
[23:28] I remember one day she gave me some
[23:29] money. But I remember what she gave it
[23:31] to me for and I can't remember how much
[23:33] she gave me. I know she put it in a card
[23:35] and this was only like hmm 20 years ago.
[23:37] Yeah.
[23:38] And so if I was to write about that
[23:40] today
[23:42] I would be filling in some some gaps
[23:44] especially
[23:45] especially this is the other thing that
[23:47] I always struggled with is like
[23:48] especially in a world where we didn't
[23:50] understand science. Now my grandmother
[23:51] like put it in a card and it was like I
[23:53] opened it and
[23:54] the way she did it was often as a
[23:56] surprise. So in a world where I like
[23:57] didn't understand physics or science I
[23:59] might have concluded that my mother my
[24:01] grandmother did something like magical.
[24:03] Mhm. You know at a time when we didn't
[24:05] understand anything about like really
[24:06] much about the nature of the universe
[24:08] and planets and the solar system and
[24:09] physics.
[24:11] So I is that a risk that some of the
[24:13] things that have been transmitted via
[24:15] God into this book in front of me are
[24:17] prone to Chinese whispers and or just
[24:19] like a lack of understanding about the
[24:20] nature of the world like the
[24:21] resurrection for example. Yeah. So this
[24:23] is this is in my field referred to as
[24:26] mythological drift. So how do we factor
[24:30] in
[24:31] making sure that mythological drift
[24:32] doesn't happen. I think there are a
[24:33] couple things related to what you said.
[24:35] First off I think I would be careful in
[24:38] trying to ascribe the ancient world as
[24:41] being pre-scientific and therefore
[24:43] largely say ignorant. I mean even when
[24:46] the angel comes to Mary in the gospel
[24:49] story and says you're going to be with
[24:51] child Mary's objection to the angel is a
[24:53] scientific one. I haven't met the
[24:55] minimum requirements of how babies are
[24:57] made, therefore
[24:59] I can't be pregnant, right? So, she's
[25:01] not dumb, right? She's not just at face
[25:04] value accepting that, you know, well, I
[25:06] believe in angels and so, you know, this
[25:08] kind of magic thinking happened.
[25:10] She's still objecting scientifically,
[25:12] even though she might not have the
[25:13] terminology to understand
[25:15] like the complexities of childbirth and
[25:17] embryology and all of that.
[25:19] So, I would say, you know, this is what
[25:21] the writer C.S. Lewis calls
[25:23] chronological snobbery. He says, you
[25:25] know, we need to be careful of not to
[25:27] ascribe the ancient world as being
[25:29] more ignorant and stupid than than, you
[25:32] know, just because we are a product of
[25:33] the enlightenment and we understand
[25:34] scientific things now. The second thing
[25:36] is, I think that the Chinese whispers or
[25:39] the telephone game or whatever you call
[25:40] it is a good is a good kind of case
[25:43] study. I think where it falls short is
[25:46] that if you play the telephone game, if
[25:48] you play Chinese whispers,
[25:49] there are rules in order to corrupt the
[25:52] message. So, you have to whisper, you
[25:55] can only say it once, you have to do it
[25:57] one person to one person.
[26:00] In an oral culture, you would have been
[26:02] hearing these stories constantly.
[26:04] So, when some of these stories are told,
[26:06] they're being told within a lifetime
[26:08] where there could have been
[26:10] individuals who say, the story of the
[26:12] feeding of the 5,000, that's a lot of
[26:14] people. So, there's a lot of witnesses
[26:16] to this particular event. So, if you're
[26:18] writing this down, there's an aspect of
[26:21] there are people out there who could
[26:23] verify what is being said at least
[26:25] orally, not necessarily like literally.
[26:28] Likewise,
[26:30] what we have in the gospel accounts,
[26:31] particularly after Jesus' death, when
[26:34] the disciples
[26:35] proclaiming his resurrection, they go
[26:37] back to Jerusalem, which is the scene of
[26:38] the crime.
[26:39] So, they go back to the exact place
[26:41] where Jesus was crucified and start
[26:43] telling people he was risen from the
[26:44] dead. If there is some aspect of say
[26:48] disingenuousness and making up a story,
[26:51] don't go back to the place where
[26:52] everybody could have seen that thing
[26:54] happen
[26:55] to that degree, right? So, in one sense,
[26:58] Chinese whispers is
[27:00] is a faulty analogy in that it's less
[27:03] like one person whispering into
[27:05] another's ear and more like
[27:07] 100 people in a room all saying
[27:10] communicating the thing verbally and
[27:11] then getting the other people to repeat
[27:13] it back to them and then corroborating
[27:16] with the other individuals of what's
[27:18] going on. Now, I think there I think
[27:21] your point in in the story of your your
[27:23] grandmother and you know the the the
[27:25] letter and is a good one. You know, how
[27:27] do we remember things?
[27:30] Do you remember 9/11?
[27:33] Yes, I do. Yes, and I was in the the UK
[27:35] at the time. Could you tell me a little
[27:38] bit more vividly what what you were
[27:40] doing on 9/11 compared to your
[27:42] grandmother and the letter? Yes, I
[27:44] could, yeah. I remember coming home from
[27:46] school and like watching it on the
[27:47] screen and my and my dad having it on
[27:49] the screen and I was just just looking
[27:50] at the screen. Yeah, me too. So, whereas
[27:52] I couldn't tell you much of what else
[27:54] happened during
[27:56] an average day in that year, I could
[27:57] tell you what happened on September
[28:00] 11th, 2001.
[28:02] And that's because of the nature of what
[28:04] was going on. And I think when we're
[28:06] talking about the gospel stories in
[28:07] particular,
[28:09] first you have what I genuinely believe
[28:11] are eyewitness accounts from at least
[28:14] the source information
[28:15] coming from a group who would have heard
[28:17] Jesus be preaching these things multiple
[28:21] times in multiple different settings.
[28:23] Like it's it's probably likely myself as
[28:26] an itinerant, I have given the same talk
[28:29] on a particular subject quite a few
[28:30] times. Yeah. And I joke with my wife
[28:32] that she could give my talk on the
[28:34] historical reliability of the Bible
[28:35] herself. You know, if I'm sick, I'll
[28:37] just send my wife, right? Cuz she's
[28:38] heard it so many times. I think that's
[28:40] the case that's going on with the
[28:42] disciples. There's an aspect of they
[28:44] would have heard say the Beatitudes.
[28:47] Yeah. that Jesus
[28:49] most likely more than once is the case
[28:51] because that's just the nature of not
[28:53] just itinerant speaking, but even
[28:55] traveling rabbis in in the ancient
[28:57] world.
[28:58] And then you have this event that is
[29:00] kind of earth-shattering in terms of
[29:03] their narrative of who they are. They've
[29:05] been traveling with this rabbi
[29:07] for 3 years straight. They've been
[29:09] hearing his teaching, they've been
[29:11] seeing miracles, at least that are
[29:12] recorded in the Gospels.
[29:15] Pretty phenomenal things.
[29:17] And then he gets taken and he's murdered
[29:20] publicly.
[29:21] And they think it's over.
[29:23] They think, you know, there are other
[29:25] Messianic movements in the ancient
[29:26] world,
[29:27] most of which you and I aren't hearing
[29:29] on a regular basis because when those
[29:32] individuals die, their movement dies
[29:33] with them. And so that's what they think
[29:35] is happening, right? So they think,
[29:36] okay,
[29:38] we're done.
[29:39] They're
[29:40] So the story is they're hiding in this
[29:41] upper room and they're scared. In fact,
[29:44] it's the women who take on the
[29:46] responsibility of like going and
[29:47] figuring things out, which in terms of a
[29:50] the time period is actually an
[29:51] embarrassing fact because of the kind of
[29:54] cultural dynamics of what's going on.
[29:57] And so
[29:59] you have the disciples who think it's
[30:00] over. What is it that has 11 scared
[30:04] disciples because one of them, Judas,
[30:06] goes and he kills himself. 11 scared
[30:08] disciples hiding in an upper room
[30:09] thinking that's it, we're done. We might
[30:11] as well, you know, Peter, James, and
[30:13] John might as well just go back to being
[30:14] fishermen
[30:15] cuz that's all she wrote. To then
[30:19] having the boldness to go out and
[30:21] actually proclaim this message
[30:23] ultimately to
[30:25] the level of persecution and hardship
[30:27] that they endure for the rest of their
[30:29] lives. Well, it's that their rabbi then
[30:32] shows up alive again.
[30:34] And so at minimum, I think what we can
[30:36] say is that this is a pretty drastic
[30:40] event that takes place in their life.
[30:42] It's a comparative to a 9/11 event for
[30:44] them.
[30:45] And so in terms of like the memory
[30:47] imprint
[30:49] that they are experiencing
[30:51] for the murder of their rabbi, of their
[30:55] teacher.
[30:56] And then something
[30:58] happening where
[31:01] they then go
[31:03] for the rest of their lives
[31:05] the martyrdom stories are a little bit
[31:07] tricky in terms of their historical
[31:08] reliability. I think a few of them we
[31:11] can say did happen. M- a lot of them is
[31:14] kind of up in the air, but at minimum
[31:16] they suffered persecution. So the story
[31:19] in the Bible is that he was
[31:21] killed uh on the cross, murdered on the
[31:23] cross, and then he was put into a tomb.
[31:26] And then
[31:28] who saw him come out of the tomb?
[31:31] So nobody physically sees him come out
[31:33] of the tomb. But the women go to the
[31:36] tomb in the morning
[31:38] and on the third day and the tomb is
[31:40] empty.
[31:42] And so there are
[31:44] four accounts, right? And I think it's
[31:46] interesting also that we have four
[31:47] accounts that kind of give different
[31:49] angles on the stories.
[31:51] They're not It's not as if they got
[31:53] together and they corroborated and all
[31:54] gave the same story. The fact is that we
[31:56] have four accounts that kind of
[31:58] capitalize on different angles
[32:00] which the differentiation in detail I
[32:03] think actually gives credibility to
[32:06] the
[32:07] the reliability of it. Cuz if they're
[32:08] all telling the same thing, you could
[32:10] argue that they got together and they
[32:12] colluded. They don't do that. In fact,
[32:14] they they touch on different aspects of
[32:16] the story. Are these people saying that
[32:19] they saw him walk out? Are they saying
[32:21] that they just saw it empty? What are
[32:22] the claims being made about his
[32:23] resurrection from these witnesses? Yeah,
[32:25] so the tomb is empty. The tomb is empty.
[32:27] >> And so it's interesting in in one of the
[32:28] accounts um Mary's at the tomb and she
[32:32] actually talks to Jesus, but she
[32:35] confuses him with the gardener. Now I
[32:37] think it's it's interesting that she
[32:39] doesn't confute confuse the gardener
[32:41] with Jesus. She confuses Jesus with the
[32:44] gardener. Like she thinks that that this
[32:45] person she's talking to isn't Jesus. She
[32:46] doesn't recognize him at first. And she
[32:49] she asks him, you know, "What happened?
[32:51] Why is the tomb opened? Where did the
[32:53] body go?" And then there's also an
[32:54] account of an angel appearing and
[32:56] saying, "Why are you looking for the
[32:58] living among the dead? He's not here.
[33:00] He's risen." And then they go back to
[33:02] the disciples who are, you know, hiding
[33:04] in the upper room. Mary says, you know,
[33:07] "I I I met you the tomb is empty. I met
[33:08] Jesus. Jesus is not in the the tomb.
[33:11] He's risen." And
[33:13] some of them don't even believe her.
[33:14] They think she's crazy.
[33:16] Now, we don't have like an eyewitness
[33:19] account of the tomb being open.
[33:22] And this is actually an embarrassing
[33:24] fact in the ancient world.
[33:26] So, some of those other gospels that I
[33:27] mentioned earlier that are written later
[33:29] on, Gospel of Thomas, Judas, Mary,
[33:31] Peter,
[33:32] there's one of them, the Gospel of
[33:34] Peter, which is actually trying to
[33:36] remedy this fact
[33:38] that
[33:40] women are the first eyewitnesses to the
[33:42] empty tomb.
[33:43] Which is a which is an embarrassing fact
[33:45] in the ancient world. If that's not
[33:47] true, if they made it up, it seems very
[33:50] unlikely that they would have done that.
[33:52] Because women are not considered good
[33:54] eyewitnesses in either Greco-Roman or
[33:57] unfortunately Jewish society in this
[33:58] time period.
[34:00] So, the Gospel of Peter
[34:02] tries to remedy the situation by having
[34:04] all of the right people
[34:06] in the right place at the right time. It
[34:08] has the Jewish and the Roman officials
[34:09] camping out in front of the tomb when it
[34:11] actually happens and then has this
[34:13] recounted the story of the the literally
[34:16] the stone moving, Jesus coming out, all
[34:18] these things. Now, we know it's not
[34:20] historically reliable. We know that
[34:22] because of when it was written. We also
[34:24] know that on the eve of Passover, the
[34:26] priests would not be camping out in
[34:27] front of a dead body. It's just
[34:29] historically um an
[34:32] But, it is an account of a literary
[34:36] source later on that is embarrassed by
[34:39] what we find in here about the
[34:42] biographical information of the empty
[34:45] tomb. So, is it just two women that said
[34:48] they met Jesus in some form after his
[34:50] death, Mary being one of them, which was
[34:53] his mother? No. Who's Mary? Mary, so
[34:56] there are a number of Marys in in the
[34:57] New Testament. Um this was Mary
[34:59] Magdalene. Okay. Yeah, who who was like
[35:01] a close associate
[35:03] >> Okay, like a friend. Yeah, yeah.
[35:05] >> Okay, so friend, and then was there is
[35:07] it just her that says she saw him
[35:09] There there was a group of them. A group
[35:11] of them?
[35:11] >> Yeah, of the women. Okay, so and they
[35:13] were separate when they saw him. They
[35:14] weren't They were on their own. They
[35:16] were together. So, one of the gospel
[35:17] only mentions Mary, I believe it's the
[35:20] gospel of John, but like I said before,
[35:22] it implies that there are more because
[35:24] she says, "We don't know where they put
[35:26] the body." Okay.
[35:27] >> So, though that account only
[35:31] has her
[35:33] recounting, it it implies that there are
[35:36] others, and then the other gospels have
[35:38] more women that are going to the tomb.
[35:40] As a percentage, what degree of
[35:41] certainty do you have that he was
[35:43] resurrected and that um he was who he
[35:46] said he was? Cuz I agree with you that
[35:48] this character clearly existed. Like
[35:49] Jesus clearly existed. I personally
[35:51] believe that he was he was killed, Mhm.
[35:53] probably on [clears throat] a cross.
[35:55] But, then you get to this point of
[35:56] resurrection, which you have to then
[35:58] believe in something supernatural. Yeah.
[36:00] So, what's the probability you'd assign
[36:01] to it? I I
[36:03] >> it was like likely, unlikely, very
[36:04] likely. They're all likely because I
[36:07] think that what the gospel authors are
[36:10] doing is communicating truth,
[36:13] and I don't ultimately see an
[36:16] overabundance of reason why they would
[36:18] write what they wrote
[36:20] other than
[36:22] actually recounting a story of what took
[36:24] place. I grew up in a place called
[36:26] Plymouth. I don't know if guys born in
[36:28] Africa. And in my local park, there was
[36:30] this big poster on the wall about the
[36:31] white lady. I'll put it up on the
[36:33] screen. It's like a big legend in our
[36:35] city. It's this park and everybody says
[36:37] that they see this white lady in the
[36:38] park that was killed. And actually,
[36:40] there's a big board explaining her life.
[36:42] But it's all just accounts of people
[36:43] that say they've seen her. You have
[36:45] things like the Loch Ness Monster in
[36:46] Scotland as well, where there's been
[36:47] 1,500 sightings of this big monster in
[36:50] the river. And even up until recent
[36:52] times, 2025, there was a surge of
[36:54] sightings of the Loch Ness Monster
[36:56] called the Black Mass in in in in the
[36:59] bay.
[37:00] Um and that started in
[37:02] 565 AD. So, one of the things that I've
[37:05] always sort of struggled with when
[37:07] I think about humans saying they saw
[37:09] something is we still today have
[37:11] sightings of UFOs and Loch Ness Monsters
[37:13] and white ladies in parks that become
[37:16] legend. And actually, with the Loch Ness
[37:17] Monster, it's pretty interesting that
[37:19] even today, there are sightings all the
[37:22] time of this monster that lives in the
[37:23] river. Now, I think maybe Maybe
[37:25] you you both agree that there's no
[37:27] monster in the river.
[37:28] But there's something going on. There's
[37:29] something in human nature where
[37:31] we do have like a proclivity to engage
[37:34] in
[37:35] supernatural sightings. And then once
[37:36] we've heard it once, we then reinforce
[37:38] that we've seen it, too. And even as
[37:40] like a young man, I mean, maybe you
[37:41] believe this, but like
[37:43] I
[37:44] believed that there was a woman that
[37:45] would stand on the landing of my home.
[37:47] And it would like wake me up and I would
[37:48] run and
[37:50] and tell my parents that the lady stood
[37:51] on the landing again.
[37:52] There's people watching this that think
[37:53] there was actually a lady. They're
[37:54] probably me. I was. But I do you know
[37:56] what I'm getting at? Is like how do how
[37:57] can we trust human accounts of these
[37:58] things when clearly humans have an
[38:00] ability to make make things up that
[38:02] aren't real in some situations.
[38:05] Part of the answer to the question is
[38:07] one of the evidences for Jesus's
[38:09] resurrection is the fact that you and I,
[38:11] Stephen, are still talking about it
[38:12] almost 2,000 years later. My friend said
[38:14] this to me. I was saying to you before
[38:15] about my Christian friend. He was like,
[38:16] "Why are we still talking about it?
[38:17] Well, I we can't prove it." Right. It
[38:19] wasn't it didn't happen. So, we're
[38:20] always going to talk about it. There's
[38:22] There's never going to be I mean, unless
[38:23] something happens. Right. The difference
[38:25] is that there are these other Messianic
[38:27] movies movements that happen in the
[38:29] ancient world. And so, uh like uh Simon
[38:32] bar Giora. The reason why we're not
[38:34] talking about Simon bar Giora as a
[38:36] Messianic figure is because he died and
[38:38] his movement died with him.
[38:40] And his disciples didn't go out and then
[38:42] proclaim his continued message until
[38:46] like to their own detriment. So, I would
[38:49] say a few things. I would say liars make
[38:51] poor martyrs
[38:52] in that you will die for something you
[38:55] believe is true,
[38:57] but
[38:58] the chances of you dying for something
[38:59] you know is not true are less likely.
[39:02] [clears throat]
[39:03] So, if we're talking about the disciples
[39:06] and especially
[39:07] if
[39:08] what they're getting for this particular
[39:10] proclamation
[39:12] is they're being ostracized from their
[39:15] own communities, pagan gentile
[39:18] communities, and the Jewish communities.
[39:19] Cuz remember, there was a persecution on
[39:21] both sides because it was at a certain
[39:24] point in time continuing to say that
[39:26] Jesus was the Messiah and on top of that
[39:28] that he was God himself
[39:31] was not very popular within the early
[39:33] Jewish communities. There's a complexity
[39:35] to the fact that
[39:38] people usually lie. You look at cultic
[39:40] figures, right? Right. Cult leaders
[39:42] usually do things for
[39:44] prominence
[39:46] or money
[39:47] or sex
[39:49] or influence. The interesting thing
[39:51] about the early disciples is they get
[39:53] none of that.
[39:54] In fact, they almost get the complete
[39:56] opposite of that.
[39:57] In that Jesus says, "You're going to be
[40:00] persecuted.
[40:01] You're going to be put in front of trib-
[40:03] tribunals and you're going to be
[40:04] interrogated." And that's exactly what
[40:06] happens. And they know that there is
[40:10] there's a danger to this because we have
[40:12] in the book of Acts, which is the book
[40:15] after the Gospels, we have a recounting
[40:17] of the first martyr, Stephen. I think of
[40:19] like someone like Martin Luther King or
[40:21] Gandhi as being, you know, leaders from
[40:22] history that appeared to be, from what
[40:24] I've understood, very selfless. And
[40:27] actually realized that they were all
[40:28] going to die. I'll never forget the
[40:29] speech actually where Martin Luther King
[40:31] says, "I've been to the mountaintop." He
[40:32] was a very religious man, very Christian
[40:34] man, and says, "I've been to the
[40:35] mountaintop. You guys get there, but I
[40:37] don't get there with you." Right. And
[40:38] then, from the information I had, he
[40:40] died very, very shortly thereafter. And
[40:42] as he's saying, "I don't get there with
[40:44] you." He's He's emotional in his face.
[40:45] You see him crying. The video is was
[40:48] very con-
[40:49] persuasive of the Christianity, by the
[40:50] way. Mhm. Um and then he's pulled off
[40:52] stage, and then he's shot thereafter.
[40:54] Feels like a man that knew he wasn't
[40:56] going to
[40:57] live much longer, but was willing to put
[41:00] his cause ahead of
[41:02] um his own mortality. And um I guess
[41:04] [clears throat] Jesus was doing the
[41:05] same. In a certain regard, in terms of
[41:07] the disciples though, I think like if
[41:09] they know this isn't true, if they know
[41:11] that there's this kind of this has been
[41:13] mythological drift, if things have been
[41:15] exaggerated, uh why then,
[41:18] especially experiencing that
[41:19] persecution, seeing their friends die in
[41:22] that kind of setting, do they continue
[41:24] to go on and do it? I think they
[41:27] definitely believed it was true. Yes. I
[41:28] think at minimum, whatever's going on,
[41:30] they like you you look at some of these
[41:33] uh secular historians, and they look at
[41:36] the data and they say, "Whatever's going
[41:38] on, the disciples believe something
[41:39] happened." Yeah, I think they saw
[41:40] something. Of course.
[41:41] >> And so, the I just think that the
[41:43] explanations
[41:45] of the alternatives of them actually
[41:47] happening are insufficient in so far as
[41:50] how they actually explain the data. Do
[41:52] you have any doubt?
[41:54] Oh, of course. Okay. So, you have at
[41:56] least even 1% doubt. Oh, definitely. And
[41:58] I think especially when there are times
[42:00] of things that are far more existential
[42:02] than historical, when times of like
[42:05] struggle and pain and suffering, and I
[42:07] look at the world and I look at how
[42:10] messy it is, The who die young, people
[42:13] who are abused, all of these things.
[42:16] There are moments where I think, how how
[42:19] could there be a good God? I mean, I'm
[42:21] not immune to doubt.
[42:23] I and and the interesting thing that I
[42:24] find about the Bible is that the Bible
[42:26] is very open to the God of the Bible
[42:29] being open to us coming to him with our
[42:32] doubts.
[42:34] Now, 1/3 of the book of Psalms, which is
[42:37] like right in the middle of the Bible,
[42:38] this kind of poetic literature if you
[42:40] want to call it that, are sometimes
[42:42] referred to as the lament or the
[42:43] complaint Psalms. It's things like Psalm
[42:46] 22, my God, my God, why have you
[42:48] forsaken me? Why are you so far from me?
[42:51] I like I cry out by day and I hear no
[42:54] answer.
[42:56] And I think what's interesting that I
[42:58] find with the Bible is it's transparency
[43:00] in saying, we're going to struggle.
[43:02] You know, there's this really great
[43:03] story in the Gospel of John. Well, this
[43:06] is this is in a couple of the instances
[43:07] of the Gospels where
[43:09] John the Baptist, who's like Jesus'
[43:11] cousin and good friend,
[43:13] he's been in prison because he's been
[43:15] speaking out against Herod. He's been
[43:17] being a little bit too verbal
[43:18] politically and so he gets taken and
[43:20] he's in prison and though he's the one
[43:22] that baptized Jesus and said, you know,
[43:24] behold the lamb of God who takes away
[43:26] the sin of the world. When he's in
[43:27] prison, he doubts. And he sends his
[43:30] disciples over to Jesus to ask,
[43:33] are you the Messiah? Are you the one
[43:35] we're waiting for or should we we we be
[43:36] waiting for another? Now, in that
[43:38] interaction, Jesus actually says,
[43:41] John the Baptist is the greatest of all
[43:43] men born of women,
[43:45] which is basically everybody, right? And
[43:48] yet, in that very same setting, John the
[43:50] Baptist is doubting
[43:53] that Jesus is who he says he is because
[43:55] he's experiencing pain and suffering.
[43:58] On that point of
[44:00] you seeing, you know, horrific things
[44:01] happening in the world and then having
[44:03] doubts, I think for me, that was one of
[44:05] the persuasive arguments of the like new
[44:07] atheist movement that I became a part of
[44:09] when I was like 18 years old, which was
[44:11] I think Richard Dawkins had said about,
[44:13] you know, if God is all loving, Mhm.
[44:15] then why would he let a 2-year-old kid
[44:18] in Africa have their eyeball eaten out
[44:20] from the inside by a parasite? Yeah.
[44:23] Like if if if I could intervene with
[44:25] that, because you know, the assertion is
[44:26] that God is omnipotent, all powerful,
[44:28] and omniscient, all present.
[44:30] >> Yeah. If I could intervene with that as
[44:32] a human, I would stop that. And so, if
[44:34] God is omnipotent, omnipotent, sorry,
[44:36] all powerful, and omnipresent, knows
[44:39] everything, and is everywhere, then why
[44:40] wouldn't he intervene with the baby
[44:42] having its eyeball eaten out from the
[44:44] inside? Yeah. It's It's a good point,
[44:46] and I think if there is an objection
[44:48] that is truly
[44:51] impactful on Christianity uh in the
[44:55] atheist corner, it is the problem of
[44:56] evil. And always has been, because it's
[44:59] far more of an emotional and an
[45:01] existential question than it is an
[45:02] intellectual question. Now, part of the
[45:04] problem with it is that if we're talking
[45:06] about evil with a capital E, we're
[45:08] implying that there's a good with a
[45:09] capital G. And so, I think we do run
[45:12] into an issue when saying that evil
[45:15] exists, we're implying that good exists,
[45:17] and if we're implying that good exists,
[45:19] we're implying that there's a moral law
[45:21] to adhere to to call the good good and
[45:23] the evil evil. And if there's a moral
[45:25] law, then there has to be a moral law
[45:26] giver. And that's where we come into
[45:28] issues with is this subjective
[45:32] or is this objective? I think the
[45:34] atheist movement would argue that that
[45:36] moral good is virtue of what helps me to
[45:40] survive.
[45:42] So, like
[45:43] watching a small child suffer in such a
[45:45] way,
[45:47] if I didn't feel anything bad about
[45:48] that, Yeah. then I wouldn't have the
[45:51] wiring for survival, because I wouldn't
[45:53] have the proclivity to defend a
[45:55] suffering child. If I don't have that,
[45:57] then I probably don't reproduce, and I
[45:59] don't pass on my genes, and then I'm
[46:01] selected out of existence. So, that pain
[46:04] I feel when I see a child suffering is a
[46:05] function of my evolutionary mechanics
[46:09] that make me more likely to survive. And
[46:11] anyone that didn't have that wouldn't
[46:12] have survived and wouldn't be here now.
[46:14] Sure. So, evolution therefore is the
[46:15] answer. I think that might suffice in
[46:19] certain instances. However, it's still
[46:22] sort of smuggling in moral categories
[46:25] into a biological explanation. So, part
[46:28] of I mean, you read Richard Dawkins
[46:30] right you read River and he has that
[46:32] section where he talks about, you know,
[46:33] we shouldn't expect to see any rhyme or
[46:35] reason, good or bad, you know, DNA
[46:38] neither knows nor cares. DNA just is and
[46:39] we dance to its music. And there's an
[46:41] aspect of Dawkins himself in that volume
[46:44] at least at that time when he wrote it
[46:46] articulating that at the end of it all
[46:49] there is no such thing as actually you
[46:51] can't call that parasite in that that
[46:53] boy's eye
[46:55] evil. You can say I don't like it. But
[46:58] to to import this moral category of evil
[47:02] is actually to import an idea and this
[47:05] is actually what Dawkins was criticized
[47:06] by by individuals like John Gray, the
[47:09] philosopher who taught at the London
[47:10] School of Economics. And he says, you
[47:12] know, you're a really great biologist.
[47:15] But then you want to impart actual
[47:17] intrinsic value to people.
[47:20] And if you're looking at a simple
[47:22] selfish DNA perspective, you can't
[47:25] actually ascribe that. Because your DNA,
[47:28] your selfish DNA exists to carry on its
[47:32] selfish DNA.
[47:33] And so, in one sense that child has no
[47:36] bearing on you. Now, it might have like
[47:39] a a protective mechanism where you want
[47:41] to figure out why the child got the
[47:43] parasite and so you try to avoid that in
[47:45] order to not get the parasite yourself.
[47:47] But
[47:48] science
[47:50] can't actually give you an explanation
[47:53] for what the moral implications are in
[47:57] that instance. Let me give you an
[47:58] example.
[47:58] >> I think I understand the point there.
[48:00] >> Yes. Um it's essentially asserting that
[48:01] like why does that child matter to me?
[48:03] Because my DNA should just be trying to
[48:05] take care of itself.
[48:06] >> Mhm. Um I guess in biology there's um I
[48:10] don't always know who my child is, but
[48:11] also from an evolutionary perspective,
[48:13] if we were raised in communities and
[48:15] tribes, we took care of all of our the
[48:17] children.
[48:18] >> Sure. In in the surroundings. I would
[48:19] take care of my brother's children and
[48:21] he would take care of mine therefore.
[48:23] Yeah. Yeah. And again that goes back to
[48:25] the point of survival which means that
[48:26] I'm more likely to survive if I take
[48:28] care of like my community. Sort of. You
[48:32] you read something like uh
[48:34] The Origin of Species though. Like like
[48:36] uh Darwin himself
[48:39] when he's articulating the survival of
[48:41] the fittest, there is an aspect of
[48:46] you shouldn't take care of those people
[48:49] because they're actually bringing the
[48:52] genetic gene pool down. So, we see even
[48:55] in like the eugenics movement, pulling a
[48:57] lot from individuals like Darwin in
[49:01] order to validate the fact that in order
[49:04] to carry on your selfish DNA, this idea
[49:06] of taking care of the marginalized and
[49:09] those with on the fringes of society and
[49:11] those who are the the lesser thans is is
[49:14] not evolutionary advantageous because
[49:17] survival of the fittest implies that the
[49:19] fittest should survive. And these are
[49:21] obviously not the fittest. It's actually
[49:23] a Judeo-Christian ethic in the
[49:25] understanding of everybody having equal
[49:28] value that we should be taking care of
[49:30] people because they have intrinsic
[49:32] value, not extrinsic value that allows
[49:35] us to then even import an idea of taking
[49:38] care of those who are not necessarily
[49:42] specifically related to me and mine. And
[49:44] it comes back to okay, where are we
[49:46] grounding this objectivity in?
[49:49] Cuz there have been societies that have
[49:51] attempted to it in like a might is right
[49:54] aspect and and you ground the
[49:57] objectivity of what we say is right in a
[50:01] society that says this is better for the
[50:04] most amount of individuals within a
[50:07] particular community. I think about um
[50:09] Yuval Noah Yeah, Harari. Yeah.
[50:12] >> Harari wrote his book Sapiens where he
[50:13] says that the real defining trait of
[50:15] our species versus other species was our
[50:17] ability to collaborate and basically
[50:19] scratch each other's backs. And that
[50:21] that meant that we had um
[50:23] evolutionary advantages because if we
[50:25] could work together in a big group and
[50:27] we could believe in stories and we
[50:28] believe in money and
[50:29] prison and governments, etc. We could
[50:32] band together and take on the lion or
[50:34] band together and take on the elephant
[50:35] or whatever. And it's actually that in
[50:37] part that you have like I need to take
[50:39] care of you and you need to take care of
[50:40] me and we're going to reciprocate that
[50:42] altruism uh and increase our survival
[50:45] chances.
[50:46] So, again, that might explain why I I
[50:48] care about that kid. Um
[50:51] because the species that didn't Uh-huh.
[50:54] they would never been able to band
[50:56] together and take on the elephant. Yes.
[50:59] I think it's largely our modern
[51:01] perspective living in a society where we
[51:04] are
[51:06] uh starting on second base already with
[51:09] our moral perspectives. Right? We have
[51:11] inherited all of these moral categories
[51:14] because of our Judeo-Christian ethic. If
[51:16] you look at basically every society
[51:18] prior to this or even societies in the
[51:20] East, that's not a given. Right? That's
[51:24] not an assumption. Especially in
[51:26] societies that have say uh
[51:28] understandings of karmic cycles.
[51:30] Whether that's in like Buddhism or
[51:32] Hinduism, the idea of altruism is
[51:34] actually can be categorized as an evil
[51:37] because in the cycle of samsara of
[51:39] birth, life, death, and rebirth, you are
[51:41] actually the your lot in this life is
[51:45] due to your wrongdoing in the last life.
[51:47] So, in helping someone like that,
[51:49] you are actually inhibiting them from
[51:51] being reincarnated better on the other
[51:53] side. So, an idea like altruism doesn't
[51:56] exist within that Eastern society. And
[51:58] if you look in the ancient world, let's
[51:59] pick on the Babylonians. The
[52:01] Babylonians, if they were to read
[52:03] Dawkins' River Out of Eden, would
[52:04] basically say, "Yeah, exactly." Right?
[52:07] So, they have this creation story. It's
[52:08] called the Enuma Elish, and it's this
[52:10] big battle of the gods, and it's uh it's
[52:13] an origin story, to an attempt to
[52:15] explain why everything is here.
[52:18] But, the conclusion of it is basically,
[52:20] you are a product of a big battle and a
[52:24] mistake, right? The one god loses, and
[52:28] you, everything around you, the Earth,
[52:30] the sky, it's just the remains of the
[52:33] gods that lost.
[52:35] So, meaning, value, purpose, not really
[52:39] ultimately. You are just a product of
[52:41] time plus matter plus chance as well.
[52:43] It's just framed within religious
[52:45] perspective. Whereas, Dawkins frames it
[52:47] in a natural materialistic perspective.
[52:49] So, where do we get
[52:52] the categories
[52:55] to even say that we should be taking
[52:58] care of people in communities outside of
[53:02] our specific community?
[53:05] Because in some cultures, they have the
[53:07] ethic of love thy neighbor, but in
[53:08] others, it's eat thy neighbor.
[53:10] And so, the question is, which society
[53:12] do you want to pick? And you're saying
[53:13] that that came from Judeo-Christian
[53:15] values. Yes. I would agree, yeah. I
[53:17] would agree that. I think I'm trying to
[53:19] understand if it's innate in us from a
[53:22] god
[53:23] what's good and evil, or whether it's,
[53:25] you know, we we all subscribe to a
[53:26] culture that was, you know, the
[53:28] foundation of that was these Christian
[53:30] values.
[53:31] And um
[53:33] yeah, which one is it? Yeah, well, Was I
[53:35] born with a good and evil, or was
[53:37] 2,000 or 3,000 years ago when Jesus came
[53:39] to be, and we had these books, did that
[53:41] just influence them? Yeah. Well, I think
[53:44] ultimately, there's an aspect of our
[53:46] conscience that's imprinted on us that
[53:47] we we understand ethics to some degree
[53:51] or another.
[53:52] But, the framework to actually find the
[53:55] objectivity of that ethic is found in
[53:59] the revelation of specific revelation in
[54:02] scripture. Do you believe in evolution?
[54:05] I don't. You don't believe it's true?
[54:06] No. I am open to the fact that I don't
[54:09] think that a belief in evolution
[54:11] undermines Christianity anyway. However,
[54:14] I'm and prefacing this by saying I'm not
[54:16] a scientist. I'm an advocate for
[54:18] intelligent design.
[54:19] And I would basically
[54:22] punt the complex conversations of
[54:25] evolutionary biology
[54:27] to individuals who are far more studied
[54:29] than me like Stephen Meyer and Jonathan
[54:32] McLatchie and John Lennox Tours and uh
[54:35] Douglas Axe and those individuals who
[54:38] have studied it. At the exact same time,
[54:40] though, it also depends on what you mean
[54:42] by evolution.
[54:43] Right? So, like adaptation
[54:45] genetically is a thing. I guess so I'm
[54:48] saying do you believe that we evolved
[54:49] from very simple organisms to become the
[54:53] human that you see today?
[54:54] >> No. And the argument for that would be,
[54:55] you know, I share 98% of the same DNA as
[54:58] like a chimpanzee and we have these
[54:59] fossil records which seem to show a
[55:01] progression over time. Yeah. You don't
[55:03] believe that's true?
[55:04] >> No, I don't.
[55:05] But, at the exact same time, I think,
[55:07] you know, there are individuals within
[55:08] the Christian faith, intelligent
[55:11] people who do and have no problem with
[55:13] understanding of a theistic evolutionary
[55:15] model.
[55:16] However,
[55:17] I think
[55:19] in the effort of survival of the
[55:21] fittest, I still think that you're
[55:23] starting a few miles down the road in
[55:26] answering the question of the arrival of
[55:28] the fittest. How do minds come from
[55:30] mindless matter?
[55:32] How does everything come from nothing?
[55:34] How do How do we answer those
[55:38] And I think that's why you can use the
[55:41] evolutionary model as an explanation of
[55:42] how God has actually
[55:44] created, right, the biology of the
[55:48] situation. But, I think the bigger
[55:51] question is
[55:53] the cosmological questions. How did this
[55:56] all get going?
[55:57] You know, the Big Bang, what was the big
[56:00] banger?
[56:01] How did that first ball get rolling?
[56:04] And then why
[56:06] can you and I, Stephen, sit here and,
[56:09] like I said before, have the 3 lbs of
[56:11] gray matter in my head
[56:13] kind of
[56:14] uh ruminate over these very complex
[56:18] questions. You know, I I think it was on
[56:21] the Galapagos Islands, I'm probably
[56:22] going to butcher this, but I'll I'll do
[56:23] my very best, that they you know, the
[56:25] sailors went to an island, they left a
[56:28] bird there, they came back 50 years
[56:29] later, the the bird's beak had grown to
[56:31] be very, very long because the prey on
[56:35] that island that it was eating were in
[56:37] in holes, so they needed longer beaks.
[56:39] So, it kind of shows us that if you
[56:41] leave an animal in an environment, it
[56:44] will adapt and it's, you know, it will
[56:45] select out the the short-beaked birds
[56:48] for the long-beaked birds. And just in
[56:50] that short period of time, you can see
[56:51] that it's like, you know, it's becoming
[56:53] a different
[56:54] type of animal. And if you
[56:55] [clears throat] extrapolate that out
[56:56] over
[56:58] a long, long period of time, almost an
[56:59] inconceivable amount of time, you know,
[57:01] maybe hundreds of millions of years, one
[57:03] can understand why like me and a
[57:04] chimpanzee
[57:07] there are similarities in how we look.
[57:09] Um and there are 99% similar like 98%
[57:12] similarities in my DNA and a
[57:13] chimpanzee's DNA. So, one would argue
[57:15] that we are we have a common ancestor.
[57:18] Yeah. It's like very compelling evidence
[57:19] to me. Like sure. I mean, it's the
[57:21] transitions going from as the chimpanzee
[57:24] type thing, right? Cuz we're obviously
[57:25] not arguing that that we were a
[57:28] chimpanzee as a chimpanzee exists today.
[57:30] But that yeah, that hominid, whatever
[57:32] that hominid was, what is the
[57:34] transitionary
[57:36] fossil explanation, whatever, that goes
[57:38] from the monkey to the human being.
[57:43] And I don't really think we have an
[57:45] answer for that in terms of
[57:47] consciousness questions. Like, why what
[57:50] makes our ability to reason
[57:54] and think and contemplate different than
[57:58] all of the other
[58:00] species in the animal kingdom.
[58:02] And how do we go, if we're arguing that,
[58:04] you know, everything comes from
[58:06] single-celled organisms,
[58:09] I guess you could have a
[58:12] if you want to call it a time of the
[58:13] gaps explanation, you know, just just
[58:16] add a lots of millions of years and it
[58:18] solves this issue. I don't know if I am
[58:20] completely
[58:21] satisfied with that answer. If cuz
[58:24] obviously there's adaptation. But, you
[58:26] know, if you're looking at whether it's
[58:28] the dodo bird example or Darwin's
[58:30] finches, right, where the beaks are
[58:31] different, um you're still getting
[58:34] beaked birds.
[58:35] And we've never seen one species turn
[58:37] into a completely different species. The
[58:39] thing that I
[58:40] fill the gap with is that
[58:43] it's just a matter of time.
[58:45] So, you know, with the birds example,
[58:46] it's like 50 years or something or
[58:48] decades. Right. But, when we think about
[58:50] Earth potentially being like 4-5 billion
[58:52] years old,
[58:53] >> Yeah. I think it's almost inconceivable
[58:55] what can happen over such a long period
[58:56] of time. Like, it's conceivable that if
[58:59] me and you went to different parts of
[59:01] planet Earth and lived in two completely
[59:03] different environments, and then we came
[59:05] back 5 billion years later,
[59:07] and there was no medicine and no factors
[59:09] helping us to survive, that
[59:11] you know, we would have branched gone in
[59:13] two different directions completely. And
[59:15] you, you know, your ancestors who were
[59:16] living in the jungle might be s-
[59:19] 9 ft, and actually what was
[59:22] useful for survival where I lived in
[59:24] some cave was being 2 ft tall. Right.
[59:27] And then we wouldn't be able to
[59:28] reproduce, which kind of makes us
[59:29] different species now. Like that's I
[59:30] mean that sounds conceivable for me over
[59:33] four like 4.5 billion years.
[59:36] Seems conceivable that I did I did
[59:38] Like we both agree on adaptation. Mhm.
[59:41] Like small adaptations. But then if you
[59:43] expand the time horizon, those small
[59:45] adaptations become massive. Yeah, I mean
[59:47] ultimately, no matter which way you want
[59:48] to swing it, I think that adding
[59:50] millions of years as the explanation is
[59:52] a little bit too convenient. But
[59:54] [clears throat] I think at the end of
[59:55] the day you're still looking at the
[59:56] complexity in nature that points to a
[59:59] design of something that is is amazing.
[60:04] And the the question of okay, how do we
[60:08] Dawkins is, you know, famous for saying
[60:10] that that it it has the illusion of
[60:14] design to it, right? There's not not
[60:15] actually a design to it. It's just the
[60:17] illusion of design.
[60:19] But I think, you know, if we actually
[60:22] look at when
[60:24] Darwin was writing, they thought the
[60:26] smaller you got, the simpler it got.
[60:29] And now we know that the smaller you
[60:30] get, in fact, the more complex you get.
[60:34] As in the more you zoom into the design
[60:35] like the brain more you zoom into the
[60:37] brain or Yeah, our understanding of
[60:38] science has grown exponentially even
[60:40] from Darwin's day. And there's an aspect
[60:42] of like Darwinian evolution that is is
[60:45] has moved on into what we would now call
[60:48] like neo-Darwinian evolutionary theory.
[60:51] And you look at individuals like I
[60:53] mentioned Stephen Meyer before and he
[60:55] even
[60:57] has questioned some of these things
[60:59] about the explanations that are working
[61:04] as givens for evolutionary theory. I
[61:06] still don't think it gets us back to,
[61:09] okay, then why do we have purpose?
[61:13] I've had so many founders speak to me
[61:14] and say, why didn't this particular ad
[61:16] that I ran on this platform work for me?
[61:19] Maybe the copy wasn't good, the creative
[61:20] wasn't strong, but usually the problem
[61:22] is they're not having the right
[61:23] conversation, because that ad never
[61:24] reached the right person. And if you're
[61:26] in B2B marketing, that is much of the
[61:28] game. And this is where LinkedIn ads
[61:30] solves that problem for you. Their
[61:33] targeting is ridiculously specific. You
[61:35] can target by job title, seniority,
[61:37] company size, industry, and even
[61:39] someone's skill set. And their network
[61:41] includes over a billion professionals.
[61:44] About 130 million of them are decision
[61:46] makers. So, when you use LinkedIn ads,
[61:48] you're putting your brand in front of
[61:50] the right people. And LinkedIn ads also
[61:52] drive the highest B2B return on ad spend
[61:54] across all ad networks in my experience.
[61:56] If you want to give them a try, head
[61:58] over to linkedin.com/diary.
[62:01] And when you spend $250 on your first
[62:04] LinkedIn ads campaign, you'll get an
[62:06] extra $250 credit from me for the next
[62:09] one. That's linkedin.com/diary.
[62:12] Terms and conditions apply.
[62:15] Every time I've tried to improve
[62:16] something in my life, like my
[62:17] businesses, my health, my relationships,
[62:19] I've noticed that the biggest shifts
[62:20] have come from being better informed.
[62:23] And when it comes to our health, most of
[62:24] us know very, very little. So, when our
[62:26] team was approached about partnering
[62:28] with Function Health, it felt very much
[62:30] aligned. Their team has developed a way
[62:31] of giving you a full 360° view of your
[62:34] health, many of the things that are
[62:35] going on in your body in the form of
[62:36] different tests. You do one blood draw
[62:39] and it gives you access to over 160 lab
[62:42] results, hormones, heart health,
[62:44] inflammation, stress, toxins, the whole
[62:46] picture. I use it and so have many of my
[62:48] team members. You sign up and you
[62:50] schedule your tests, and once you're
[62:51] done, you get a little report like the
[62:53] one I have here. I can see my in-range
[62:55] results, my out-of-range results, and
[62:57] there's a little AI function, too. So,
[62:58] if I have any questions about my
[63:00] out-of-range results, I can just go in
[63:02] there and ask it any question I want.
[63:04] And these tests are backed by doctors
[63:05] and thousands of hours of research.
[63:07] >> It's $365 for a yearly membership. Go to
[63:10] functionhealth.com/doac
[63:13] and use the code doac25
[63:15] for $25 off your membership.
[63:18] Where do you think we came from? Like
[63:20] where do you think I came from or my
[63:22] ancestors came from? Do you think they
[63:23] were put on earth as humans? Do you
[63:25] believe in the Adam and Eve story? Do
[63:26] you think there was some kind of
[63:27] evolution? And when did you think this
[63:29] When do you think this happened? So, I
[63:31] know that the world is at least 35 years
[63:33] old.
[63:35] Uh I don't think it's an answer that the
[63:37] Bible is actually attempting to address
[63:41] in terms of the age of the earth.
[63:42] Billions of years old? I don't see any
[63:44] reason not to because I don't think that
[63:46] the creation story in Genesis chapter 1
[63:48] is necessarily
[63:50] an attempt to reveal the mechanisms of
[63:53] how God did that exactly. Cuz the sort
[63:56] of scientific consensus says that it's
[63:58] roughly 4.5 billion years old.
[64:02] The earth. Yeah. And microbes and
[64:03] single-celled organisms are estimated to
[64:05] have appeared 3.5 to 4 billion years ago
[64:08] almost as soon as earth cooled enough to
[64:10] have liquid water. Sure. Yeah, and and
[64:12] I'm I'm fine with that actually. I don't
[64:14] I don't think I have to adhere to neo-
[64:17] neo-Darwinian evolution in order to
[64:19] actually believe that the world is old.
[64:21] I think I would adhere to an intelligent
[64:24] design thesis.
[64:25] But What does that mean? So, essentially
[64:28] that the world around us is
[64:30] intelligently designed not necessarily
[64:33] in that it it came through processes of
[64:37] evolution. Once again, I'm not a
[64:37] scientist, right? I'm a historian. I I
[64:40] genuinely do believe that there was a
[64:42] historical Adam and Eve and that those
[64:44] were the first people. Okay. Now, what
[64:46] did they look like? I don't know.
[64:48] I think they they probably lived a long,
[64:50] long time ago and I don't know if the
[64:53] breakdown of Genesis chapter 1 and the
[64:55] like 7 days of creation are actually
[64:58] attempting to articulate 7 24-hour days.
[65:01] They could be. Yeah. I just don't think
[65:03] that's the point. But you do believe
[65:04] that humans were put here as humans.
[65:06] >> Mhm. And do you believe that the other
[65:08] animals were put here in the in some
[65:10] kind of early form? Yes. And then you
[65:12] also believe in adaptation. Yes. Of
[65:14] those [clears throat] species. Fine.
[65:15] Okay. Fine. And going back to like
[65:16] talking about trying to explain these
[65:18] things scientifically,
[65:20] I always find like we can explore the
[65:23] answers scientifically, but that's only
[65:24] going to get us so far, especially when
[65:26] we're discussing meaning and purpose
[65:28] questions. So, let me give you a little
[65:30] bit of a story that a friend of mine,
[65:32] Glenn Scribner, likes to articulate in
[65:36] this parable that he tells that he calls
[65:37] Betty the Botanist. So, you have Betty
[65:39] the Botanist and she's been looking at a
[65:43] plant sample in her lab. She's been
[65:46] spending all weekend looking at this
[65:48] plant sample. She's been, you know,
[65:51] investigating it and doing all of these
[65:53] tests on it all weekend and Jerry the
[65:57] lab assistant comes in on Monday.
[66:00] And
[66:02] Betty looks at Jerry and says, "Jerry,
[66:04] thank you for the botanic botanical
[66:06] specimen that you left me on the
[66:08] weekend. Thank you for this botanical
[66:09] specimen. I've been doing all of these
[66:11] tests. I've been looking at the
[66:12] components of it and the complexity of
[66:15] the biology and there are
[66:17] pharmacological implications that I've
[66:19] extrapolated from its various biological
[66:22] components and we can use these to cure
[66:24] diseases. There's so many things. Thank
[66:26] you so much for the botanical specimen."
[66:29] And Jerry says,
[66:32] "Betty,
[66:33] it was February 14th
[66:36] on the weekend.
[66:37] That was a long stem rose.
[66:40] Do you know what I left for you? Do you
[66:42] know what the implication of
[66:44] the botanical specimen,
[66:47] as you're calling it, was for what I was
[66:49] trying to communicate to you?
[66:51] Now, did Betty the Botanist understand
[66:54] the long stem rose? In one way, she
[66:57] understood it more than most because she
[66:59] had done all of the tests and run
[67:01] through all of the different ways that
[67:03] she could extrapolate what that thing
[67:05] was.
[67:07] But what
[67:08] Jerry was trying to actually illustrate
[67:10] was something that went beyond that. It
[67:11] was a love gift.
[67:13] He was trying to communicate something
[67:14] that went beyond the simple biology and
[67:17] and Betty could very simply say, "Well,
[67:19] I couldn't get that from the data."
[67:21] I I couldn't have extrapolated
[67:24] the implications of it being a love
[67:25] gift. And in that so far as it being a
[67:29] parable, we can look at all of the
[67:32] scientific explanations,
[67:34] but there's something that goes beyond
[67:36] the simple data in terms of meaning and
[67:39] purpose and desire,
[67:42] identity questions that go
[67:45] far beyond that, right? Like we can look
[67:47] I could tell you the different chemical
[67:49] components that make up the page and the
[67:51] ink and like the size of the paper and
[67:54] its transparency and all of that.
[67:56] I could say,
[67:58] "You know, Steven, what is this?" And
[67:59] you could go into all of this
[68:00] explanation about how paper is made and
[68:01] the pulp and how we extrapolated and
[68:04] eventually put it together in the
[68:05] binding and
[68:07] and I could say, "Okay, yeah, but
[68:09] this is a Bible.
[68:11] This is meant to communicate something
[68:13] to you.
[68:14] And what is the explanation for this?
[68:16] One explanation could be the chemical
[68:18] and and you know, scientific components
[68:20] that make up the Bible. Another
[68:22] explanation could be this is a religious
[68:24] text that's actually trying to
[68:25] communicate something to you."
[68:27] And so I think in the scientific data,
[68:31] all of that is obviously important,
[68:33] right?
[68:35] Like there's this great quote by C.S.
[68:37] Lewis where he says that men
[68:40] were scientific because they expected
[68:42] laws in nature and so they looked for
[68:45] the legislator.
[68:47] And you look you read individuals like
[68:48] Francis Bacon who came up with the the
[68:50] scientific method and they're inherently
[68:51] religious, right? They almost articulate
[68:53] what they're doing in their scientific
[68:54] endeavor as an act of worship.
[68:56] Because if the exploration of the
[68:59] creative world points to a creator, then
[69:02] that can be an act of understanding who
[69:05] and why we're here.
[69:07] In terms of the scientific questions,
[69:09] I'm very interested in them, especially
[69:10] as a non-scientist. They fascinate me.
[69:12] But in terms of the meaning questions,
[69:15] I think I would err on the side of
[69:17] caution of attempting to be Betty the
[69:20] Botanist. And sometimes I read
[69:22] individuals like Dawkins, and I'm I'm
[69:24] hearing Betty the Botanist extrapolate
[69:27] and define the botanical specimen. I
[69:30] think part of the reason why the new
[69:33] atheist movement that I again was
[69:34] captured by
[69:36] was not sufficient is because, as you
[69:39] say, it didn't
[69:42] it didn't fill some kind of gap.
[69:44] >> Mhm. And and much of the gap, I think,
[69:45] for a lot of people is, okay, so if if I
[69:47] believe in the science and all and that
[69:49] argument and the atheist argument or I
[69:50] believe in the Bible, I still need a an
[69:54] answer to like,
[69:55] yeah, but so what? Like, what's the
[69:56] point of this? You know, even in the
[69:57] example of evolution, I get it, but why
[69:59] am I evolving? Mhm. Why why am I trying
[70:01] to survive?
[70:02] >> Yeah. A means to what end? Okay, I'm
[70:04] trying to have more kids, but then why
[70:06] are my kids trying to have more kids?
[70:07] What's the point? Right.
[70:08] >> just keep hitting this wall of like,
[70:09] okay, but what's the point? What's the
[70:10] point? Am I meant to do something? Is it
[70:12] Is there a mission for me? Right.
[70:13] >> And I think that question is one that I
[70:15] think about uh sometimes, which is, no
[70:18] matter what I believe, like, what is the
[70:19] point? And I think that's why the Bible
[70:22] is such
[70:23] an amazing explanation for that because
[70:27] in a world that tells you ultimately
[70:32] that you're a product of time plus
[70:33] matter plus chance, the Bible looks at
[70:35] you, Stephen, and says, you're created
[70:37] with meaning and purpose and intention.
[70:39] You bear the image of God.
[70:42] So, there's something that is actually
[70:44] screaming from your biology
[70:48] about who you are that goes beyond the
[70:51] fact that you're not just a physical
[70:54] specimen sitting in front of me. Right?
[70:57] You have a mind
[70:59] and that mind is
[71:00] maybe your brain. We're not even sure
[71:02] about that, right? So, [clears throat]
[71:04] what makes Steven Steven? You're not not
[71:06] your body.
[71:08] And that's why, I mean, there's this
[71:09] inherent conversation within
[71:11] Christianity about the fact that our
[71:13] hope is not a spiritual one. The end
[71:15] result is the resurrection, right? The
[71:17] reason why Jesus rose from the dead is
[71:20] scripture calls him the first fruits.
[71:21] We're all going to be resurrected.
[71:23] There's going to be a new heaven and a
[71:24] new earth and that's the promise of
[71:27] Christianity. So, that's the point.
[71:29] >> Yes. The point of this life, according
[71:31] to the Bible, is that I get to go to
[71:33] this place called heaven. No. So, it's
[71:35] it's a both and. So, when when Jesus'
[71:37] disciples ask him how to pray,
[71:40] he says, you know, he gives them the
[71:42] Lord's Prayer.
[71:43] Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed
[71:44] be thy name, thy kingdom come, thy will
[71:45] be done on earth as it is in heaven. So,
[71:48] it's not just about, you know, I'm going
[71:50] to die and my spirit's going to go to
[71:51] somewhere else and, you know, that's the
[71:52] whole goal.
[71:54] It's to bring heaven here
[71:56] as well. What we do matters
[71:59] because you're a human being, you're not
[72:00] a human doing.
[72:02] And so, what you do here and who you are
[72:06] here actually has an implication. To to
[72:09] who and what? To everything. You So,
[72:12] we're put here
[72:14] to be stewards of creation, of each
[72:17] other,
[72:18] to be examples of image bearers of God.
[72:22] Like, your life has intrinsic meaning.
[72:26] Internal meaning, yeah. Internal
[72:27] meaning, more than just what you can
[72:29] contribute.
[72:31] Right? So, that would be extrinsic. Your
[72:32] ability to give back to society, your
[72:34] ability to contribute to the advancement
[72:38] of
[72:38] scientific, technological, you know,
[72:40] fill in the gap. You have value that
[72:43] goes beyond that, right? This is why we
[72:45] fight for people
[72:47] everywhere.
[72:48] And that's I think why injustice,
[72:52] something like injustice, bothers us so
[72:54] much. And why evil bothers us so much.
[72:57] Do you know the chimpanzee that has like
[72:58] 98% the same DNA as me? Yeah.
[73:01] Do they have the same intrinsic meaning?
[73:02] You know, even my dog, I'm like, does my
[73:04] dog have that same intrinsic meaning?
[73:07] And is my dog going to go to heaven? I
[73:09] think scripture tells us what we need to
[73:10] know, not always what we want to know.
[73:12] There have been individuals throughout
[73:13] church history who have articulated
[73:15] that. I mean, St. Francis of Assisi was
[73:17] big on animals going to heaven. Uh C.S.
[73:20] Lewis was big on animals going to
[73:22] heaven. Um in fact, when he wrote The
[73:24] Last Battle, you know, the last series
[73:25] in his Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
[73:27] books, uh there are animals in heaven. I
[73:29] mean, if there's a new earth, I think
[73:31] there are going to be animals. I don't
[73:33] know if they're going to be the same
[73:35] animals that existed on this side, but I
[73:37] also I have no idea. But I think there's
[73:40] something different.
[73:42] Because I think you have a soul. And you
[73:44] think my dog doesn't have a soul? I
[73:45] don't know, but I don't think he has the
[73:47] same kind of
[73:49] spiritual component that you are endowed
[73:52] with in the same way.
[73:54] How do we know?
[73:55] Like how do we how do I know that? You
[73:57] know, these chimpanzees, they're pretty
[73:58] smart. I was watching one touch some a
[73:59] touchscreen the other day and solving
[74:01] problems. And I was thinking, is it not
[74:03] is it not like an element of, I don't
[74:04] know, human arrogance to think that
[74:06] these other creatures, like the big the
[74:07] whales, they're so unbelievably smart,
[74:09] they don't have a soul? They work
[74:11] together in packs, they love, they have
[74:12] kids, they seem to pursue things. Yeah.
[74:16] I mean, I think that's a testimony to
[74:18] kind of the general reflection of God's
[74:21] good creation. At the same time, we
[74:23] describe when you're just repeating
[74:24] something, you're we we use adjectives
[74:27] like aping. Uh we understand that
[74:29] there's an aspect of like, if you train
[74:32] the monkey to push the button, he's
[74:35] going to push the button. If you uh give
[74:37] the elephant the paintbrush and kind of,
[74:40] you know,
[74:41] convince it to paint itself, it's going
[74:43] to paint itself. But if you if you can
[74:46] train the elephant to paint the Mona
[74:48] Lisa, is it really going to understand
[74:50] what it's painted in the same way that
[74:52] Michelangelo understands it?
[74:54] Sure, Da Vinci. Who painted the Mona
[74:56] Lisa? Now I'm getting myself into
[74:57] trouble.
[74:58] Whoever painted the Mona Lisa, Da Vinci,
[75:00] there's something about the value and
[75:04] what is being put in there
[75:06] that is different. So, do you believe
[75:09] that me and you are born with a
[75:11] particular mission and meaning on this
[75:14] planet? Or do you think we have to go
[75:16] and find that particular meaning or
[75:17] mission? Hm, that's a great question.
[75:20] Uh, I think
[75:23] the chief end of man
[75:25] is
[75:27] to know God
[75:29] and glorify him.
[75:31] >> [clears throat]
[75:31] >> In so far as Jesus is asked, "What is
[75:33] the greatest commandment in the law?"
[75:35] And Jesus uses two examples. He quotes
[75:37] from, you know, two different passages
[75:38] in the Old Testament, and he says, "Love
[75:40] the Lord your God with all of your
[75:41] heart, soul, mind, and strength.
[75:43] And love your neighbor as yourself."
[75:46] I mean, ultimately, I think we always
[75:48] want some sort of a grandiose
[75:51] purpose.
[75:53] And we want the calling of like Moses.
[75:55] We want to go out in the bush or we want
[75:57] to go out in the desert and find a
[75:58] burning bush and have that calling on
[76:00] our lives.
[76:01] I don't think that's wrong, but I think
[76:06] ultimately, our purpose is to live a
[76:09] faithful life to who we were created to
[76:12] be in being image bearers of God and
[76:14] being faithful in
[76:16] loving God with everything that we have.
[76:18] So, that like the Jewish phraseology of
[76:22] loving God with all of our heart, soul,
[76:23] mind, and strength, it's kind of a
[76:24] stand-in for your entire being.
[76:27] Yeah, with everything you have,
[76:30] love God with that by what you do, by
[76:32] what you say, by how you live. Like, do
[76:35] unto others as you would have them do
[76:38] unto you, right? That's the golden rule.
[76:40] But, if you look at other religions,
[76:41] it's almost always framed in the
[76:43] negative.
[76:45] Don't do unto others what you don't want
[76:47] done to you.
[76:48] So, there's a difference between not
[76:50] punching someone in the face
[76:53] and building someone a hospital.
[76:54] So, the meaning of our lives is to love
[76:57] our creator at the most fundamental
[76:59] level. At the basic level.
[77:02] And to understand how that expresses in
[77:05] everyday life. So, Martin Luther, the
[77:07] German Protestant reformer,
[77:09] he said the the faithful Christian
[77:13] um shoemaker
[77:15] doesn't glorify God by sewing little
[77:18] crosses into the shoes, but by making
[77:20] really good quality shoes.
[77:23] And so,
[77:24] there's an aspect of God has endowed us,
[77:27] right? We're created in God's image. We
[77:29] create as an aspect of an outpouring of
[77:33] that which we are created to be, and we
[77:36] we do that well. You know, the proverb
[77:39] says, "Whatever your hand um finds to
[77:41] do, do it with all its might."
[77:43] And the idea is, you know, you have the
[77:46] capability to do incredible things.
[77:49] And the reason why you have that
[77:50] capability is because you bear the image
[77:53] of a creator, who, like I said before,
[77:56] lives in a set of living, loving
[77:57] relationships.
[77:59] And so, that God actually didn't need to
[78:02] create you, me, anything.
[78:04] Right? So, God is not better off or
[78:07] worse off if we love him or worship him
[78:09] or believe in him. He He really isn't.
[78:11] He has existed in a
[78:14] in love,
[78:15] in relationship.
[78:17] And yet, the story of the Bible is that
[78:19] God chooses to create out of an
[78:21] outpouring of his love, knowing even
[78:24] that we are going to rebel against him,
[78:26] we are going to sin, right? Do wrong
[78:29] against how he has actually created us
[78:31] to be, and still desires to have that
[78:34] relationship. And if we do sin, Mhm. if
[78:38] I sin in my life, do I go to hell?
[78:41] You You don't I mean, the answer that is
[78:46] yes and no, but the Am I going to hell?
[78:49] Are you going to hell? Steven Bartlett
[78:51] Is Steven Bartlett going to hell? This
[78:52] is the clip that they're going to put
[78:53] online, right? West says Steven Bartlett
[78:55] is going to hell. I mean, here's the
[78:57] thing. Everybody is going to hell.
[78:59] Everybody. Here's how I've said it in
[79:01] the past, right? The Bible is very
[79:02] clear. All good people go to heaven.
[79:06] But Jesus said, "No one is good but God
[79:08] alone." So, if all good people go to
[79:10] heaven
[79:11] >> [clears throat]
[79:12] >> and no one is good but God alone
[79:14] only God is in heaven.
[79:16] So, do you believe that there is a a
[79:17] hell and a heaven as we sort of
[79:20] typically understand it? A place that is
[79:22] great to go to after we die and a place
[79:24] that is very hot.
[79:27] Place that is very hot. I mean, there's
[79:28] a lot of imagery of um like fire and
[79:31] weeping and gnashing of teeth. I think a
[79:33] lot of that uh is kind of reflective and
[79:36] allegorical more than it's like a a
[79:38] physical tangible thing that is, you
[79:41] know, most of our perceptions of hell
[79:42] are largely shaped by
[79:45] depictions in the Middle Ages of Dante's
[79:47] Inferno and that kind of thing, right? I
[79:49] think it's more so that
[79:53] you will experience the full weight of
[79:57] the separation from God's goodness. Not
[80:00] necessarily a separation from God cuz I
[80:01] think
[80:02] God's punishment and his wrath are going
[80:04] to be felt there.
[80:06] But, if we're talking about like a good
[80:08] place, bad place
[80:11] in the very simplest of terms, yes.
[80:14] But, heaven isn't full of good people.
[80:17] Heaven is full of people who understand
[80:18] they are not good enough.
[80:20] And so, I mentioned that like justice
[80:22] mercy thing. Justice is fulfilled on
[80:24] Jesus.
[80:26] So, because justice is fulfilled, now
[80:29] mercy, which is not getting what we do
[80:31] deserve, is able to be given to those
[80:33] who put their trust in Jesus.
[80:36] So, if I don't believe in Jesus, I don't
[80:38] believe in the Bible, but I live a
[80:42] good life. I'm nice to people,
[80:44] charitable, try and be kind wherever I
[80:46] can be. Yeah. And I don't believe in
[80:48] God. Am I going to hell or heaven as it
[80:51] relates to the scriptures?
[80:52] Well, I don't think if you're living
[80:54] your life
[80:56] rejecting God, God is not going to force
[80:58] you into his presence.
[81:00] So,
[81:00] I'm not going to go into heaven I'm not
[81:02] going to go to heaven then.
[81:03] No.
[81:04] Where am I going to go?
[81:05] Well, you would you would go to hell.
[81:07] So,
[81:08] So, if I don't believe in the Bible,
[81:10] Jesus, and God, then I'm going to go to
[81:12] hell?
[81:13] Yes, in so far as if
[81:16] heaven is a place for those who have
[81:18] submitted their lives to Jesus, who are
[81:20] living the identity of what they're
[81:22] created to be, and said, "Your will be
[81:25] done, God." Yeah. Hell is a place where
[81:27] God says, "You rejected me.
[81:30] Your will be done. I'm going to I'm
[81:32] going to give you what you want."
[81:35] In that, I'm going to remove my grace
[81:37] and mercy from you, and you are going to
[81:39] experience
[81:40] truly what you desire in
[81:43] being
[81:44] separated from me and my goodness and my
[81:47] grace. And what is that place like
[81:48] according to the scripture? Give me a
[81:51] Give me a depiction in my mind of what
[81:53] hell might be like for me. Yeah, I mean,
[81:54] it's not a good place. It's not a nice
[81:56] place. It's a place that no matter
[81:58] what's going on,
[82:00] if you are a believer, if you if you
[82:03] truly understand what this book is
[82:05] saying, seriously, I think it should
[82:07] motivate you to want to desire, Stephen
[82:12] Bartlett, I desire you to have a
[82:14] personal relationship with your creator.
[82:17] Because I don't want you to experience
[82:22] whatever hell is. I I I desire for you
[82:26] to be in perfect
[82:28] relationship with your God. Not
[82:31] necessarily because I want you to get a
[82:33] get out of hell free card, but because I
[82:35] actually think that
[82:37] in living how God created you to be, in
[82:40] accepting
[82:42] living out the image that you bear,
[82:44] you're going to find the meaning and
[82:46] purpose
[82:48] that you ultimately have expressed that
[82:50] you have this innate desire for.
[82:53] I think it's about I think it's I think
[82:55] it's according to Gallup it's 18% of
[82:57] Americans don't believe in a God. Mhm.
[83:01] Now, to get into heaven, Mhm.
[83:03] >> [clears throat]
[83:04] >> as it's described in the Bible,
[83:06] do I just need to say I believe in God,
[83:08] or do I have to have some sort of active
[83:10] commitment and evidence in my life that
[83:12] I am
[83:13] living my life in line with God's
[83:16] you know, teachings? I think ultimately
[83:19] salvation, right? Salvation implies
[83:21] you're being saved from something. Mhm.
[83:22] >> [clears throat]
[83:22] >> Right? The good news is good news
[83:24] because the bad news is bad. And the bad
[83:26] news is very bad. I was looking at what
[83:27] the Bible says about hell. And in
[83:29] Revelations it says it's a lake of fire.
[83:31] In Mark it says it's unquenchable fire.
[83:33] >> Mhm. In Matthew it says eternal fire
[83:36] prepared for the devil and his angels.
[83:38] Yeah.
[83:39] Uh in Matthew again it says
[83:40] outer darkness where there will be
[83:42] weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[83:45] >> Yes. They will be shut out from the
[83:47] presence of the Lord, weeping and
[83:48] gnashing of teeth, and torment, eternal
[83:51] punishment, the smoke of their torment
[83:52] rises forever.
[83:53] This is not a place I want to go. No.
[83:55] No. And I think I think the urgency of
[83:58] the Christian message is the bad news is
[84:00] really bad. And that's what makes the
[84:02] good news so good.
[84:04] Jesus
[84:06] has taken on that hell on your behalf.
[84:11] And it goes beyond simply a believing.
[84:14] Right? It's not just about saying the
[84:16] right words. It's not just a an
[84:19] incantation.
[84:22] You are not saved by what you do, right?
[84:25] You're saved by works, it's just
[84:27] Jesus's. Jesus lived the life you
[84:29] couldn't and made the sacrifice you
[84:32] can't
[84:34] on your behalf in order to establish
[84:37] that right relationship with God. So,
[84:40] that's where grace comes into the
[84:41] picture. Justice is getting what you do
[84:44] deserve.
[84:45] Mercy is not getting what you do
[84:47] deserve. Grace is getting what you don't
[84:49] deserve.
[84:50] So,
[84:52] in so far as Christ on the cross
[84:55] fulfills the justice of his holy law,
[84:58] mercy is enacted [clears throat] and you
[85:00] don't get that punishment. By putting
[85:02] your faith and trust in Jesus as your
[85:05] lord and your savior, as your creator,
[85:08] you don't get that punishment.
[85:09] And now, you get grace, which is not
[85:13] what you're owed, but you are adopted as
[85:16] a child of the most high.
[85:18] So,
[85:20] of the 18% of people that say they don't
[85:23] believe in a god, they are almost
[85:25] certainly going to hell according to
[85:27] scripture. Well, so James, the book of
[85:29] James in the Bible, who's actually the
[85:32] the
[85:33] half-brother of Jesus,
[85:35] he writes a book and he says,
[85:37] "You believe that God is one."
[85:40] He says, "Great.
[85:41] So do the demons."
[85:43] So, the point is, like if anybody knows
[85:46] and believes in God,
[85:48] it's the demons. It's a Satan. All
[85:50] right? So, so what's the difference
[85:51] there? The difference is there is that
[85:54] there's a relational component of
[85:57] when we and the in sort of the
[85:58] Christianese Christian terminology, when
[86:01] I say Jesus is your lord and your
[86:03] savior, what I mean is that he has
[86:05] rescued you, has saved you from the
[86:07] penalties of sin and death.
[86:09] But then the lord component is that now
[86:11] you have submitted your life to him in
[86:14] obedience and repentance. Now,
[86:17] repentance is kind of another religious
[86:18] word that maybe is not always fully
[86:20] understood. Repentance is the changing
[86:24] and understanding of the way you live.
[86:26] You understand
[86:28] that the things that you used to do
[86:31] that are wrong
[86:33] are not the things that are either what
[86:36] you should do or are going to give you
[86:37] fulfillment.
[86:39] And you stop doing those not because God
[86:42] is a cosmic killjoy and he doesn't want
[86:44] you to feel the goodness of those
[86:47] things, but because those things are
[86:49] actually harmful to you.
[86:51] They are hurting you
[86:52] and they are creating a separation of
[86:55] the relationship between you and God.
[86:58] There's going to be a very small number
[86:59] of people that actually live in such a
[87:01] way that are fully repented and have
[87:03] accepted the Lord as their savior,
[87:04] right? There's only rough I think it's
[87:06] 30% of people actually go to church
[87:09] somewhat frequently and uh
[87:11] the other sort of 56% seldom or never
[87:14] go. They're not really really active in
[87:15] their belief. They probably haven't
[87:17] repented.
[87:18] So, it would appear to me that a very
[87:20] small percentage of people are actually
[87:22] qualifying for the kingdom of heaven as
[87:24] it's described in the Bible. The miracle
[87:26] of this is that your salvation is
[87:28] received, not achieved. And so, once
[87:32] again, it's it's not about like brownie
[87:34] points. It's not about checking off, you
[87:36] know, oh I read the Bible as many times,
[87:38] I went to church as many times, I you
[87:39] know, I didn't lie, I didn't steal, I
[87:41] didn't cheat, I didn't um
[87:43] because we still exist in this beautiful
[87:46] yet broken world and because we live in
[87:48] a world that is marred by the brokenness
[87:51] of the fall
[87:53] of our first parents, Adam and Eve,
[87:55] making that decision to rebel against
[87:56] God and because of that, now the the
[87:59] creation itself has been affected.
[88:02] It's not about trying to earn my way
[88:05] into heaven. So,
[88:07] is it a very small percentage of people
[88:08] who are actually repenting? Maybe, but
[88:12] what of those
[88:14] what of that percentage is attempt who
[88:17] fully understands?
[88:19] It's interesting the word that we
[88:20] translate as repentance is the Greek
[88:22] word metanoia. It means change your
[88:24] mind. And so there's an aspect of it's
[88:27] not just about the doing.
[88:29] It's an understanding. It's a component
[88:31] of I don't want to do these things. Even
[88:34] when I do them
[88:36] I I don't I don't want to lie anymore.
[88:39] Like I see the harm that causes and the
[88:41] brokenness that it creates.
[88:43] And so even if I'm still
[88:46] breaking the law of God.
[88:49] Right? So in the book of James that I
[88:50] mentioned, uh there's this part where
[88:52] James says if you break one
[88:54] rule in the law, you've it's as if
[88:56] you've broken them all.
[88:58] And I've sometimes used this
[88:58] illustration of it's like you're hanging
[89:00] off a cliff
[89:01] uh on a linked chain.
[89:03] Right? If you cut any of those links,
[89:06] you're going to
[89:07] fall, right? It's no longer holding you.
[89:09] That's kind of the the thinking that I
[89:12] think James is getting at when he writes
[89:13] that. So you referenced the original sin
[89:15] which is Adam and Eve taking the apple.
[89:17] Mhm. Or fruit. Or the fruit, whatever
[89:19] might be. God made Adam and Eve. He's
[89:21] omnipotent, omniscient. He when he made
[89:23] them he knew they were going to take the
[89:24] apple. Mhm. But he made them anyway.
[89:26] Mhm.
[89:27] So that sounds like a setup.
[89:29] Uh you could read it as a setup. I think
[89:31] more so what's going on I think what
[89:33] what's what's the
[89:34] what strikes me as more amazing is that
[89:36] God did it anyways and he didn't hit the
[89:38] restart button.
[89:40] And then he knew that when he made them
[89:42] that it would result in this thousands
[89:44] and thousands of year of years of people
[89:46] worshipping him. Mhm.
[89:48] I think you'd think I'm a bad person.
[89:49] Like if I made something knowing that it
[89:51] was going to make a mistake and that
[89:52] mistake would result in people
[89:54] worshipping me for the next forever.
[89:56] Sure. You you'd say I did this to get
[89:59] you to worship me. Sure. And to
[90:01] basically
[90:02] make you live in guilt.
[90:04] Mhm. That I
[90:05] I mean
[90:05] >> Like it logically that's like holds, no?
[90:07] what's wrong with that logically? Well,
[90:09] I think I think you could read it like
[90:11] that. Uh I think ultimately then this
[90:14] might sound like a cop out to some, but
[90:15] maybe God knows something we don't.
[90:17] >> Yeah, maybe, yeah. And uh that he has
[90:19] reasons for allowing evil that maybe we
[90:22] don't understand and can't comprehend
[90:24] because he is God.
[90:25] There's an interesting thing in both the
[90:27] book of Revelation and in one of the
[90:29] letters of Peter where it basically says
[90:31] from uh before the foundation of the
[90:33] world was laid
[90:35] the lamb was slain. So, Jesus
[90:38] was crucified. That the cross, that
[90:40] whole
[90:41] bringing back people in unity and
[90:44] relationship with God via this act of
[90:48] the only innocent person who ever lived
[90:49] being murdered on a cross, right? A
[90:51] great act of evil accomplishing a lot of
[90:54] good. Once again, not the way I would do
[90:56] it if I was God, right? There's all
[90:58] sorts of things that we think, you know,
[91:00] if I was God, I'd do it like this. Um
[91:02] thank goodness I'm not God. Uh I would
[91:04] get a whole lot of things wrong. You
[91:06] wouldn't want to live in that world.
[91:07] But, I think what's interesting is that
[91:09] the cross was not a contingency plan.
[91:12] The cross was the plan all the way
[91:13] along.
[91:14] And so, God is glorified in that act.
[91:19] And I think part of it is what I was
[91:20] saying before. If God is
[91:22] love, if love is the greatest ethic and
[91:25] the greatest ethic is expressed in
[91:29] the greatest example, which is
[91:31] self-sacrifice, then God is actually
[91:33] communicating the greatest ethic in the
[91:35] greatest possible way in what we see in
[91:38] the gospel message of how he
[91:40] accomplishes
[91:42] the unification with his people for the
[91:46] goodness and glory of who he is. And do
[91:49] I understand all of the complexities and
[91:51] mysteries that go in conjunction with
[91:53] that? No.
[91:55] But, I'm convinced beyond a reasonable
[91:57] doubt that the historical and the
[92:00] philosophical case for
[92:04] the existence of God and then that God
[92:05] specifically being the God that is
[92:06] articulated in the Bible is true.
[92:09] And on that basis
[92:12] I
[92:13] am willing to submit my life because of
[92:17] both the evidence and because I've
[92:18] actually seen
[92:20] my own life change radically. So your
[92:22] your friend, right? You say like you've
[92:24] seen an actual
[92:28] experiential change in that person's
[92:30] life.
[92:30] >> Oh yeah. Now my So my friend um I talked
[92:33] about him anonymously on here, but he
[92:34] then
[92:36] clipped it, posted on his Instagram, and
[92:37] said, "Stephen's talking about me."
[92:39] Okay. And he's he's like doing some
[92:40] interviews and stuff now. So I feel more
[92:41] comfortable talking about him more
[92:43] publicly. But yeah, my friend who was
[92:45] going through a little bit of a crisis
[92:46] of meaning in his life, was living in
[92:47] Dubai in this penthouse apartment,
[92:49] single, kind of alone, remote working.
[92:52] Mhm. All these kinds of, you know, very
[92:53] individualistic lifestyle, successful in
[92:55] a material sense. All of a sudden turned
[92:59] to Christianity, flew to America, got
[93:00] baptized, and is now
[93:02] Christian. Yeah. And would I say he is
[93:06] happier than before? 100%. Would I say I
[93:09] am very glad he became Christian? 100%.
[93:13] Would I say that I believe his future's
[93:14] going to be better because he's now
[93:15] Christian? 100%. That's a lot of 100%.
[93:18] >> No, but it's true. It's objectively
[93:19] true. Like I even speak to Will, we've
[93:21] been friends for decades, and all of us
[93:23] feel the same way.
[93:24] >> Right. And we don't even have to agree
[93:25] with what he believes to think,
[93:26] actually, he's it's helped him. Well, in
[93:28] the [clears throat] that, I don't think
[93:29] that the I think there's an objectivity
[93:31] to the actual evidence that I evaluate
[93:33] in terms of the historical reliability
[93:36] of the Bible and the philosophical
[93:39] explanations for meaning and purpose and
[93:41] morality, how we ground those, the
[93:43] scientific data of a universe that looks
[93:46] like it's fine-tuned and has
[93:49] intelligence designed into it. But the
[93:52] subjectivity of how I understand my life
[93:56] and have seen it change radically.
[93:58] And what you what you see in your friend
[94:00] is not inconsequential. No, it's not.
[94:03] And it it it testifies to something. It
[94:06] testifies to a hope
[94:07] that even
[94:09] in scripture, in 1 Peter 3,
[94:13] Peter, writing to the dispersed church
[94:15] in the ancient world,
[94:16] has this
[94:17] in the context of persecution, says,
[94:20] "But in your hearts revere Christ as
[94:21] Lord. Always be prepared to give an
[94:23] answer to everyone who asks you to give
[94:24] a reason for the hope that you have. But
[94:26] do so with gentleness and respect,
[94:27] keeping a clear conscience, so that
[94:29] those who speak maliciously against your
[94:30] good behavior in Christ will be ashamed
[94:32] of their slander."
[94:33] And there's this implication that always
[94:36] be prepared to give an answer to
[94:37] everyone who asks you for an argument
[94:39] for the existence of God. No, that's not
[94:41] what he says. He says to give the reason
[94:43] for the hope that you have.
[94:45] Your friend is communicating a hope that
[94:48] you took notice of.
[94:50] And I think
[94:52] that is literally the word to give an
[94:54] answer that we translate as to give an
[94:56] answer, a defense, or reason in many
[94:58] English Bible translations, is the Greek
[94:59] word apologia.
[95:01] To give an apologetic, to give a
[95:02] defense.
[95:04] And scripturally,
[95:06] scripture does
[95:08] call us to love the Lord our God with
[95:09] all of our mind. And I think there's an
[95:11] aspect of God, if I my friend Tim
[95:13] Barnett works for actually Stand to
[95:15] Reason, which is Greg Koukl's
[95:16] organization. You had Greg Greg in in in
[95:18] your panel discussion recently. My
[95:21] friend Tim says, "If you want to know
[95:22] the mind of God, you better start by
[95:23] using your own."
[95:25] And so in that way, I think we can
[95:27] worship God through that. You know,
[95:28] there's a component of God
[95:31] has endowed us with intelligence, and we
[95:33] can use that to speak to the things that
[95:36] he has actually
[95:38] created and the evidence for that.
[95:41] But at the exact same time,
[95:44] the hope of the life changed,
[95:47] of
[95:48] to use, you know, Jesus' his language in
[95:51] John 3, being born again.
[95:54] I think also communicates something that
[95:56] is genuinely profound. I
[95:59] agree. And I
[96:03] I would have said that maybe if he had
[96:04] converted to pretty much any of the
[96:06] major religions, he would have
[96:07] experienced the same transformative
[96:09] upside.
[96:09] >> Mhm. When you look at people that do
[96:11] convert to other religions and outside
[96:13] of Christianity, they do experience a
[96:15] greater sense of meaning and community
[96:17] and all the things that come with it
[96:19] that gives them that sense of belonging
[96:21] and maybe calms their anxieties and
[96:22] their worries and their nihilism to a
[96:24] point where they can live a bit more of
[96:25] a content life.
[96:26] So, is it is that evidence of
[96:28] Christianity or is that just evidence
[96:29] that we're all in search of meaning in a
[96:31] world that's increasingly nihilistic and
[96:32] individualistic and says that there's
[96:34] nothing other than as you say like time,
[96:36] space, matter, etc.
[96:37] >> No, that's a great point. I don't think
[96:39] it's arbitrary. I think, you know,
[96:41] there's an aspect of religiosity that is
[96:43] always going to be a net positive for
[96:45] society, no matter what that religion
[96:47] is, cuz I think it's going to give an
[96:49] aspect and identity to people. At the
[96:52] exact same time, I don't think it's just
[96:55] the subjective
[96:57] point of view, right? This is why I
[96:59] think it's very dangerous when I go out,
[97:02] so I used to work for a a minister
[97:04] organization that worked on university
[97:06] campuses.
[97:07] And we would go and we would talk with
[97:09] students and I
[97:11] too many times to count would hear a
[97:13] student ask another student, "Why do you
[97:15] believe in Christianity?" And they would
[97:17] then proceed in articulating how they
[97:20] became a Christian. Well, that's not the
[97:22] answer, right? That's not the actually
[97:23] the question they asked. They asked,
[97:25] "Why do you believe it's true?" And you
[97:28] answered with how you kind of got into
[97:31] this group.
[97:33] If they had ran into a Buddhist, they
[97:35] said, "Why do you believe Buddhism is
[97:36] true?" And you say, you know, well, I
[97:38] just met these really great people on
[97:39] campus and they invited me over for, you
[97:41] know, karma discussions and pizza and
[97:43] and it's radically changed my life and
[97:45] I, you know, follow the noble truths and
[97:47] the the the path of the Buddha and it
[97:49] it's changed my life.
[97:52] When you give them that story, now I
[97:54] don't I don't want people to hear me
[97:56] saying that giving your testimony is not
[97:59] a good thing to do.
[98:00] I just think there's a time and a place
[98:02] where
[98:03] it could have been any situation. It
[98:05] sounds convenient.
[98:08] You could have run into a Muslim or a
[98:09] Mormon or a Buddhist or a Hindu and just
[98:13] stumbled into those conversations.
[98:16] And that's where I think answering why I
[98:19] believe it's true
[98:21] is more than just
[98:23] that. It's no less than that.
[98:26] But it's more than that.
[98:28] Because I believe that the multi-valent
[98:29] argument for the truthfulness with the
[98:31] capital T of Christianity
[98:33] has
[98:35] historical backing, and a philosophical
[98:36] backing, and scientific backing, and
[98:38] psychological backing, and all of those
[98:40] things. And I bet your friend would say
[98:41] it, too. Oh, yeah. I bet he would.
[98:43] >> Yeah. And in one sense, my goal is to
[98:47] adhere to truth with the capital T even
[98:49] above my allegiance to Jesus.
[98:52] Now, I believe Jesus is the truth with
[98:53] the capital T, so I I don't think that
[98:55] there's a conflict of interest there.
[98:57] But
[98:58] I
[99:00] I want to follow what's true
[99:02] because even if it's a convenient lie,
[99:04] it's still a lie and I don't want to
[99:06] live my life for a lie.
[99:09] New Year always has a strange energy to
[99:11] it because people start talking about
[99:12] their goals for a start and new habits,
[99:14] but the reality is that most people
[99:15] carry the same ideas they had last year
[99:18] into the new year. I'm guilty of that,
[99:19] too. And they still don't end up doing
[99:21] anything with them. And I get why.
[99:23] Starting something new, especially if
[99:24] it's a business or a project, is
[99:25] overwhelming. Before you start, you're
[99:27] looking for the perfect moment and to be
[99:28] the perfect version of yourself. When
[99:30] really, what matters most is taking that
[99:32] first step. If you had an idea for a
[99:34] while, a product, a store, something
[99:36] you've been sitting on, our sponsor
[99:38] Shopify makes it easy to get started
[99:40] because you can build your store, sell
[99:42] on socials, take payments, use AI tools,
[99:45] and manage everything all in one place.
[99:47] So, if 2026 is the year you finally back
[99:50] yourself, go to shopify.co.uk/bartlett
[99:54] and start selling. And you can sign up
[99:57] for a $1 per month trial right now, too.
[100:00] Just go to shopify.co.uk/bartlett.
[100:04] I promise you, you don't need to have it
[100:06] all figured out. You just need to start.
[100:10] This is something that I've made for
[100:11] you. I realized that the Diary of a CEO
[100:13] audience are strivers, whether it's in
[100:15] business or health. We all have big
[100:17] goals that we want to accomplish. And
[100:19] one of the things I've learned is that
[100:21] when you aim at the big, big, big goal,
[100:23] it can feel incredibly psychologically
[100:26] uncomfortable, because it's kind of like
[100:28] being stood at the foot of Mount Everest
[100:29] and looking upwards. The way to
[100:31] accomplish your goals is by breaking
[100:33] them down into tiny, small steps. And we
[100:36] call this in our team the 1%. And
[100:37] actually, this philosophy is highly
[100:40] responsible for much of our success
[100:41] here. So, what we've done so that you at
[100:44] home can accomplish any big goal that
[100:46] you have is we've made these 1% Diaries.
[100:49] And we released these last year, and
[100:50] they all sold out. So, I asked my team
[100:53] over and over again to bring the Diaries
[100:54] back, but also to introduce some new
[100:56] colors and to make some minor tweaks to
[100:57] the Diaries. So, now we have a better
[101:01] range for you. So, if you have a big
[101:03] goal in mind and you need a framework
[101:05] and a process and some motivation, then
[101:08] I highly recommend you get one of these
[101:09] Diaries before they all sell out once
[101:12] again. And you can get yours at the
[101:13] diary.com.
[101:15] And if you want the link, the link is in
[101:16] the description below.
[101:19] On that point, one of the things that
[101:20] really convinced me when I was a
[101:22] when I was going through my little
[101:22] atheism phase was this this geography
[101:25] argument, which I'm sure you've heard a
[101:26] million times. If I'd been born in Saudi
[101:28] Arabia, I'd probably be a Muslim. If I'd
[101:30] been born in India, I'd probably be
[101:32] Hindu. So, it seems like the religion
[101:34] you believe you depends on where you
[101:36] were born,
[101:37] not on necessarily what is true. And
[101:39] therefore, if we go back to this point
[101:41] about hell, I remember thinking at like
[101:43] 19 years old, oh my god, like actually
[101:45] where you're born is determining whether
[101:46] you go to this fiery eternal suffering
[101:49] or not. And that's not fair, so this
[101:50] must all be not true. Yeah. I mean, I
[101:53] was born in Pakistan.
[101:55] So, I was born in the majority Muslim
[101:57] country and I'm not a Muslim. And you
[101:59] could argue my parents weren't Muslims,
[102:00] but I know tons of people who were. My
[102:03] colleague Steve, who is our Alberta
[102:05] director at Apologetics Canada, he was
[102:07] born in Korea and went to a school
[102:10] setting that was Buddhist. But but there
[102:12] I mean, the the numbers are the numbers,
[102:13] like you're like 95% I don't know what
[102:15] the numbers are, but I know it's over
[102:16] 90% likely to be the religion of that
[102:19] territory if you take a on a religion at
[102:21] all and just by where you were born. And
[102:23] that doesn't fit I remember thinking
[102:24] very clearly at 19 years old, this
[102:25] doesn't feel fair Sure. as a way to
[102:27] determine who gets into hell or heaven,
[102:29] which is like my parents and where they
[102:30] they conceived me or whatever. Sure. I
[102:32] mean, in one sense you don't want fair
[102:34] because fair is you going to hell.
[102:36] Um and the the gospel message is not
[102:37] fair, right? So so, the actual gospel
[102:40] message is not about fairness
[102:43] because fairness is
[102:46] I get the just penalty for what I do,
[102:49] right? And that's where the whole
[102:51] concept of mercy and grace are so
[102:53] they're so central to the Christian
[102:56] message. Is
[102:58] Buddhism and Hinduism are based on
[103:00] fairness.
[103:01] Solely based on fairness, right? The
[103:04] cycle of samsara of life, death, birth,
[103:05] and rebirth, the karmic cycles, that's
[103:08] fair.
[103:09] Uh in one sense, what God does when he
[103:13] intervenes in humanity, when he
[103:15] incarnates, becomes flesh, steps into
[103:18] humanity, and actually experiences pain
[103:21] and hurt and suffering and death in a
[103:23] way that makes the God of the Bible
[103:25] unique and actually experiential to what
[103:27] you and I go through when we have those
[103:29] struggles and doubts.
[103:31] He then
[103:33] takes on the punishment that we deserve
[103:36] and the fairness
[103:38] is not actually what is then given.
[103:44] Because the fairness is
[103:46] Westhoff
[103:48] getting what he actually deserves for
[103:51] the weight and the penalty of his cosmic
[103:53] rebellion
[103:55] in choosing a life that is is against
[103:58] and away from God. I'm unclear. Okay. So
[104:01] if I was if I had Moroccan parents, my
[104:03] probability of being Muslim is like 99%.
[104:05] Sure. Um and if I was born in Morocco
[104:08] that would that would kind of set me up
[104:10] to go to hell theoretically. Yes,
[104:12] insofar as you're either you're taking
[104:15] on your sin Yeah. and that's the
[104:18] punishment or Christ is taking on your
[104:20] sin.
[104:22] And then you are then
[104:25] covered in
[104:27] his intercession. Okay. But it's
[104:29] [clears throat] not about believing or
[104:31] not believing. Yeah, which you explained
[104:33] earlier. Yeah.
[104:34] >> Which is which is useful for me cuz
[104:35] that that gave me a new understanding
[104:37] that I didn't have previously. Um the
[104:39] other thing I think a lot about I had
[104:40] thought a lot about was prayer. So this
[104:42] was really compelling to me when I was
[104:43] younger which was you know, I would I
[104:46] would hear these stories of horrific
[104:47] things that had happened in the world.
[104:48] If you think about what happened in Nazi
[104:50] Germany and I'd hear that the people
[104:51] there were all you know very religious
[104:52] and praying and it didn't seem to change
[104:54] the odds of their fate. And when you
[104:56] look at hospital stats of Christians
[104:58] versus non-Christians generally praying
[105:01] doesn't seem to be impacting outcome.
[105:03] Huh. So therefore I concluded as like a
[105:05] 19-year-old that maybe prayer doesn't
[105:07] work.
[105:08] And why are people doing it when it
[105:10] doesn't seem to historically have
[105:11] worked? What is the
[105:14] What is your perspective? Does praying
[105:15] work? If if my child is sick and I start
[105:17] praying is is that going to help? I mean
[105:20] it also kind of begs the question of
[105:22] what we think prayer is.
[105:25] Is prayer
[105:27] incantations to placate God? What does
[105:31] that mean? Like, is God a genie? Right?
[105:33] So, I say the right prayers and he gives
[105:35] me what I what I want. Yeah. Um
[105:38] Now, there are some religious systems
[105:39] that that is kind of what prayer is. Is
[105:42] is, you know, that that's all the
[105:43] agricultural deities of the ancient near
[105:45] east. Like, you you say the right things
[105:48] and you give the right sacrifices and
[105:49] the the the hope is that, you know, the
[105:52] gods would accept that and then they
[105:55] then,
[105:56] you know, in the reciprocal nature of
[105:58] that, they give you good crops. I think
[106:00] prayer in Christianity is a give and
[106:02] take in that it's a relational thing.
[106:04] It's God desiring
[106:07] to have communication with you. If you
[106:10] read the Psalms, a lot of which are
[106:12] prayers,
[106:13] uh even, you know, I mentioned the
[106:14] lament Psalms. Like, it's David or
[106:16] whoever, the psalmist, coming to God and
[106:18] saying, "I don't get it. I'm hurting.
[106:21] I'm broken. I'm alone. I don't feel
[106:23] you."
[106:24] There's an aspect of the relational
[106:26] component of prayer.
[106:28] Now, prayer is not just that, right?
[106:30] Prayer is,
[106:32] you know, asking is is supplications is
[106:35] is
[106:37] committing your desires to God because
[106:39] you believe that God can actually work
[106:40] in the universe and do things. And
[106:42] that's kind of what the Bible the Bible
[106:43] says. It says, "Pour out your hearts to
[106:45] him. Call him and and come to me and I
[106:47] will answer you." In Jeremiah.
[106:48] [clears throat]
[106:50] And it also says, "Ask and it will be
[106:52] given to you." In Matthew. Yeah, seek
[106:54] and you will find. Knock and the door
[106:56] will be opened unto you. I mean, part of
[106:57] those is that the the There's a little
[106:59] bit of a trickiness in quote mining
[107:01] because the context could mean prayer,
[107:04] the context could mean, you know, the
[107:05] the salvific act of God. You know, uh
[107:09] knock and the door shall be opened unto
[107:10] you. Like, if you if you're actually
[107:12] seeking God and you're doing that with
[107:14] an open heart and an open mind, God is
[107:17] going to say, you know, "Yes, I'm I'm
[107:19] entering into your life. I'm doing I'm
[107:21] revealing myself to you. Now, God can
[107:23] answer yes, God can answer no, and God
[107:26] can answer wait.
[107:27] Those are all answers to prayer. Do you
[107:29] think God answers prayers? Yes.
[107:32] And is there a certain type of prayer he
[107:34] might answer? You know, cuz if I lose my
[107:36] keys, I'll please you know, help me find
[107:37] my keys.
[107:39] I assume he might not answer that one.
[107:40] But is there a certain type of prayer
[107:42] you think God answers? I don't think
[107:44] it's I don't think it's a magical
[107:45] formula.
[107:46] >> Okay. I think you know, the thing that
[107:49] we see within Christianity is that is
[107:52] that
[107:53] prayer is
[107:55] the a relational aspect. Like there are
[107:58] So, when when the disciples I mentioned
[107:59] earlier, they asked Jesus, how should we
[108:00] pray? And he gives the Lord's Prayer. In
[108:02] some ways, that's less of a
[108:06] prescription, you know, say these words
[108:08] in the right way. Because even Jesus
[108:09] says, you know, don't babble like the
[108:11] pagans do.
[108:13] Um but there's an aspect of
[108:15] Our Father who art in heaven, like a
[108:17] recognition of who God is.
[108:19] Holy be your name. Right? Your kingdom
[108:22] come. Your will be done on earth as it
[108:24] is in heaven as it is in heaven. Give us
[108:26] this day our daily bread. Right? There's
[108:28] a you know,
[108:29] give us the provision that we need. Give
[108:32] us this day our daily bread.
[108:34] And forgive us our our trespasses, our
[108:36] sins, as we forgive those who sin
[108:39] against us. That's an interesting one.
[108:41] Cuz we're asking God to forgive us like
[108:43] we forgive others, so which can be
[108:44] dangerous sometimes, right? Maybe I
[108:45] don't want to pray that all the time.
[108:47] For yours is the kingdom, the power, and
[108:49] the glory forever and ever. Amen. So, in
[108:52] some ways, is that God telling us is
[108:55] that Jesus telling us how to pray
[108:56] exactly?
[108:58] I don't think that's not a part of it,
[108:59] but I also think that you know, there's
[109:00] an aspect of it. Recognize who God is.
[109:02] Recognize who you are.
[109:04] Uh you know, do ask for provision. Do
[109:08] ask for things that you need and you
[109:10] even that you want. And
[109:13] you know, recognize that we want this
[109:16] reality as earth on earth as it is in
[109:19] heaven. You know, there's components of
[109:20] what Jesus is saying in that go beyond
[109:23] simply like a rote prayer.
[109:26] In some kind of incantation or
[109:29] you know, list of you say the the right
[109:31] things in the right way and you know,
[109:33] then God is going to that that's what
[109:35] ancient Greco-Roman paganism was like.
[109:38] And prayer, even if you aren't
[109:39] religious, has a
[109:43] basis in neuroscience that says it's
[109:44] really good for our well-being.
[109:45] Neuroscience research shows that prayer
[109:47] activates brain networks for attention,
[109:48] emotional regulation, and social
[109:49] connection while reducing stress. And
[109:51] when they do brain ECG scans, they find
[109:54] people are more calm and focused when
[109:55] they're in states of prayer, and they
[109:57] have greater resilience over time. Which
[110:00] is I mean, reason enough to have some
[110:03] form of active prayer
[110:05] regardless of that.
[110:06] I I'm really interested in how you think
[110:09] about everything that's going on with
[110:10] technology at the moment.
[110:11] We're living in a very interesting
[110:12] times. It's kind of like we're trying to
[110:13] summon the gods ourselves. We're We're
[110:16] creating this form of intelligence that
[110:18] you know, people are developing a
[110:20] relationship with and are speaking to
[110:22] every day, and we've made it on silicon
[110:24] chips and using these things called
[110:25] GPUs, and it's called artificial
[110:27] intelligence. Are you concerned
[110:30] by the direction of travel in this
[110:32] direction
[110:33] that we're now seeking guidance and
[110:35] comfort and
[110:36] all of these things from
[110:38] AI instead of this book in front of us?
[110:42] I [clears throat] think there's aspects
[110:43] where I have concerns. I mean, my my
[110:47] colleagues
[110:48] Andy Saeger and Steve Kim
[110:51] are are more invested in these questions
[110:53] I think that than I am. My my
[110:56] colleague Andy, he did his PhD at
[110:58] Aberdeen in the question of
[111:01] philosophical anthropology. What does it
[111:02] mean to be human? And he he investigated
[111:05] a lot into the questions of things like
[111:08] AI, and my colleague Steve is kind of
[111:10] looking into things that relate to
[111:12] transhumanism. So, I mean, these are
[111:14] these are relevant questions to who we
[111:16] are. I'm not convinced that the
[111:19] intelligence part of AI outweighs the
[111:22] artificial.
[111:23] I don't see AI thinking.
[111:27] I see there being an aspect of the
[111:30] coding
[111:32] that AI will regurgitate, but I don't
[111:36] I'm not convinced that AI will ever say
[111:37] become conscious. I think it will fake
[111:40] the Turing test in that it will
[111:43] kind of attempt to convince us that it
[111:45] is cognizant cognizant of its own
[111:47] existence, but I don't I don't know if
[111:50] that's actually possible. And I think
[111:53] there's something about the innateness
[111:54] of
[111:56] of consciousness
[111:59] that we don't really know.
[112:01] Right? We don't really know what
[112:02] consciousness is.
[112:04] There's all sorts of weird explanations
[112:07] of
[112:08] why like is your brain
[112:11] your you you are? Not really, right?
[112:15] It's not not. We don't really have I
[112:17] think entirely sufficient answers to
[112:19] these questions, but at the exact same
[112:21] time, I think it makes sense that if we
[112:23] are created in God's image, there's an
[112:25] aspect of we want to create in our
[112:27] image. And there's going to be that
[112:28] outpouring of the creation of something
[112:32] new and amazing and advancing in our
[112:36] understanding and knowledge. This is
[112:39] kind of sets people up for this whole
[112:40] simulation theory argument where they
[112:42] say that if you imagine any rate of
[112:45] improvement on our current reality,
[112:48] people are [clears throat] already
[112:49] making virtual reality worlds. If you
[112:50] you can go on so many different programs
[112:52] now and type in I want to go to
[112:55] the top of Mount Everest and there's a
[112:57] village there and then you can
[112:58] experience that in three dimensions. You
[113:00] can put on a headset and go to the top
[113:01] of Mount Everest and there's this
[113:02] rendered village there. If you imagine
[113:05] any rate of improvement, even 1% a year
[113:08] in this technology,
[113:10] eventually, whether it's in 500 years or
[113:13] 10,000 years, you get to a point where
[113:15] it's almost indistinguishable from this
[113:17] experience that me and you are having
[113:18] today in the real world. And so the
[113:20] simulation theory posits that, again,
[113:23] you just think about how long
[113:23] technology's been here. It's like 50
[113:25] years ago we didn't have computers like
[113:26] this. We didn't even have like the
[113:27] iPhone or phones. That's just 50 years.
[113:29] >> Yeah. Imagine billions of years and a
[113:31] rate of improvement, you get to
[113:33] something indistinguishable from this.
[113:34] And it's conceivable that me and with
[113:36] computers will run simulations. We'll
[113:38] make things like The Sims and video
[113:40] games and GTA 6, whatever that's taking
[113:42] forever.
[113:44] And with an improvement of technology at
[113:45] any rate, those worlds will feel real
[113:48] theoretically to the characters within
[113:50] them. Mhm.
[113:51] So simulation theory posits that
[113:53] actually this is what our lives are.
[113:55] There was a a civilization at some point
[113:57] in the cosmic universe that got to that
[113:59] point of technological sophistication.
[114:01] They ran a bunch of different
[114:03] simulations on a computer or whatever
[114:05] that technology was, and this is one
[114:07] such world we're living in right now.
[114:09] Mhm. And that is actually our god. It
[114:10] could be some four-year-old alien that
[114:12] had a laptop Right.
[114:15] 10 gazillion years ago. And the Big Bang
[114:17] was the day that he started the
[114:19] simulation. Yeah. Almost like it was
[114:21] intelligently designed, right?
[114:23] >> Yeah, like actually this is like this is
[114:25] I
[114:27] I think there probably is some kind of
[114:29] god. I just don't know what what it is.
[114:32] Sure. [laughter] So I don't know whether
[114:33] it's the one in in the book that you
[114:34] have in front of me here, whether it's
[114:35] the one that they believe in the Muslim
[114:37] religion, or whether it's like a
[114:39] four-year-old kid on his laptop that was
[114:41] messing around in a technologically
[114:43] sophisticated universe 10 billion years
[114:45] ago. Right. But
[114:47] I think there's something bigger than I
[114:48] am. Right. And I think, you know, the
[114:51] the simulation theory I don't think
[114:52] really solves the issue because it just
[114:54] kind of punts the can down the road in
[114:57] that
[114:58] it still
[114:59] avoids the question of
[115:02] what what is that? How did we get here?
[115:05] And
[115:06] what is the ultimate explanation for
[115:08] everything? So, probabilistically is in
[115:12] the world around us in what we see with
[115:14] like our relational characteristics and
[115:15] everything, is it possible that we live
[115:18] in a simulation? I think it yes, it is.
[115:21] I think probabilistically though
[115:24] with how the description of creation and
[115:28] the human condition and what we see
[115:30] within history, I think personally the
[115:33] God of the Bible is the most reasonable
[115:34] explanation. Especially when we're
[115:36] comparing it to other religious
[115:37] worldviews. I think the simulation
[115:39] theory is an interesting one or you
[115:41] know, the string theory, multiple
[115:43] universes. I just think that those are
[115:45] almost like we're walking around the
[115:47] question. We're circling around the
[115:49] question and it's not actually
[115:50] answering.
[115:52] We still need a God. Yeah, and then you
[115:54] know, even in the example I gave of the
[115:56] 4-year-old messing around in his laptop
[115:57] 10 billion years ago in a
[115:58] technologically advanced civilization, I
[116:00] then my brain a few seconds later asked,
[116:03] well, what was the point of his life?
[116:05] Yeah.
[116:06] And who created him?
[116:08] And I could say the same about God, I
[116:09] guess. Like the God of the Christian
[116:10] Bible. Like who why who is this God?
[116:12] Like who created this God? Did someone
[116:14] create this God or has this just has he
[116:16] always been there? Right. I mean,
[116:17] philosophically it's a category error
[116:19] because all things that are have a
[116:22] beginning have a creator. And
[116:24] philosophically the God of the Bible is
[116:27] an entity that ontologically didn't have
[116:29] a beginning. So,
[116:32] if we're talking about an unmoved mover,
[116:35] right? In the kind of Aristotelian
[116:38] categories of of philosophy,
[116:41] God didn't have a creator because God is
[116:44] the author of creation. Okay.
[116:46] It's kind of like asking what does blue
[116:47] smell like? And God I should think of it
[116:49] like a
[116:51] you know, in the Bible in these well,
[116:52] not in the Bible, but
[116:54] in depictions of God it's like a a with
[116:55] a beard. Yeah. No. Or it's like some
[116:58] like mystical force that's kind of like
[117:00] a a white light.
[117:02] >> Right. No, I I think I mean those are
[117:05] attempts probably inadequately to
[117:08] express aspects of how we would visually
[117:13] communicate who God is. I think that
[117:16] probably misses the mark more than it
[117:19] actually gets at what, you know, what
[117:21] and who God is. I don't know if there's
[117:24] a there's a proper way that could give a
[117:27] physical
[117:28] attribution description of God other
[117:30] than Jesus
[117:31] who is God incarnate, right? Could you
[117:34] think of a
[117:36] a more powerful, a more amazing example
[117:39] of of a God than one who actually enters
[117:41] into his creation?
[117:43] I don't know. My fiance says that God is
[117:45] love. Yeah. She says that a lot. My
[117:48] fiance tends to be right as well. Nice.
[117:50] >> So, I tend to in the first time she says
[117:52] something that I don't believe, I tend
[117:53] to assume it's not true for a while.
[117:55] Yeah. But then it tends to be proven to
[117:56] be true within a year. So, when she said
[117:58] to me that God is love, I really thought
[118:00] deeply about it. I thought maybe she's
[118:01] right. Maybe love is God. I mean, that's
[118:03] from the Bible. God is love. The thing
[118:06] grammatically that's interesting about
[118:07] that when John writes that in his
[118:09] epistle is grammatically in the Greek
[118:11] it's phrased in a way that God is love,
[118:14] but love is not God.
[118:16] Right? So, you can't deify the
[118:20] the what love is.
[118:22] When I, you know, when you love your
[118:25] fiance, that isn't God. That's the an
[118:29] inefficient
[118:30] description of what we know God to be.
[118:33] So, God is love, but love is not God.
[118:36] And in that sense, going back to what I
[118:38] was saying instead of few times now, you
[118:40] know,
[118:41] what what the Bible is saying when it
[118:42] says God is love is that that is the
[118:44] ultimate character
[118:46] of who God is. In that love is this
[118:50] highest value.
[118:51] It is that which we,
[118:54] you know, hold as the example ethic of
[118:57] what we want. We want to be loved.
[119:01] Right? To be loved
[119:03] and not known
[119:05] is
[119:08] very insufficient.
[119:10] And to be known, but not loved
[119:13] is what we all fear.
[119:16] But I think what we find in the Bible is
[119:18] a God who both loves and knows us.
[119:21] And I think that's where the God who is
[119:23] love, who creates us and calls us to
[119:26] love him with all of our soul, all of
[119:28] our mind, all of our strength,
[119:31] that properly kind of fulfills what I
[119:35] think we mean when we say God is love.
[119:37] There is a a deep crisis of meaning in
[119:39] the world, especially in, you know, the
[119:41] Western world. Three in five American
[119:43] adults between 18 and 25 years old said
[119:46] that their life lacked meaning and
[119:48] purpose with 50% of the same group
[119:50] saying that poor mental health was
[119:52] linked to not knowing what to do with my
[119:54] life. Hm.
[119:56] >> [clears throat]
[119:56] >> And a lack of purpose is significantly
[119:58] associated with many of the mental
[120:00] health illnesses like depression and
[120:02] anxiety. And as of April 2025, the
[120:04] overall prevalence of depression in US
[120:06] teenagers and adults has increased by
[120:07] 60%
[120:09] over the last decade according to the
[120:10] CDC. And tragically, globally more than
[120:13] almost a million people die due to
[120:15] suicide every year. And it's the third
[120:17] leading cause of death among 15 to
[120:20] 29-year-olds according to the World
[120:22] Health Organization.
[120:24] What are we getting wrong?
[120:26] I think we're looking for our purpose
[120:27] and our meaning in things that are
[120:28] ultimately not going to
[120:31] give the value that those things
[120:34] actually require.
[120:36] So, it's not a matter of
[120:38] if we worship, it's a matter of what we
[120:40] worship.
[120:42] And worship, if worship is,
[120:44] you you giving our all to something.
[120:48] I think
[120:49] there's a lot of things within society
[120:52] that are going to tell us
[120:54] that our identity is going to be
[120:56] fulfilled in money
[120:59] or it's going to be fulfilled in
[121:01] relationships or accolades or all of
[121:05] these aspects are ultimately going to
[121:06] fall short in giving us actual purpose
[121:09] and meaning. And if they're not grounded
[121:11] in actually giving us value.
[121:14] >> Right, your friend is a as far as I
[121:16] understand is a good example of that,
[121:17] right? You know, we can achieve all of
[121:19] these things. You hear athletes and
[121:22] actors and
[121:24] famous people talk about all the wealth,
[121:26] all the like celebrity status they could
[121:28] possibly desire and could be in
[121:30] completely empty.
[121:31] Be completely
[121:33] fulfilled-less.
[121:35] And I think
[121:37] that's because
[121:40] we're we're chasing after
[121:44] things that aren't going to give us what
[121:46] we actually need. Right, they're
[121:49] facsimiles
[121:51] and cheap reproductions of what actually
[121:53] can give give us meaning and purpose.
[121:56] And that's because we are created to be
[121:57] in relationship with our God.
[121:59] And that is where we will find our true
[122:01] identity. That's what's going to give us
[122:02] the motivation to actually get up in the
[122:04] morning, like your friend you saying,
[122:06] you know, you couldn't get up in the
[122:06] morning.
[122:08] He finds not just
[122:12] a motivational value
[122:14] in the Christian faith. He finds
[122:16] actually and purpose in the Christian
[122:17] faith.
[122:18] That
[122:19] getting up in the morning has a purpose
[122:22] that goes beyond the here and the now.
[122:24] And that can affect all of the people
[122:26] around him.
[122:27] And now he can
[122:28] pursue
[122:30] his entrepreneurial activities or his
[122:32] relationships or even his finances for
[122:35] the glory of God and then that gives it
[122:38] an ontological meaning that goes beyond
[122:40] the simple
[122:41] basics of kind of
[122:44] what secular materialism has to offer.
[122:47] Young men in particular are struggling
[122:48] in their own unique ways. And is is that
[122:51] in part in your view because they are
[122:53] worshipping the wrong role models in
[122:55] life? I think it could be. I think
[122:58] men often find we find our identity in
[123:00] the things that we do.
[123:02] Right? Well, we we hear about this in
[123:04] that
[123:05] unfortunately, we've bought the lie that
[123:08] we are the sum of our actions. This is
[123:10] why when people lose their jobs, right?
[123:12] When they get let go of their careers,
[123:13] they have identity crises because if we
[123:16] believe that we are the sum of our
[123:18] actions, we can put a lot of stock in
[123:20] something that is ultimately going to
[123:22] lead us
[123:23] like empty.
[123:25] Um same thing with relationships, right?
[123:27] Watch any rom-com. What is it almost
[123:29] always about?
[123:31] Lonely guy, lonely girl, they meet each
[123:34] other, they fall in love.
[123:36] At the end everything works out and now
[123:38] now their identity is fulfilled. Well, I
[123:40] mean
[123:41] all you have to do is to get married to
[123:42] know that that's not going to fulfill
[123:44] every desire and need you have,
[123:46] right? I love my wife. I love my
[123:48] marriage. It's one of the best things
[123:50] that I've ever done.
[123:51] But if I put all of my eggs in that
[123:53] basket,
[123:56] it it's it could very well and almost
[123:58] certainly will lead me
[124:00] astray.
[124:01] Especially if that falls apart,
[124:02] especially when there are times of
[124:04] hardship and struggle.
[124:06] So, I think
[124:08] you are more than the sum of your
[124:10] actions.
[124:11] Because you have value that goes beyond
[124:13] that and it's actually living out that
[124:15] value that can give you the meaning and
[124:16] the purpose you're finding. But men in
[124:18] particular, we find value in what we do.
[124:21] I think women, although I don't want to
[124:23] speak, you know, too broadly, I think
[124:25] speaking in generalities,
[124:27] women find a lot of identity in
[124:30] relational values,
[124:33] in the relationships that they have with
[124:35] their friends or their significant
[124:37] others. Men often find
[124:40] value in like what they're able to
[124:42] contribute to
[124:44] physically.
[124:45] And so
[124:47] especially in a world where
[124:51] you know, economic crisis is a thing or
[124:55] work complications with with things like
[124:58] technology removing a lot of
[125:00] occupations, I I think that can be a
[125:03] gen- genuine hardship. Yeah, I was just
[125:05] looking at the some research on PubMed
[125:08] and it says exactly that. It says in a
[125:09] recent qualitative analysis in the
[125:10] United States of suicide notes, majority
[125:13] male sample, the authors identified
[125:15] themes that differed by gender, such as
[125:18] men more often referring to financial
[125:19] hardship, etc.
[125:21] Which can imply feelings of failure and
[125:23] worthlessness tied to traditional roles.
[125:25] In contrast, women's notes were more
[125:27] about lowered self-worth and
[125:29] interpersonal relationships. Mhm. So, if
[125:31] that does hold and and we're implying
[125:33] there that
[125:35] sometimes it's to do with a feeling of
[125:36] worthlessness for men. [clears throat]
[125:39] Are you saying that
[125:41] Christianity can provide something that
[125:43] is an antidote [clears throat] to that
[125:44] feeling? I think not only can it provide
[125:46] an antidote, it can provide the
[125:48] antidote. What would you say to anyone
[125:50] that's listening right now that feels a
[125:51] little bit lost in their life?
[125:53] I would say that you have purpose and
[125:57] you have meaning
[125:59] more than what society
[126:01] tells you
[126:03] is going to give you that meaning and
[126:05] purpose.
[126:06] And that there's a God who loves you and
[126:09] he loves you so much that he stepped out
[126:11] of eternity and into humanity.
[126:14] And he lived the perfect life that you
[126:15] couldn't in order to
[126:18] establish
[126:19] and create the union of the relationship
[126:23] with God that you're actually seeking.
[126:25] And what would you tell them step one
[126:26] would be to go in that direction?
[126:29] Well, I would say, you know, push into
[126:32] something like
[126:34] read the Bible.
[126:36] I'd say open the Gospel of Matthew. Open
[126:39] the Gospel of John.
[126:41] And and start reading and find out who
[126:44] this Jesus guy is.
[126:46] You know, investigate that
[126:48] question. Why that is significant, why
[126:51] that matters. Because the person and
[126:53] character of Jesus goes beyond simply
[126:58] an historical character. I think Jesus
[126:59] was a genuine historical character. He's
[127:01] no less than that, but he's also so much
[127:02] more than that. And in discovering who
[127:04] he is in relation to who you are, that's
[127:07] going to change your life.
[127:09] Are you noticing that people are asking
[127:10] you
[127:12] certain questions about Christianity or
[127:15] religion
[127:16] or any of the adjacent subjects more now
[127:18] than they were 10 years ago? Like are
[127:20] there certain themes or topics that are
[127:22] more front of mind for people these
[127:23] days? Yeah, I think we've we've gone
[127:26] through a shift where when I kind of
[127:27] started in this endeavor of what I'm
[127:29] doing now, this kind of crescendoed in
[127:32] the last year and a bit. Um when I
[127:35] started out, I think people were asking
[127:37] a lot more is God real?
[127:40] And is this true? And I think now people
[127:42] are asking is God good?
[127:44] And I think it's because it's part and
[127:46] parcel of this meaning crisis thing. I
[127:48] also think that there have been some
[127:49] major moral issues. I mean, the whole
[127:52] Epstein thing right now, I think is a
[127:53] testament to that. We are seeing
[127:55] examples of true evil.
[127:56] And I think that bothers people. And in
[127:58] a world where we can
[128:01] rationalize subjectivizing evil,
[128:03] we understand that is heinous.
[128:06] And if that is evil with a capital E,
[128:09] where's the the good with a capital G?
[128:12] You know, C.S. Lewis, I've quoted a few
[128:14] times, he said uh in his um The Problem
[128:17] of Pain and Suffering in that book that
[128:19] he wrote that uh one of his objections
[128:22] to God was that there was
[128:24] uh there was so much evil and chaos in
[128:26] this world.
[128:27] He said, "But what was I comparing that
[128:28] to? A man does not call a line crooked
[128:31] unless he knows what a straight line
[128:32] looks like.
[128:33] Right? The reason you understand that
[128:35] there's rot is because you understand
[128:37] what something that's healthy is.
[128:40] And so there's an objective
[128:43] standard
[128:45] that needs to be weighed
[128:47] by these things. And I think more than
[128:50] ever
[128:51] we're seeing things that really speak to
[128:56] the justice questions in terms of the
[128:59] meaning questions.
[129:00] And that
[129:02] has really interested me as someone who
[129:05] is a I'm a historian, right? So I'm
[129:06] interested in the questions about I do
[129:08] things like read Greek and Coptic most
[129:11] of the time, right? But I've been
[129:13] challenged to think more about
[129:16] the philosophical questions because I
[129:17] think we live in an age where
[129:20] I'm really encouraged by
[129:22] people looking at injustice. There's a
[129:23] lump in our throat. And I think there's
[129:25] a lump in our throat because Jesus put
[129:26] it there. I think um AI [clears throat]
[129:28] is going to have a big impact on your
[129:29] work. Yeah? And in ways that might not
[129:31] be super obvious. I think one of the
[129:33] ways is that if all these CEOs are true
[129:37] when they say that AI is going to cause
[129:39] massive job displacement. And even the
[129:40] CEOs that are building the technology
[129:42] have sat here and told me that there's
[129:43] going to be massive job display
[129:44] displacement. There's going to be a
[129:45] crisis of meaning. People get huge
[129:47] amount of work from the things that they
[129:48] do in their lives and they're not going
[129:49] to be able to do those things in the
[129:51] same way necessarily. And about 60% of
[129:54] Americans say they're they're worried
[129:56] that AI will take away the thing that
[129:57] gives them their meaning.
[129:59] Well, I think we're just at the
[130:00] footsteps of the mean crisis of meaning
[130:03] in this regard. Yeah? And that's going
[130:05] to mean that a lot of people, you know,
[130:08] are going to struggle a lot. And that
[130:10] concerns me. I mean, I think that's what
[130:12] I'm more worried about with AI. I'm not
[130:13] worried about AI taking over the world.
[130:15] I I'm not worried about, you know, um AI
[130:18] [clears throat] replacing us or
[130:19] something like that. Uh
[130:21] uh if I'm worried about AI, it's that.
[130:24] It's the the pain and suffering that it
[130:26] can cause for people who have bought
[130:27] into the lie
[130:29] that
[130:30] the sum of their identity is in what
[130:32] they can contribute and do,
[130:34] and how the Christian worldview speaks
[130:37] into that. How can I think Christianly
[130:39] about a society where there could very
[130:41] well be
[130:42] mass identity crises because of
[130:46] unemployment. Or because, you know, the
[130:50] Years ago we were telling truck drivers
[130:51] learn to code. Well, now coders are
[130:54] being replaced by AI systems, right? AI
[130:57] can code better than the coders. So,
[130:59] Spotify said yesterday they none of
[131:01] their engineers have written a line of
[131:02] code since December. And I thought, wow,
[131:04] hell, like that's Yeah. And my
[131:05] car drives itself here in in America.
[131:09] I sat here with the other day with the
[131:10] CEO of Uber, and he said to me they have
[131:12] 9 million drivers' careers, and within
[131:16] X number of years,
[131:18] they will have none. Mhm. He said the
[131:21] unique thing is the the speed of the the
[131:23] change is going to cause the problems.
[131:25] Because we had the Industrial
[131:26] Revolution, we had time to, you know,
[131:28] transfer to other lines of employment,
[131:29] etc. But the speed in which there's
[131:31] going to be a displacement is is going
[131:33] to cause the issues.
[131:35] And I wonder what's going to happen. I
[131:36] mean, a lot of people are, you know,
[131:37] they're going to be in search of
[131:38] meaning, and I guess that will that will
[131:40] will push some people towards
[131:41] Christianity and other religions, but
[131:44] not everybody. Cuz you said, you know,
[131:45] as you say,
[131:47] when our identities are pulled away from
[131:48] us in such a way,
[131:50] some people turn to the bottle. Right.
[131:52] >> Or you know, causes mental health
[131:54] situations, so mhm.
[131:56] I mean, humanity has a very unique knack
[132:00] to pivot
[132:02] and figure things out. Now, is there
[132:04] going to be,
[132:06] you know, a new period in between when
[132:10] that job crisis happens? Maybe.
[132:13] But I
[132:15] I think
[132:16] I think humanity
[132:18] will figure things out. I just I just
[132:20] don't know if that will be before all of
[132:24] you know, it hits the fan. What was the
[132:27] first domino that fell for you that made
[132:29] you go on this this journey of
[132:32] becoming an Is it the term Christian
[132:34] apologist? Yeah. Becoming What does that
[132:36] even mean, Christian apologist? So, I
[132:38] mentioned 1 Peter 3:15, right? But in
[132:41] your hearts revere Christ as Lord.
[132:42] Always be prepared to give an answer.
[132:44] So, that is that apologia. So, we take
[132:46] the Greek apologia and we stick an
[132:48] English suffix on the end and we have
[132:50] this field of study, this discipline,
[132:52] apologetics. What does that mean? You're
[132:53] You're explaining the Bible.
[132:55] >> Giving reasons. Yeah, giving answers.
[132:56] So, apologetics is as complicated as
[133:00] arguments philosophically and
[133:02] scientifically for the existence of God
[133:04] and the historical reliability of the
[133:05] Bible and as simple as
[133:08] if someone asked me why Jesus, that's an
[133:10] apologetic question insofar as it's
[133:12] giving an answer.
[133:13] I was looking at some of these photos of
[133:14] you as a young man. I wondered how much
[133:18] the situation in these photos had an
[133:20] impact on who you came to be and what
[133:22] you came to believe. I'll put these
[133:25] photos on the screen for anybody. Yeah.
[133:27] But um this is a
[133:29] a young boy in a wheelchair Yep. and in
[133:31] a hospital bed that looks to be
[133:33] paralyzed.
[133:34] >> Yep.
[133:35] Yeah, when I was 11 years old I was
[133:37] diagnosed with a rare neurological
[133:40] condition that left me paralyzed from
[133:41] the waist down.
[133:42] So, you were At 10 you were fine, you
[133:44] were normal. [clears throat] Yep. And at
[133:45] 11 suddenly you were paralyzed from the
[133:46] waist down. Yes, so I had the flu and my
[133:49] body's immune system instead of
[133:50] attacking the flu attacked the nerve
[133:52] endings at the base of my spinal cord.
[133:53] So, the myelin sheath and caused
[133:55] inflammation cutting off the
[133:56] communication from my brain to my legs.
[133:58] And a lot of people that get that
[134:00] disease never walk again. It's
[134:02] complicated. Uh so, the So, it's called
[134:05] acute transverse myelitis. Although,
[134:08] I've been told recently that there's a
[134:09] change in the name of the diagnosis.
[134:12] But,
[134:13] essentially,
[134:15] transverse myelitis is not all that
[134:16] rare, but acute, that acute in in terms
[134:19] of the like quickness of it. I had
[134:23] fallen asleep, a nap, for probably no
[134:25] more than 30 minutes, and when I woke
[134:27] up, I was paralyzed. So, it was the the
[134:29] quickness of the actual damage that was
[134:32] done to my spinal cord that was
[134:35] the catalyst for in the diagnosis saying
[134:38] that the chances of me walking again
[134:40] were were very low. But within a month,
[134:43] you were walking again. Yeah, 1 month to
[134:45] the day. So, in fact, the anniversary,
[134:48] 23-year anniversary, was recently cuz it
[134:50] was in February 8th. Um I woke up on a
[134:53] Saturday morning, got out of bed, and
[134:54] walked over to my wheelchair.
[134:56] Did this change your perspective on
[134:59] God, Christianity, religion?
[135:00] It did in some ways. I mean, I don't I
[135:02] don't know how it couldn't. Uh it
[135:04] definitely, to have medical
[135:06] professionals tell me,
[135:08] "You're probably going to be a
[135:10] paraplegic for the rest of your life.
[135:11] Like this is what you need to kind of
[135:13] accept and and get used to." To the
[135:15] exact same medical professionals, you
[135:17] know, the um pediatric neurologists
[135:20] saying, "We don't know why you're
[135:22] walking."
[135:23] That had to have an impact on me.
[135:28] In that I think I I truly believe I was
[135:31] healed in that it was the doctors who
[135:33] used the word miracle.
[135:35] Because they said that they they
[135:36] couldn't medically explain why there was
[135:40] no more damage on my spinal cord, why I
[135:41] was walking with
[135:44] like
[135:45] not even any like atrophy or anything.
[135:47] However,
[135:49] I still needed to figure some of the
[135:51] more intellectual questions out of my
[135:52] head when I was a teenager.
[135:54] So, it wasn't just that this happened
[135:56] and explained a lot.
[135:58] Because I was open to the possibility of
[136:00] this being a fluke,
[136:01] of there being
[136:03] a completely randomness to this. Mhm.
[136:07] And so, when I was a teenager, I
[136:08] investigated a lot,
[136:10] you know,
[136:11] to the best of my ability as a
[136:12] 17-year-old, in trying to answer some of
[136:15] the more meaning questions about I know
[136:17] what my parents raised me to believe.
[136:19] But if I believe it simply because they
[136:21] told me to, it's not the worst
[136:25] reason, but it's also not the best
[136:26] reason. So, that's is the first time
[136:28] that I
[136:29] uh read the Quran cover to cover. I was
[136:31] looking into things like the Book of
[136:32] Mormon and the Bhagavad Gita. I was just
[136:34] curious. That's when, you know, reading
[136:36] Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel
[136:38] Dennett.
[136:39] Not in any type of crisis
[136:42] faith crisis way, but I was I was
[136:43] investigating.
[136:44] So, you believe in the supernatural?
[136:46] Mhm.
[136:47] Do you believe that we can speak to the
[136:48] dead? No.
[136:50] You don't believe that? No. So, when
[136:52] people
[136:52] >> Well, I should I should preface that. It
[136:53] depends what you mean by speaking to the
[136:55] dead. I think it's I think it's
[136:57] possible. We have examples of it in the
[136:59] Bible.
[137:00] Um
[137:02] Saul gets a medium to call up the spirit
[137:07] of Samuel. So, do you believe mediums
[137:09] are telling the truth when they say that
[137:11] they're contacting people in the
[137:12] afterlife? I think that there's a
[137:13] possibility of engaging the supernatural
[137:16] world, which is dangerous.
[137:17] And I think there's a very fuzzy line
[137:20] between mediums who are con artists
[137:25] and people who are act actually engaged
[137:27] in something that is dabbling in the
[137:29] supernatural.
[137:31] I say this in part because I I've I've
[137:32] heard people say that, you know, their
[137:34] partner has passed away and then they've
[137:37] seen signs.
[137:38] Their partner has left them signs.
[137:40] >> Mhm.
[137:41] Do Do you believe in this kind of thing?
[137:43] I don't think so. Not in those ways. I I
[137:45] think when people are dead, they're
[137:46] dead.
[137:47] Um but I think there are aspects of the
[137:51] supernatural world and a world that's
[137:53] going on behind the scenes that's
[137:55] articulated within scripture that
[137:58] have an impact on this world in a way
[138:01] that
[138:02] if people can be distracted and misled
[138:05] to think that they are contacting dead
[138:08] relatives, then that is otherwise going
[138:10] to
[138:12] uh prevent them from pursuing what they
[138:14] should be as image bearers of God. So,
[138:17] you think it's demonic in some some
[138:18] capacity?
[138:19] >> I think it can be.
[138:20] I don't think it's always. I think in
[138:22] emotionally
[138:23] vulnerable states, we are willing to
[138:26] adhere to all sorts of things. Mhm.
[138:28] >> [clears throat]
[138:29] >> And there's a um there's a sensitivity
[138:32] that I want to communicate around that.
[138:35] Mhm. Because I think people, especially
[138:37] in the
[138:38] in the periods of the deaths of loved
[138:41] ones, often want to
[138:43] look for validation in their passed away
[138:48] loved ones leaving something or
[138:50] communicating or And also that we want
[138:53] to believe when we lose people we love
[138:54] that they are somewhere better, that
[138:56] they are in a good place. And this is
[138:58] one of the the things that I struggled
[138:59] with earlier when we were talking about
[139:01] hell, which is such a small percentage
[139:03] of people are making it to hell by
[139:05] whatever measure of acceptance one
[139:07] believes, then that would mean that like
[139:09] my grandmother, who wasn't necessarily
[139:13] a devout religious person or a Christian
[139:15] or she hadn't repented, is currently in
[139:18] hell. And that's a hard
[139:19] thought to take that she is
[139:22] in such a awful place now. Yeah.
[139:25] >> And this all this this would obviously
[139:26] make people not want to experience that
[139:28] dissonance and therefore reject religion
[139:30] and say, "Well, no, my
[139:32] If I accept the Bible, then I have to
[139:33] accept my grandmother's currently
[139:35] burning in hell. Right.
[139:37] And so I'm going to reject the Bible.
[139:38] It's much easier than accepting that my
[139:40] grandmother's suffering right now."
[139:42] Right. I mean, ultimately that's a
[139:45] um
[139:46] I
[139:47] I wouldn't do it that way, therefore
[139:49] it's not true. Sorry, what do you mean?
[139:51] Well, I don't think that God should send
[139:55] my grandmother to hell. Yeah. Therefore,
[139:58] I'm going to conclude that it's not true
[140:00] based on that type of Now, at the end of
[140:02] the day,
[140:05] does God communicate with people in ways
[140:07] that go beyond
[140:08] my understanding? I've talked to enough
[140:11] Muslims in the Muslim world who have had
[140:13] dreams about Jesus
[140:15] to know that something goes on. Like, I
[140:17] don't understand sometimes what what
[140:19] happens on the deathbed between an
[140:22] individual and their maker.
[140:24] So, it's not my place to say that they
[140:26] are burning in hell or whatever, you
[140:28] know, descriptive language you want to
[140:29] use, cuz I it's it's between them and
[140:31] God.
[140:33] At the exact same time, apart from the
[140:35] saving work of Christ, I'm going to
[140:37] hell.
[140:38] So, and I I genuinely believe that is
[140:40] that apart from the inbreaking of God
[140:43] into my life, in part and parcel by
[140:45] things like this,
[140:46] but also by like showing me and allowing
[140:49] me to investigate these things and
[140:51] wrestle through questions and putting
[140:54] people in places in my life that have
[140:56] formed me and shaped me and allowed me
[140:59] to look at the evidence and have
[141:00] conversations and be honest and
[141:01] transparent and
[141:03] those are the things that have led me
[141:05] down a road to say, you know, I'm
[141:07] convinced. I'm convinced that this is
[141:09] true
[141:10] experientially, that it is
[141:11] intellectually
[141:13] robust and that it is experientially
[141:17] profound
[141:18] for me and for
[141:21] so many other people, your friend
[141:22] included.
[141:24] What's the most important thing
[141:26] that we haven't talked about that we
[141:27] should have talked about, Wesley? For
[141:28] the people that are listening. Well,
[141:30] now, I would assume they're very curious
[141:31] people. Some of them are religious, some
[141:32] of them aren't. What is the most
[141:34] important thing that we should close on
[141:35] in your view?
[141:37] Part of my academic study is that I do
[141:39] what's called papyrology and
[141:40] paleography. So, I make facsimiles of
[141:43] manuscripts, ancient manuscripts, um
[141:46] particularly biblical manuscripts. So,
[141:48] this is a biblical manuscript, right?
[141:49] P46.
[141:51] It's a late second or third century
[141:55] page from a collection of Paul's
[141:57] epistles.
[141:58] So, Paul from the Bible.
[142:00] >> Paul from the Bible. He wrote this.
[142:02] Well, so he wrote that and then a scribe
[142:04] in the 2nd century copied it down. So,
[142:06] this is I made this. So, this is genuine
[142:08] Egyptian papyrus. I'm only writing on
[142:10] one side so you can see kind of how the
[142:12] papyrus is put together. And then I got
[142:14] you a I got you a nice Bible. Oh.
[142:16] But, I have put a bookmark in the page
[142:20] where that passage is. Why Why did you
[142:22] pick that particular passage? Well, why
[142:24] don't you open it up and read it? So,
[142:26] it's it's on the little inscription note
[142:29] that I have there. Romans 12. So, you
[142:32] can see on the bottom there there's
[142:34] there's the title.
[142:36] >> Oh, yeah. 12 11 12.
[142:38] So, it says, "Rejoice in hope. Be
[142:41] patient in tribulation. Be constant in
[142:44] prayer. Contribute to the needs of the
[142:46] saints and seek to show hospitality.
[142:49] Bless those who persecute you. Bless and
[142:51] do not curse them. Rejoice with those
[142:54] who rejoice. Weep with those who weep.
[142:57] Live in harmony with one another. Do not
[142:59] be
[143:00] haughty,
[143:01] but associate with the lowly.
[143:04] Never be wise in your own sight. Repay
[143:07] no one evil for evil,
[143:09] but give thought to do what is honorable
[143:11] in the sight of all. If possible, so far
[143:14] as it depends on you, live peaceably
[143:17] with all. Beloved, never avenge
[143:21] yourselves,
[143:22] but leave it to the wrath of God, for it
[143:25] is written,
[143:26] "Vengeance is mine. I will repay," says
[143:29] the Lord. "To the contrary, if your
[143:32] enemy is hungry, feed him. If he is
[143:34] thirsty, give him something to drink.
[143:37] For by so doing, you will heap burning
[143:39] coals on his head. Do not be overcome by
[143:41] evil,
[143:43] but overcome evil with good."
[143:46] So, hopefully that's good passage to
[143:49] Beautiful. remember, think about. And
[143:51] then there's the box for it. Thank you
[143:53] so much. This is so beautiful.
[143:55] Wesley, we have a closing tradition on
[143:56] this podcast where the last guest leaves
[143:57] a question for the next, not knowing who
[143:59] they're leaving it for.
[144:00] And the question left for you is, what
[144:02] is one risk that you should be taking in
[144:04] your life but aren't currently?
[144:07] Where I am in my life, I feel like so
[144:10] many things have happened so quickly
[144:13] that
[144:14] there's like an aspect of
[144:16] unpredictability and I I'm just a little
[144:18] bit My wife and I were talking last
[144:20] night and it was like we need to embrace
[144:22] what's happening right now, but from a
[144:24] year from now, if it's all gone, that's
[144:27] totally okay. Mhm. And and and we're
[144:29] fine with that, whether that's, you
[144:31] know, financially or with social media
[144:34] or or opportunity or And maybe the risk
[144:37] is pushing into that and think and and
[144:40] saying like you know, maybe there's an
[144:42] aspect of that. Yes, I think it's wise
[144:45] to keep that in calibration
[144:47] and understand that if this goes away
[144:49] tomorrow, I'm content
[144:51] because this is beyond what I have
[144:54] I'm in a room sitting with Steven
[144:56] Bartlett. I'm in a room sat with you.
[144:58] So, there's an there's an aspect of that
[145:00] which is is completely mind-blowing
[145:02] to me, especially Wes Hauf from a year
[145:05] ago.
[145:07] But
[145:08] maybe not selling myself short and
[145:10] thinking that, you know,
[145:13] these opportunities are
[145:15] opportunities to
[145:17] invest in others in ways that people
[145:19] have invested in me over this last year.
[145:21] What do you mean by that? You mean With
[145:23] some of the things that I've I've been
[145:25] very
[145:26] uh graciously able to experience and in
[145:29] giving other people opportunity to
[145:31] maybe
[145:33] push into trying to make
[145:37] an impact in their space. Oh, okay. And
[145:39] encouraging them. Pulling people up the
[145:41] ladder. Yeah.
[145:42] >> You've been able to climb. Yeah. Paying
[145:44] it forward, too. Paying it downward, I
[145:46] guess. Yeah.
[145:48] This is so, so cool. Well, I'm I'm very
[145:50] thankful for you
[145:51] willing to have me on, so thank you for
[145:53] >> No, thank you. You're such a great
[145:54] communicator, and um
[145:57] you're [snorts] so finely balanced in in
[146:00] your ability to deeply understand
[146:02] everything you're talking about from a
[146:04] historical perspective, to be in the
[146:06] pursuit of truth, as you kind of said,
[146:07] irrespective of where that one might
[146:09] lead somebody. But then you have the
[146:11] gift of Yeah.
[146:12] The gift of communication. Incredibly
[146:14] engaging person, good intentions, good
[146:16] man. So, I was very, very, you know,
[146:18] very, very glad we had this
[146:19] conversation, and very much looking
[146:21] forward to it for a very long time. So,
[146:22] I'm glad you said yes. I was asking my
[146:23] team for maybe I don't know.
[146:25] Maybe 9 months
[146:26] >> Wow. to get in contact with you.
[146:27] >> Well, I apologize cuz I had no a few
[146:29] times.
[146:29] >> No, it's okay. It's okay. But I'm I'm
[146:31] really, really appreciative of it,
[146:32] Wesley, and I hope to have this
[146:33] conversation again sometime soon. Yeah,
[146:35] that'd be great. Thank you. YouTube have
[146:36] this new crazy algorithm where they know
[146:38] exactly what video you would like to
[146:40] watch next based on AI and all of your
[146:42] viewing behavior. And the algorithm says
[146:45] that this video is the perfect video for
[146:48] you. It's different for everybody
[146:49] looking right now. Check this video out,
[146:51] and I bet you you might love it.
