SPEAKER_10

From now until the 3rd of December, you can join the joy and double your impact. That's right, if you set up or increase a regular monthly donation, your generosity will be matched by some amazing faith-filled partners. We know what a joy it is to share Jesus with others. Thank you to all of you that join with us, whether you pray, share, or give to enable us to resource the church to reach the world. Since October of last year, 15,000 seekers and believers have signed up to 321 to discover more about Jesus. And people are really being blessed by it.

SPEAKER_01

The 321 videos gave me a platform that was really accessible. The lady that I did the whole course with, she would watch the video on her phone at home. I would watch it on my phone at home, and then we would chat about it. We would either WhatsApp or we would voice note. We did the first video sitting together in Asda Car Park.

SPEAKER_10

Okay.

SPEAKER_01

She messaged me and said, I've watched the last one. And I said, okay. And she said, Well, I guess we're family now because I've prayed the prayer. And that was it.

SPEAKER_10

Like I say, many people are being blessed by this, and by 2030, we hope to see more than 100,000 Christians captivated by Jesus and confidently sharing their faith with their friends. And you can join the joy and be a vital part of this kingdom growth. 321 is completely free to use, which would be impossible if not for the generosity of people like you. For instance, it currently costs £12.50 per day to host 321 on our learning platform and app, giving thousands of people access to shareable, theologically deep content. We love to create gospel seed that you can scatter. And we can't wait for you to join the joy as we love Jesus and share him with the world together. For more encouraging stories and to join the joy, head over to speaklife.org.uk slash joy. That's speaklife.org.uk slash joy and have your generosity doubled. Alex O'Connor is my favorite atheist YouTuber. He's one of my favorite YouTubers full stop. He's just hit a million subscribers, and I want to talk to you today about ten times that Alex O'Connor has unleashed his inner Christian and done it in a way that's better than most Christian YouTubers could ever imagine. I'm not saying that Alex O'Connor is a Christian. I'm not saying he doesn't have powerful arguments against Christianity. Arguments like Old Testament slavery.

SPEAKER_08

Don't you think that this problem could have been solved a lot more easily if there had been a stronger religious tradition of opposition to the ownership of other human beings? Why can't that have been the case? Okay. Because scripture quite explicitly condones it. Arguments like Old Testament warfare. Saul is punished by God for not killing all of the animals.

SPEAKER_10

And above all, the most urgent question he asks of Christianity is about the hiddenness of God.

SPEAKER_08

There is a very real contingent of non-believers, and I would count myself among their number, who are unable by any means to discover him, who seek and do not find, who knock and receive, as it were, no answer. This strange phenomenon is known as the problem of divine hiddenness. If there is a God, then simply, why is he hidden from so many of us so much of the time? If theism is to offer a sufficient account of reality, then it must offer an account of what J. L. Schellenberg has famously labelled non-resistant non-belief.

SPEAKER_10

Nevertheless, Alex O'Connor is on the record as wanting Christianity to be true.

SPEAKER_08

At least the kind of Christianity that I understand, or the Christianity that I that I've uh sort of read through the person of Jesus, for example, I think anybody who says that they don't want it to be true, that they wouldn't worship that God even if he existed, that new atheist line, just doesn't know what they're talking about, or is talking about a different kind of Christianity or a different kind of God.

SPEAKER_10

Well, interestingly, back in 2022, on April the 1st, he did an April Fool's prank with Rationality Rules, where Alex O'Connor pretended to be a Christian for uh one hour and 26 minutes. He answered questions at times better than some Christian apologists could, but uh he also failed to keep a straight face. If you can conceive of an omnipotent being that can suffer, I can think of one that's a bit stronger, you know, namely one that can't suffer.

SPEAKER_08

So what's going on? I think that's all we have time for. Thank you all for watching uh today today's episode.

SPEAKER_10

Okay. So that example doesn't count. That's an April Fool's prank. The ten examples of where Alex O'Connor has played the part of a Christian are occasions where he's been surrounded by non-Christians and where his inner Christian has come out. Again, I'm not saying that Alex O'Connor is a Christian. I'm not saying that he doesn't have powerful arguments against Christianity. I'm just saying he is surrounded by non-Christians a lot of the time, and he makes arguments to those non-Christians that are better than a great majority of evangelists and Christian apologists around there. I'm gonna take you through ten occasions where he's talking to people like Jordan Peterson and Destiny and Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris and Constantine Kisson. We're gonna have a look at all that, but first, are you subscribed to the Speak Life channel? We'd love to see you again on these videos, so why don't you uh tap the bell and why don't you like this video and share it with others? Here's the first place I'm going to take you to as we look at occasions where Alex O'Connor has played the part of a Christian. Uh, he pins down Jordan Peterson in ways that every Christian on the planet wants to pin down Jordan Peterson, and he does it better than anyone else has ever done in interviews. Have you seen this interview where he's on the Jordan Peterson podcast and he starts pressing Jordan Peterson on his definition of God, and whether Jordan Peterson's definition of God is anything like a Christian definition of God. Have a look.

SPEAKER_08

It seems to me that when you speak of God, you mean something like that which is at the I don't know if you'd rather say the basis or the top, but the basis or the top metaphors of a value hierarchy. And it begins with the recognition that anything that anybody does requires some kind of value. Even just to do something as as simple as sitting in a chair or picking up a glass.

SPEAKER_03

Well, you don't do anything without it being oriented towards a value.

SPEAKER_08

Exactly. And then you said, at least on on one occasion, that we'll call that place, whatever's at the top there, we'll call it the divine place. And you said we'll make that a definition. Yeah, yeah. Now I'm kind of I'm fine with this. Yeah. But it seems to me that there that what you're doing is you're giving a definition of God that makes him or makes it uh him, whatever, unavoidably exist, and also makes it a quite different entity to the entity described by a great deal of, for instance, your Christian uh your Christian listeners who will say that God is not the basis of a value hierarchy. God is an omnipotent, omniscient, agential being with consciousness that intentionally brings about human beings and sent down a physical man to sacrifice his life in order to save us for our sins. Now that means that when someone asks you, does God exist, and you say, Well, look, I I I think that's a that's almost an inappropriate question. I d you uh uh uh in at times you sort of imply that you don't even believe in atheists because you sort of act as if you believe in God. If what you mean by God is just Well, Dawkins himself admitted he was a cultural Christian. That's another matter, because that's much more specific. I mean, that's cultural Christianity, right? This is just disappointment. But it's a reflection.

SPEAKER_10

He does a very good job of not getting distracted by Peterson there, who wanted to take him off onto cultural Christianity and what Richard Dawkins says. But he he is like a dog with a bone, he's going to make his mark with this question, and so he does.

SPEAKER_08

When a Christian says to you, I I mean very clear that that's what I mean by God.

SPEAKER_03

I don't know if you do believe in the omniscient, omnipotent agential being, but if you start talking about the inevitability of believing in some basis of a value, it's not so obvious to the obvious from the traditional Judeo-Christian perspective that God is properly conceptualized as a being.

SPEAKER_10

Aristotle thought that Aquinas takes that idea and he notices that Aquinas has four different kinds of cause that you can have in life. There's the formal cause, there's the material cause, there's the efficient cause, and there's the final cause, what we might call purposes. And Aquinas kind of retasks this cosmological argument and says it's not just about efficient causes, it's also about final causes. There's a purpose behind everything. And whatever it is that stands at the top of that chain is the uncaused final cause, the the greatest why that there could possibly be. And so Aquinas stands in a theistic tradition that is very ancient. And Peterson is about to say that Aquinas stands in that tradition not simply because he's a philosopher, but because he's a Bible guy. The Bible presents God not simply as a being, as Mr. God, a Mr. God character who lives on the far side of Pluto. The Bible doesn't so much describe God as a being among other beings, but as being itself, and this is the way he argues.

SPEAKER_03

It's tricky, right? Because one of the ways that you can approach God traditionally is in relationship to a being, but that's a veil. So why do I say that? Okay, so so let's speak about it religiously first, and then we can speak about it conceptually. So there's a tremendous insistence in the Judeo-Christian tradition that God is outside of the categorical structure, right? Like seriously outside. Elijah the prophet establishes that God is not in nature, he's not in the earthquake, he's not in the conflagration, he's not in the storm, right? So that doesn't mean that nature doesn't speak of God, but it does mean that whatever God is is not in the natural world. Okay, now we can extend that. Not bound by time, not bound by space. Well, does that make God a material object? Because when people say, is God real, which is a variant of the question, is do you believe in God? It's like, well, God's immaterial and outside of time and space. So if your definition of real is material things in the domain of time and space, then we're not talking about the same thing. Now, usually people approach that question of belief with some materialistic framework like that in mind, even if they don't know it. The Christians, let's say, um, who uh put this question forward in the hope of getting the answer they want to hear are materialistic and enlightenment minds, even though they don't know it, because they have an implicit definition of what constitutes real. Is God real? It's like, no, no, God's hyper-real. That's not the same thing.

SPEAKER_10

So I don't know what you make of Jordan Peterson's argument there, but Alex O'Connor is tracking. He wants to know, is God personal in Jordan Peterson's understanding? And so he brings it to the question of Jesus, and here's what he says.

SPEAKER_08

In many ways, this is what Christianity provides with the New Testament and the figure of Jesus. And that's why I think for a lot of Christians, the more important question for you, and the question that they're interested in, and and you're quite right that a lot of people are like, I want to get you on my team. Yeah. I have no dog in this fight. I'm not a Christian. But I know that a lot of Christians are frustrated when they begin asking about Jesus, who's a much more physical entity. Right? It's a real human being. It's someone of flesh and blood, it's someone who's physically crucified by the very different question. It's a very different question. And then and then is is seen as a physical entity, at least according to the to the canonical tradition, by his disciples after he died. So when somebody asks you, do you believe that that happened? And when I've seen you asked about that question, you tend to still speak in terms of the psychological and the mythological.

SPEAKER_10

Brilliantly done. Millions of Christians want to stand with Alex O'Connor and ask the kind of question that Alex O'Connor is asking here. What is your definition of God? Is it anything like the biblical definition of God? Okay, well, let's narrow it down to Jesus. And please don't just psychologize. Please tell us that there is a historical figure called Jesus of Nazareth and that he is the logos of all things, not just some abstracted concept. Alex O'Connor is nailing things down in ways that Christians are really grateful for. I think the frustration is that, as you've just said, Yeah, that is.

SPEAKER_08

So a man exists called Jesus without that much.

SPEAKER_03

Now, Christ, now there's a claim that is attributed to Christ that he is the uh embodiment or the incarnation, the fulfillment, let's say, of the prophet and the laws. Yes. I think that's true.

SPEAKER_10

Amazing what Alex O'Connor has gotten Jordan Peterson to say here. Yes, Jesus Christ is the embodiment of the prophet and the law, and he's this historical figure. Brilliant. Alex knows what's important and he knows what to pin Jordan Peterson down on, and he gets his man. But now here's the second thing. We need to figure out did this Jesus Christ die and rise again? Because that's at the heart of Christian faith. And again, Jordan Peterson has given so many different answers over the years. But Alex O'Connor is the one who's going to get his man. Let's have a look.

SPEAKER_08

A lot of people interpret Paul, for example, um, uh the earliest New Testament source, as saying that if Jesus did not literally rise from the dead, if there was not a man who stopped breathing and then started breathing again, then your faith is futile and you're still in your sins. That is, Christianity is undermined. Now, that means that and Paul doesn't say sort of believing that that's false is really bad. He says if you do not believe this proactively, then your faith is futile. If you don't proactively believe that yourself, then I think when a Christian asks you, you know, do you believe in the resurrection of Jesus? Are you a Christian? I think you must be committed to saying no, at least under that interpretation of Paul. And even if you're not sure, I mean it's fine if if I say to you, Do you think that a man physically rose from the dead? And you say something like, Well, I don't know. I mean, I wasn't there, but I think it has a lot of mythological significance, or I think that maybe it it happened in a in a different sense, or it happened in the sense that good fiction happens, you know, then fine. But it needs to begin with that caveat of of the simple sort of historically speaking, I don't know. And I know you don't like to pull out the historical Jesus and mythological.

SPEAKER_03

That's a good objection. But it's an important question too.

SPEAKER_10

I don't know, of course. It's a very good objection. He's pinning him down and he's pinning him down with scripture. He's saying, 1 Corinthians 15 is really, really important, Dr. Peterson. So do you believe this physically happened? If you swapped Alex out and put a Christian in that seat, he would want to know exactly the same question, and he's doing a brilliant job.

SPEAKER_03

So I just did a seminar on the gospels with uh a crew of about eight people. And it was the same crew uh that walked through Exodus with me with a couple of variations. And we spent a lot of time on the resurrection accounts, for example. And of course, that was the toughest let's say that was the toughest morsel to chew and digest. The thing about the resurrection accounts is that they're all look so I could say something like this, which will just annoy people, but it doesn't matter I believe the accounts, but I have no idea what they mean.

SPEAKER_10

You can see Peterson wiggling and trying to slip himself off the hook, but watch for how Alex O'Connor gets his man in the end.

SPEAKER_08

When you say you believe the accounts, do you mean and and I I I hate to be sort of pedantic here, it seems pedantic, but do you mean you believe that these are things that happened such that if I if now I know you don't like that, let me put it this way if if I went back in time with a Panasonic video camera and put that camera in front of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, would the little L C D screen show a man walk out of that tomb?

SPEAKER_03

I would say suspect yes.

SPEAKER_10

I can't think of anyone who has elicited more of a straight answer to that question than Alex O'Connor. The question that Christians want to ask, Alex asks it and he gets that answer. And here's what he does with it.

SPEAKER_08

So that that is that to me s seems like a belief in the historical event of the resurrection, or at least of Jesus leaving the tomb, which means that when somebody says, you know, do you believe that Jesus rose from the dead, it doesn't seem clear to me why you're not able to just say it would seem to me yes.

SPEAKER_03

Because I have no idea what that means. And neither did the people who saw it.

SPEAKER_10

I have sympathy both with Alex and with Jordan Peterson at this point, uh, because Alex is saying exactly what Christians want to say. Why why don't you just say that Jesus rose from the dead and and then you can get on with all the other stuff that you want to say about the biblical narratives? Why don't you just affirm the historicity and then get into the mythological stuff? So I really resonate with Alex. I also resonate with Jordan Peterson to some degree when he says, actually, in the biblical accounts, um, when Jesus rises from the dead, there are many people who don't recognize him. On the road to Emmaus, it was not enough for them to see the risen Lord Jesus. They actually needed to hear his reframing of their whole experience through scripture, and they had to sit down with him at table, this miniature church service in which they break bread together. They need scripture, they need Christian community in order to understand the resurrection. They don't just need to see the figure of Jesus on an LCD screen or even in real life. To see Jesus means to see him in scriptural terms, in embodied terms, in corporate terms, in ecclesial terms, in sacramental terms. So Jordan Peterson is correct not to boil down everything to historicity. Historicity still needs to be framed by scripture and it still needs to be encountered in the context of the church, in community, in sacraments. So I have sympathy for Jordan Peterson, but I have so much respect for Alex O'Connor. He's pinned down Peterson on his definition of God, he's pinned down Peterson on the resurrection of Jesus. My third example of Alex O'Connor unleashing his inner Christian is a live stream with Destiny. And uh it happened just a couple of weeks ago, and late at night they're having a conversation about whether you would eat a cat. For some reason, they're having that conversation, and yet Destiny, who is very hardened to the idea of God, kind of calls forth Alex O'Connor's inner theist. Uh let's let's have a look at how it unfolds.

SPEAKER_06

Would you eat a cat? Um, I'll try anything. Like, if I wouldn't eat a cat, it's just because it would look gross, but not like on principle. Like I might have to eat it just to prove that I would eat it.

SPEAKER_08

Oh, I see. Like as a as a point of as a as a hill to As a hill to stand on. To to win on. Yeah, to win. I love a good subversion. One of my favorites is you know, I will win on this hill. That's my favorite little servers. I like that. Yeah. I've won a lot of hills. I'm gonna remember that. I will die on this fence.

SPEAKER_10

I will die on this fence. Oh, Alex O'Connor, don't die on the fence. Please don't die on the fence. Oh, yeah.

SPEAKER_08

If you're sort of like I'm I'm sort of violently agnostic about God's existence, and I I'm I'm sort of I recently stumbled on this. I'm like, you know, I'm I no, I don't have an opinion, but I will die on this fence, you know? It's sort of a when you say agnostic, what do you mean?

SPEAKER_06

Um I can't have knowledge about it, or you're just like you're an undecided fing loser.

SPEAKER_02

You're an undecided effing loser. Oh, destiny's got some anger issues.

SPEAKER_08

I think one cannot have knowledge of the kind that is exemplified in your empiricist rationalism. Okay, that's fine. That's a good agnostic position. Including me. Okay. You don't believe in God, do you?

SPEAKER_06

F no. Whoa. What an absolutely ridiculous question.

SPEAKER_10

Whoa. Simultaneous triggering. Did you see that? Um first destiny is triggered by the idea of God. You don't believe in God. No! And then Alex is like, whoa, why are you triggered? Alex is very clear that destiny cannot be so certain that God does not exist. He cannot be. What's what do you mean by God when you say I don't believe in God? Like, what's the reference of the word God then? And it's at this point that they both recognize Alex O'Connor's been hanging out with Jordan Peterson a little bit too much. Watch them.

SPEAKER_06

Um Wow, what a deep theory of language question. Any any type of like metaphysical, but the problem is that's like what do you mean means? What do you mean the real issue?

SPEAKER_02

There's Alex's Jordan Peterson impression. Very good, very lobster-like.

SPEAKER_06

So the real meme you run into as like a physicalist, materialist, atheist kind of person is that technically you are so um you you you've kind of like circularly bought into the idea of no god that I think that the like anything metaphysical existing is almost totologically impossible. Because when you ask an atheist, we ask me, well, how do you prove the existence of a metaphysical thing? I say, well, if somebody can measure it.

SPEAKER_10

You've got to be able to measure God for God to be God. So God does have to be like a Mr. God on the far side of Pluto in destiny's understanding. And quite rightly, Alex O'Connor says, no, no, no, no, no, no.

SPEAKER_06

But the second you can measure or capture anything, it becomes Yeah, God is not what's the harm?

unknown

Like, really, yeah.

SPEAKER_06

Yeah, but if he exists outside of any qualia, any sort of like sensory perception, any sort of like testing that how do you even because God is being itself.

SPEAKER_10

Okay. I mean, we've just heard Peterson say that. God is being itself. And we've heard that there's a venerable tradition of this, Aquinas saying it as well as Aristotle saying it, and now Alex O'Connor says it. So, Alex, Aquinas, and Aristotle, are you gonna disagree with all these three great minds, destiny? Are you?

SPEAKER_08

So God is so so you know when um uh what's that park in like is it in California? South Park. Yellowstone, Yellowstone.

SPEAKER_10

Yellowstone. This is fascinating, and it's part of what makes Alex O'Connor such A compelling communicator, he's always reaching for analogies. And it's the analogies that are gonna reframe everything. Check it out.

SPEAKER_08

Yellowstone for years was exhibiting signs of volcanic activity, and scientists spent decades trying to find the volcano. They were looking around Yellowstone Park, they're like, We see volcanic activity, where's the volcano? They're searching through Yellowstone, trying to find the volcano for years. They can't find it.

SPEAKER_10

Destiny is gone. I don't know where destiny's gone. But uh Alex, ever the evangelist, is not going to let this opportunity go, and so he's continuing on with the analogy. Where's the volcano, everybody? They're like, what the f we can't find the volcano.

SPEAKER_08

We see all the volcanic activities. They're searching for the volcano.

SPEAKER_06

Go. Wait, he's finishing last thought.

SPEAKER_08

They finally realize they're looking, they're looking for the volcano everywhere. And then at some point, they suddenly realize it dawns on them. The park. The volcano. The whole thing is the volcano. The park is the volume. That is analogous to us looking around the fing world. Where's God? Is he under this fing thing? Is he in the microscope? Oh, like is he gonna be at the end of the day?

SPEAKER_06

Yeah, I understand. That's real deep.

SPEAKER_10

Yeah, it's like the destiny's got such anger issues. It's unbelievable. Alex's line, it reminds me of uh C.S. Lewis when uh Yuri Gagarin went up into space and he said, you know, I went up into space, I didn't see God anywhere. And uh C.S. Lewis said, that's like looking up the chimney and saying, This house has no architect, because I don't see an architect up the chimney. Alex O'Connor has used a different analogy about Yellowstone National Park. It's all shrugged off the shoulders of destiny. But once again, it's non-Christians around Alex O'Connor that really bring out his inner Christians. So that's number three. Have you ever thought about how your bank uses your savings? What if I told you there's a fully regulated Christian bank that aligns your money with your faith? When you open a Kingdom Bank savings account, you help to provide vital mortgages for churches, Christian ministries, and gospel workers who might struggle to secure one elsewhere. Whether saving for yourself or on behalf of your church, your savings will support Christian ministries across the UK. And when you're ready to take your money out, you get it back with interest. If your spending and giving reflect your faith, shouldn't your savings as well? Open a savings account with Kingdom Bank today and put your money where your heart is. Visit kingdom.bankslash speaklife. Kingdom Bank is a member of the FSCS and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and the Prudential Regulation Authority. Number four, Alex gets Sam Harris onto the podcast, and it's a long time in coming because one of the big videos that Alex made back in the day was a debunking of Sam Harris's objective morality. And he he doesn't believe in objective morality, he believes uh he's a subjectivist, he's uh a radical emotivist, that whatever is bad in the world is not ontologically and objectively and for all time bad. It's just when you say murder is bad, you're saying boo murder. You are communicating an emotive response to the act of murder. And Sam Harris thinks in the moral landscape that we can have an objective basis for morality. But Alex does as good a job as anybody else of pinning down Sam, of showing him the circularity of his arguments and why they simply do not work.

SPEAKER_08

In the tweet later on, um, you say, if we should do anything in this life, we should avoid what really and truly sucks. Elsewhere you say, look, if if if bad means anything, it must mean the worst possible misery for everyone. I think a moment ago you said something to that effect. Yeah. Um to William Lane Craig, you put it this way the minimum standard of moral goodness is to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. If we should do anything in this universe, if we ought do anything, if we have a moral duty to do anything, it's to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. And of course this seems intuitively true. But the problem I have with this uh is what I would see as a charge of circularity. Because it seems to me that the interesting claim that you're making in the moral landscape is that in a world where people think atheists cannot say that certain things are good and bad. If you're an atheist, there is no thing that is good, there is no thing that is bad, there's just stuff. You're saying, no, we actually can say that certain things are bad. We can do that. And someone says, Okay, show me how. And you say something like, Well, look, if anything is bad, surely the worst possible misery for everyone is bad. But that first bit, that if anything is bad, it seems to me that the the very thing that you're trying to establish, that's the interesting part. So when you say if we have any duty in this world, it must be to avoid the worst possible misery for everyone. I could say But the thing we're trying to establish is if there is any such thing that is dutiful, if there is any such thing as good and bad.

SPEAKER_10

Do you see what I'm saying?

SPEAKER_04

Yeah, yeah.

SPEAKER_10

So um I mean, this has been pointed out to Sam Harris many, many, many, many times. But Alex does a brilliant and concise job of doing it in person and then following up with Sam.

SPEAKER_04

Let's go over this ground again and and just f notice a few more landmarks.

SPEAKER_10

Um That's actually very funny because Alex O'Connor has just charged him with circularity, and Sam Harris says, Let's go around this terrain one more time. Um yeah, he is being utterly circular.

SPEAKER_08

I want to begin with what you said about this idea of the double standard that exists. And you picture somebody walking into a physics conference and saying, I define physics in this way, and everybody at the physics conference turning around and going, I mean, sure, you can just do that if you want. You can define physics, I mean whatever you want, but that's not really what we're talking about. That's not what people care about in this conference, so we're just not going to pay attention to you. Do you pi uh you know, when you publish the moral landscape, and there are a great many people in the academy who come out and say, you know, this isn't allowed, like you say. Most people believe in this is aught distinction. Most people think that good is something other than just well-being.

SPEAKER_10

There is descriptive reality and prescriptive reality, and you cannot get prescriptions from descriptions. You can't get oughts from issue. It's what Hume said, it's what the great majority of moral philosophers think, and Sam Harris's moral landscape says no. We can totally derive all our oughts from issue, and they are objective oughts. And Alex O'Connor is saying, you are like that creationist walking into the science symposium. You are this non-ethicist walking into the domain of moral philosophy and saying it's all nonsense. So who sounds like the crazy outsider, Sam Harris?

SPEAKER_08

Most people think that good is something other than just well-being. Who's the one walking into the conference here? In other words, like, is it it it seems to me that it might be more like you going into that conference and saying, I think that morality is about well-being, and everyone at the conference turning around and saying, you can do that if you want. I I don't exactly have a reason why you can't just say that when I say good, I just mean the avoidance of the worst possible misery for everyone. Sure, but that's not really what we mean. And so do that if you want, but we're not going to sort of pay attention to that. Yeah. Do you see it that way around, or do you think it's the other way around that you're the one with the with the sort of uh definitional consensus here, that people who are challenging you are coming in and and and you're the one who should be saying, well, well, you know, we're not gonna pay attention to you.

SPEAKER_04

Well, to be clear, I'm not saying that truth is just a matter of consensus, right? So I'm saying that w everyone could be wrong. Uh one person could be right.

SPEAKER_10

Well, it's a three-hour conversation. You can see uh Sam's answer to that question and to all the other questions that Alex O'Connor so sharply puts to him. Uh, but I think he did a brilliant job of talking to him about the circularity of his system and talking to him about the audacity of his system as this neuroscientist coming into the domain of moral philosophers and uh really not understanding the debates that have been had for the last two and a half thousand years. But uh go to uh how science can give us morality, that video on Alex O'Connor's channel. Uh number five, we're gonna go to his video with Richard Dawkins. And there are four amazing examples from his dialogue with Richard Dawkins, where I think Alex O'Connor brings out his inner Christian. And the first of these four examples is where Alex O'Connor talks about the progress of science, and he talks about the proper relationship between science and religion.

SPEAKER_08

I had a thought that was inspired by something that C.S. Lewis had said on the relationship between science and religion. And I have this image in my head of uh people who are who are really optimistic about the progress of science and the scientific method, and they say something like, Look, you know, years ago we used to say so much was down to God. We used to not know why the planets orbited the sun and we said it was because angels was pushing them. We used to not know why there was so much complexity in biological life and we said that God did it. But look how we're discovering these laws. We're discovering the law of natural selection, we're discovering the laws of gravity, you know. And there seems to be this trajectory such that when we say, well, where did it all come from in the first place? One day we'll get there. Now I don't know if you agree with that as a optimistic trajectory for the scientific method.

SPEAKER_10

He beautifully sets up this narrative. He's going to show that it's a false narrative, but here is the narrative that science has been progressing in its understanding of the world at greater and greater scale and at greater and greater detail, and so eventually the need for God is going to be pushed out by the advance of scientific explanations. Is that what you think, Richard Dawkins? And apparently it is.

SPEAKER_09

Clearly there's a trajectory, and uh and uh I would put it that uh the big problem of design, as William Haley put it, was uh life. He said something like the physical world is not the best place in which to to um demonstrate the existence of the of the creator because it's too simple. And I think he was right. And um he would he was also right when he said that the the really big problem for religion is is uh is life. And his both him and his his whole book is based upon looking at design in the in the living world. Darwin solved that. So Darwin solved the big one, and um we have some remaining problems. The the arc is still hasn't really reached its end. We still have some problems with the origin of the laws of physics, the origin of the universe. But I think that the fact that Darwin solved the big one should give us give us confidence. That was the really difficult one, the the the amazing, apparent design in the living world. I mean, that is such an such a staggeringly overwhelming impression of of design. There's no question about that. And that was the one that Darwin solved.

SPEAKER_10

So much going on there. First of all, Dawkins is affirming this progress narrative, and he thinks that we are understanding more and more about the natural world, and therefore that pushes out any idea of the supernatural. But he's also said there that we've solved the big problem of life, and Alex is not going to let him get away with that.

SPEAKER_08

Well, Darwin solves the problem of complexity within living organisms, but I think it might be a step too far to say he solved the problem of life. Because, of course, one of the questions that we have to throw into that bundle of things yet to explain, the origin of the physics, the origin of life and life.

SPEAKER_09

Well, that's not part of Darwinism, of course. That's a separate question, and Darwin acknowledged that. Brilliant pushback from Alex, and then massive rowback from Richard Dawkins. Rowback, rowback, row back, have a look. And that that is an unsolved problem. It may never be solved in the sense that we may never actually know what the answer is.

SPEAKER_10

I mean, let's just process what's just happened. Richard Dawkins says, we've solved the problem of life. Alex O'Connor says, Really? Richard Dawkins says, Oh no, and we probably never will. Like what a massive rowback. And again, Alex O'Connor does a brilliant job. Uh, he's not a Christian, but he's doing a better job than most Christians would do sitting in the chair where he's sitting. Richard Dawkins rose back, rose back, rose back. Okay, no, we we we don't know the origin of life, and perhaps we will never know the origin of life. And so, doesn't that massively undercut this progress narrative? Science is understanding more and more, so we don't need God. Um, so first of all, the narrative is false because as Alex says, um, there are all sorts of origins questions that we're no closer to solving. Like, how did we get everything from nothing and order from chaos and life from non-life and consciousness from mindless matter? How do we how did we get any of those things? We're no closer to answering those questions, really. Um, so that that trajectory, we can question it, but where Alex is going to go is to question whether, even if you get to the top of that trajectory, whether that excludes the idea of God. And so that's where Alex O'Connor returns to the C. S. Lewis analogy, and it's brilliant.

SPEAKER_08

The story that we tell is something like we discover all of these laws, and so this gives us an idea that science is moving in a direction, and that eventually w we we may well discover the origin of the laws themselves. But that seems to me like a separate question. And the way I want to explain this is by sort of borrowing and adapting uh, as I say, something C. S. Lewis said. Um Lewis talks about the relationship between Hamlet and Shakespeare a fair bit, or the character in a book and and his author. I mean, I I can ask, you know, why did uh why did Sherlock Holmes move into Baker Street? And you can either say, Well, it's because uh, you know, he he was looking for a roommate or s or something like that or you could say, but because Arthur Conan Doyle wanted him to. And both of those seem to be true in a different resolution of thought. Now what I'm imagining here is us discovering Hamlet by Shakespeare on the table in front of us, and immediately, crudely, you look at it and say, Well, that must have been designed, you know, that must have an author. And I don't just do the William Paley thing, you know, it's complex. What I say is, Well, look, Professor Dawkins, I I've I've done some research onto this little book and I've discovered that it obeys certain laws. You know, I I've noticed that at the end of certain sentences there are these little dots. And if there's a big dot, it use it usually means that it's the end of a sentence. And there are two different kinds of each letter. There's a big A and a little A. And if it's the beginning of a sentence, it's a new one. Also, we've discovered this thing called iambic pentameter. You know, it it seems that the way these sentences are constructed seem to follow this law, this law of literacy. And I said to you, Now where did this book come from? And you say, I still think there was an author of this book. I still think someone created it. And I said, But look at all the progress that we've made, just by describing it in terms of these things that we're calling laws of literature. I've discovered all of these laws of literature, iambic pantameter and sentence construction and grammar and all of this stuff. Surely one day these laws of literacy will will go on to explain the origin of the laws of the literacy, or the origin of the text itself. Surely that would surely that would be where this is going. But of course, I'm making a category error if I do that. And is there not a a fear that we're doing that when we say that science will one day explain the origin of the very thing that science is about?

SPEAKER_10

This is Alex O'Connor at his absolute best, and what is he doing? He's telling a story. He's bringing us into this grand analogy and reorienting us. Um does Richard Dawkins get it? I don't think so.

SPEAKER_09

I take confidence from the from as I said before, from Darwin's success, because everything that you said about full stops and capital letter at the beginning of the of the sentence and i like pentameters and things, you could have said that about life, and people did say that about life, and we we notice that living things are remarkably well designed, that birds are beautifully designed to fly, and and fish are beautifully designed to swim and so on.

SPEAKER_10

And rhyme structures are beautifully designed to rhyme, and meter structures are beautifully designed to have meter and rhythm, and full stops and punctuation and capital letters are all doing a wonderful job of weaving together, right? None of this does away with Shakespeare. None of it does away with Shakespeare. We're talking about two different planes of perception, two different levels of explanation, and Richard Dawkins is just stuck down at the materialist one.

SPEAKER_09

Um and the complexity is all there, the the detail of the of the of the design is is incredibly impressive, and it would have seemed absolutely I suspect this is why it took so long for Darwin to come on the scene, actually, because it just seemed so obvious that it had to it had uh had an author uh but but behind it. Darwin solved that. There isn't an author. I mean it's it's natural selection does the trick. So where is the where is the analogy with Hamlet or Sherlock Holmes left with?

SPEAKER_08

I suppose the analogy would be that um what Darwin did was was close the question on the complexity of life. But he didn't close the question on where life came from, as we've already agreed. That's right, and but I suppose what I'm putting forward is that maybe laws of physics, laws of biology, laws of science are not the kind of thing that can explain the origin of the laws of physics, the origin of the laws of biology, that kind of stuff. Where maybe it's sort of uh opering on a on a Well it could be.

SPEAKER_10

I mean we we haven't got there yet. We haven't got there yet. As long as we pay attention to the grammar and the syntax, we'll eventually do away with Shakespeare. Um once Alex O'Connor set up the analogy and the way that he set it up, um, Dawkins has no way out. Without admitting to a Shakespeare, right? Without admitting to God. I think Alex O'Connor did a brilliant job there. And then later in the video, they start talking about debates. Uh let's have a look at Alex O'Connor asking Richard Dawkins who he respects uh in the Christian world.

SPEAKER_08

Who's the most formidable debate opponent that you have had in your career that you can think of now uh on this question of God's existence?

SPEAKER_09

I don't think there are any. Not that I'm formidable myself, but but but I I I don't think that there are any very good arguments.

SPEAKER_08

Um no point in a debate where where you're sat there getting ready to get up and give your ten-minute rebuttal while they're speaking, writing your notes and thinking, oh gosh, uh what am I gonna say to that? That that's that's a that's a fair point.

SPEAKER_10

Alex has been in that situation many times, as you can tell. Um has Richard Don't think so. Wow.

SPEAKER_09

Wow.

SPEAKER_10

Wow.

SPEAKER_09

I don't want to sound arrogant. It's not that I've got great great points, it's just that I don't think there are any good points.

SPEAKER_10

It doesn't sound arrogant, it just sounds like you don't know what you don't know. I mean, the Dunning Skruger effect is the effect that you see all the time on the X Factor or, you know, Britain's Got Talent or American Idol, all these talent shows where people put themselves forward, and the first round is just excruciating because you get a whole bunch of people, thousands of people, show up at these auditions and they can't sing for Toffee. And and but they because they can't sing, they think they can sing. And it takes Simon Cowell to kind of burst that bubble, and he's the first person who's actually told them the truth in their life. And you you think, well, how can they not realize that they're totally tone deaf, that just cacophony is spraying from their mouths? How do they not know that? Ah, they don't know they're a bad singer because they're a bad singer. And Richard Dawkins does not know how terrible he is at theology because he is so terrible at theology. He doesn't know how terrible he is at philosophy because he is so terrible at philosophy. He doesn't sound arrogant, he does sound ignorant. He is a genius in his field, but stepping outside his field, he doesn't know what he doesn't know. And therefore, he is encountering lots of very clever people with lots of very clever arguments, but he cannot recognize them as such. Not because of his arrogance and not because of his brilliance, but because of his ignorance. He doesn't know what he doesn't know. And interestingly, it's Richard Dawkins who brings up the person of William Lane Craig, someone who Richard Dawkins failed to debate and refused to debate.

SPEAKER_09

Professional debaters on behalf of religion, uh people like William Craig. Um I've I've no time for him. I mean he's he he he's got this sort of loud uh rather pompous voice and and and um he says that's a premise one, deduction two, and things like that. And and the audience I suppose is supposed to be impressed.

SPEAKER_08

I I've had I've had uh William Lane Craig twice on on my podcast, and I always had a good experience with him. Having said that, I didn't debate him. I don't know what that would be like. It's something you're not interested in doing, debating William Lane Craig.

SPEAKER_10

There was a famous example where uh William Lane Craig challenged Richard Dawkins to uh respond to him, and many people think that Richard Dawkins ran scared from that particular engagement.

SPEAKER_08

Or have I conversation perhaps with William Lane Craig?

SPEAKER_09

I have done. Um I I've vowed not to. Um I I I feel such contempt for him because of his. I don't know whether whether you've seen his what he says says about the something about the lights slaughtering the Midianites.

SPEAKER_10

Now that was the presenting issue that Richard Dawkins said was the reason why he would not debate William Lane Craig. A lot of people have doubts about that. Interestingly, Alex O'Connor pushes back and says, look, even if it's not about Old Testament warfare, any Christian is going to think that God allows really terrible things to happen in this world and still thinks of a good God who can somehow justify himself in the midst of terrible evil in this world, and yet you would still debate that kind of person, wouldn't you? Isn't there an inconsistency, Richard Dawkins?

SPEAKER_08

I suppose the thing that I would say is that if if you pressed a Christian, well, if there's a good God, why do children get cancer? They just have to say something like, there must be some reason for this, there must be some explanation. I mean, well, uh even just just in terms of why God would allow evil at all. Uh what I'm what I'm imagining, in other words, is suppose we had this other Christian philosopher debater, and uh somebody had said to them, Well, why do children get cancer if there's a good God? And they said, Look, if I believe in a good God, I have to believe that the the children who die of cancer are going to heaven. I have to Believe that there's some reason for the suffering that they're undergoing. Now, you could say, This person said that you know kids who have cancer, oh, they should be grateful because they're going straight to heaven, and oh, there's some reason to give children cancer. That's despicable. I want nothing to do with this person, I'll never debate them. However, I would suppose that basically everybody that you've debated on the topic of Christianity would say something like that about Richard Gordon.

SPEAKER_10

Isn't he brilliant? Isn't he brilliant at just like laying the analogy on Richard Dawkins and saying, well, that doesn't wash, does it? And he's relentless about it. What's Richard Dawkins going to say?

SPEAKER_09

So I wonder why with William Lake Craig it's a particular problem. Trevor Burrus, Jr. You you you make a good point. I suppose um no none of these sophisticated theologians take the literal word of the Old Testament seriously. I mean they don't they don't believe in Adam and Eve, for example. Um they don't they don't believe in um You're avoiding the question. Therefore, why why would you believe that the the story of the Midianites is is is is history? Why not just sort of say, well, this is some kind of tribal myth, and all sorts of tribes have these horrible Trevor Burrus Well, I can keep up this um God's advocate if you like.

SPEAKER_08

I would say in other words, I would answer that question with a Christian hat on by saying that.

SPEAKER_10

Ha. I think Alex O'Connor quite enjoys playing God's advocate rather than devil's advocate. And I I think that Christian hat really quite suits him.

SPEAKER_08

Aaron Powell I think a lot of people were disappointed that the forerunner of the atheist side, Richard Dawkins, and arguably the forerunner of the Christian side, William Lane Craig, never came together to have that debate. Because even if you do think that what he believes there is particularly and and and specifically evil, I suppose everything you've just said to me, people would probably just like to see you say that to William Lane Craig.

SPEAKER_09

I wrote an article in The Guardian saying it. Um and um I did in fact have a debate with him in Mexico, I forget when with the boxing ring.

SPEAKER_10

They actually interacted for about 90 seconds, uh, and it was a last-minute edition, but anyway.

SPEAKER_09

I just no desire to to um I d I don't respect him. I did I I I find his manner pompous and um I d I just don't want to be in the same room as Montini.

SPEAKER_08

Well in in the interest of diplomacy, I will offer no further comment except that that's that's certainly not my experience with the man, but um I I I imagine that we've uh we've had very different uh interactions with him in the past, let's put it that way.

SPEAKER_10

An absolute gentleman and a very gentlemanly answer. Now there are two more examples of uh Alex O'Connor uh bringing out his inner Christian in this particular interview. Uh and in both of them he is channeling C. S. Lewis. First of all, he gives C. S. Lewis's argument from desire. We'll just quickly have a look at that.

SPEAKER_08

Lewis's argument from desire. Which sounds like a very silly argument on the face of it. He essentially says something along the lines of, look, everybody seems to have an innate desire for something a bit beyond the natural, something a bit supernatural, something you know, beauty, purpose, this kind of intangible stuff. And he says, I I actually wrote down the the way he puts it in Mere Christianity. He says, Most people, if they had really learned to look into their own hearts, would know that they do want and want acutely something that cannot be had in this world. There are all sorts of things in this world that offer to give it to them, that offer to give it to you, but never quite keep their promise. And then later, if I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. And like I say, on the face of it, that sounds maybe a little bit silly. But there is a serious question in here that most of the time when we evolve a desire for something, you know, we evolve a desire for food, for warmth, this kind of thing. The reason for that is because this desire uh gives us reason to seek out those things in the real world. If there were no food and digestion, if there were no temperature, it would make no sense for us to des to to evolve a desire for food, for temperature, for for warmth. Yeah, that wouldn't make any sense. Why would that even evolve in the first place if it doesn't actually latch onto anything in the real world? And although I'm not sure if Lewis was uh aware of this, we we know anthropologically that almost everywhere we look in the world we find people with religious sensibilities. They have some kind of either desire or uh apprehension of something beyond themselves, something divine. And I suppose the question Lewis asks is from an evolutionary perspective, why would it be that we would universally evolve that desire if that desire doesn't actually latch onto anything in in reality?

SPEAKER_09

That's a very odd argument. Um because we have uh a desire to survive and live, which makes perfectly completely perfectly evolutionary sense, it's a natural projection of that desire that we might desire to go on living after we die. We a desire for eternal life. You know um you could you could easily see that as just as just an extension of the um of the perfectly um Darwinian desire to to go on to go on living. To go on living. Um I think it's just an another example of that. Uh um that particular part of it is, I suppose, um what else did he say?

SPEAKER_08

The the the desire for something beyond um He says want acutely is something that cannot be had in this world. Um I mean he says he says a lot more uh uh about it in mere Christianity, but he says if there's if I find it myself in a a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world. Yes.

SPEAKER_09

I mean the idea that because you want something, therefore it must be true, I find that a most extraordinary idea.

SPEAKER_08

It does seem strange to want something that doesn't exist. Why? Because if we're trying to give an account of where this desire comes from, it seems to have to latch on to something. And it seems like what you're suggesting is that what it's latching on to is just the general desire to stay alive as long as possible.

SPEAKER_09

Well that that I was thinking specifically of the desire for eternal life, sure. But I think you can do a kind of version of that for whatever LCS Lewis was was was saying.

SPEAKER_10

Aaron Ross Powell And you can watch the rest of the interview about what uh Dawkins says about that. I think it's very interesting that Alex O'Connor speaks of the argument from desire as an emotivist. I think that might be a very powerful argument for Alex himself. Um but then the final arguments that uh Alex O'Connor puts to Richard Dawkins in this particular dialogue is the argument from reason. Let's have a look.

SPEAKER_08

You know, I I'm sat with one of the most preeminent evolutionary biologists in living memory, and I would I would love to know what you think about this. Now, Plantinger points out that if we're a materialist, if we don't believe in the existence of a mind governing all of this, and everything evolves according to natural selection, well what does natural selection select for? Survivability. Therefore, everything which evolves evolves because it helps us to survive, including our minds, including our rationality. And so why is it that we believe that evolution occurred by natural selection? Because we look at the evidence and we use our rationality to come to the conclusion that natural selection is the best explanation. But what we're doing in assenting to the truth of natural selection is saying that the mechanism we use to believe in natural selection doesn't actually select for truth. It selects for survivability. We can't know that two plus two equals four is true, or if it's just that believing two plus two equals four is beneficial for our survival. If the latter's the case, then we run into a lot of trouble. And it seems that when we say evolution is true, therefore our brain evolved for for survivability, we've just undermined the truth aptness of the very process that we've used to believe in evil. Yeah, I'm I'm I've never I don't know.

SPEAKER_09

What do you think white people are totally persuaded by this? Um if we went through if we any animal went through life, particularly humans, went went through life believing the equivalent of two plus two doesn't equal four, we would survive. I mean you you if you base your life upon evidence, if you base your life upon upon rationality, you're more likely to survive than if you base your life upon nonsense. And and um it it just seems to me to be so easy to say um that rationality and the search for truth, the search for for for evidence, is a good way to live, even from a mundane Darwinian point of view.

SPEAKER_10

Aaron Ross Powell A very common response to Plantinger's argument, but then Alex comes back.

SPEAKER_08

I w when you say a moment ago, um if we were to live as if two plus two didn't equal four. I I I suppose what what I'm saying is we have no way to ascertain whether it's actually true.

SPEAKER_10

Aaron Ross Powell Yeah, that's quite right for Alex to point out. On naturalism, it's not just that there are objective truth claims and that your survival-oriented brain sometimes latches onto those objective truth claims. It's that those objective truth claims are just the same as every other claim in the world, and that everything actually boils down to survival value, even the two plus two equals four kind of claim. You're in a radically different world of epistemology and ontology if you're in the naturalist's world. Everything becomes survival value at that point, and you can start to question whether true beliefs do actually help you to survive more than false beliefs. I should not go into the forest. Why? Well, because it's haunted. Well, that might keep me away from the tiger in the forest. But the real reason why I stay away from the forest is the tiger and not the ghosts. But there are any number of false beliefs that will lead to the survival value of avoiding the forest and avoiding the tiger that are not true. Evolution does not select for truth in that sense, it selects for survivability. Anyway, Alex does a great job of putting that to Richard Dawkins, and you can watch the rest of the video. Religion is Still Evil, Richard Dawkins on Alex O'Connor's channel. Now I've got two more examples to give you, and uh this one is Alex O'Connor being on the trigonometry channel with Francis Foster and Constantine Kisson, and they're starting to talk about the death of the new atheism, and they're starting to talk about the lack of spirituality, the meaning crisis that we're all facing. And here is how Alex speaks of it.

SPEAKER_08

Everybody has to have the sumum bonum. Everybody has that first uh motivating reason. So everyone's going to have one no matter what. And I think that the the sort of nihilism and confusion that people experience is that before they were told what it was. They were told, even if you don't recognize it, the thing motivating you is is God. Um whereas now it's unclear. And people who are struggling with meaning, I think, are sort of going on a journey of trying to discover what that thing is. And sometimes they find that they don't like it, because if you're an atheist materialist, you realize that ultimately the thing that's motivating me is my genetics and my crude bodily desires. And you can explain morality, the reason that morals exist is because of reciprocal altruism or because we share genes with each other and that's why it evolved. But ultimately you break it down. Well, what's the ultimate motivation? Well, because I've got genes inside me that are dictating that I do particular things. That is the sumum bonum. And we've re we've replaced, you know, the emago dei, being made in the image of God, being created with a telos and a natural purpose, which is communion with the Almighty to create you're an animal. And that's not a nice realization. And I think that's probably at the basis of people getting a little bit um thirsty for something with a bit more narrative, let's say.

SPEAKER_10

That's beautifully put, we are in a meaning crisis and it's a spiritual crisis, says Alex O'Connor. Now, interestingly, Constantine Kisson is gonna come back and say, but can we not create meaning for ourselves? And Alex O'Connor is gonna have none of it. If there isn't an objective meaning already, you cannot generate meaning from the ground up. It's a fascinating conversation.

SPEAKER_05

Once you've got to the point where you go, Well, I'm just I'm here to reproduce, that's all I'm here, that's all my purpose that I have. Then you're free, actually. And then you can create whatever purpose you want. The purpose can be to serve other people. Um, you know, I've reproduced, right? Now my job is to raise my son so he can reproduce. Okay, cool, I'll do that. But in the meantime, I can create a show that other people will enjoy. I can give meaning to people by articulating things that they struggle to articulate. I can advocate on behalf of people who are not able to advocate on their own behalf. I can do I can uh create a business with Francis in which other people work who otherwise wouldn't have a job that fulfilled them, right? I can mentor the young guys coming through. There are things, there is meaning you can create for yourself, even if the realization you have is the ultimate meaning is to reproduce your genes.

SPEAKER_08

I'm not sure that you can create your own meaning in a fundamental sense. I'm always suspicious of this concept. I think everything you've just said already presupposes an underlying value judgment. And I'll tell you why, right? So you say, well, I've decided that, you know, I'm gonna have a child and raise that child, and I've just sort of created, I've just decided.

SPEAKER_05

No, no, no, no. I'm saying I have fulfilled my biological function. Oh, sure. And it's my biological function to get him to adulthood so he can reproduce. Sure. So that's the biology aside. Sure. And also, at the same time, there is other areas of my life where I can create meaning, whether that's, you know, growing a garden or helping my neighbor, whatever it is. That's biology to one side.

SPEAKER_10

Ah, but in a naturalistic universe, biology is never just off to one side. Biology is everything. Uh, and survival and reproduction is the meaning, right? Unless there is a meaning above biology, unless there is something supernatural above that. And Alex O'Connor is gonna say, look, if you do believe in the supernatural and that kind of meaning, yes, you can have that kind of meaning. But if we're just dealing with the natural level, then I'm afraid meaning might need to take the hindmost.

SPEAKER_08

Yeah, but you know, supposing one person, let's say we can just choose our own meaning. We just create meaning in our lives. Okay, so one person decides to create meaning in their life by raising as much money as they can for Oxfam and lifting thousands of people out of poverty. Another person decides that their meaning in life is to is to count the blades of grass in Hyde Park. They just want to count how many blades of grass there are. And sometimes, you know, someone comes along and and and mows the lawn and they have to start again. And that that's they they just decide and you say to them, Well, what's meaningful about that? And they say, Well, what do you mean? You just get to choose that it's meaningful. I've just decided that it is. You'd be committed to the view that both of those lives are as meaningful as each other. No, I didn't say that.

SPEAKER_05

They're not as meaningful as each other.

SPEAKER_08

But but how can they not be if if if there's no if there's no sort of uh exterior like prescription as to what meaning ought to be, and you just get to create it for yourself.

SPEAKER_10

Brilliant. What has Alexa kind of done? He's told a story, he's immersed us in an analogy, and he's forced Constantine Kisson to say, oh no, obviously um earning money and giving it to Oxfam and donating it to charity is a far better thing to do than counting the blades of grass in a great park in London. Well, if if one thing is more meaningful than the other, then there must be something up here that gives meaning rather than you simply choose. If if it's all about you choosing your own meaning, then knock yourself out, go and count the blades of grass. But that's not the way meaning works, and therefore doesn't that tell us that there is something up here? That there is a kind of a goal, a purpose, a meaning in life that can judge every other meaning in life, and it's given, it's not just about you choosing it from the ground up. Um these are all the sorts of thoughts that Alex O'Connor helps us to have. And like I say, when he's surrounded by atheists or when he's surrounded by people who are not Christians, I think it really brings out the inner Christian in Alex. One more example to go, and we're gonna go to the Unheard Club, where Alex O'Connor is in conversation with Justin Briley and Elizabeth Oldfield, and Freddie Sayers, the moderator, the non-Christian, asks him about Ion Hersey-Lee, who has just come to faith, and how he witnessed her discussing on stage with Richard Dawkins about faith and meaning and the new atheism. And Alex is actually describing how he is envious of Ion Herse-Alee and her newfound faith. Let's have a look.

SPEAKER_08

I'm very happy for her. I'm envious of her. I wish I could do that for myself. I find myself unable. Um but one thing that's been not meaningful. To just choose to believe this stuff. I think it'd be wonderful. You would choose to be a Christian if you're. Yeah, I think anybody who at least the kind of Christianity that that I understand, or the Christianity that I that I've uh sort of read through the person of Jesus, for example, I think anybody who says that they don't want it to be true, that they wouldn't worship that God even if he existed, that new atheist line, just doesn't know what they're talking about, or is talking about a different kind of Christianity or a different kind of God.

SPEAKER_10

I think that's fascinating. Christianity, the kind of Christianity he sees through the lens of Jesus, is a remarkably compelling, attractive vision that if it were true, I would yield myself to it. I would worship Jesus if it turned out he was real. And therefore Alex O'Connor understands why Christianity as a story is really coming into its own. That there aren't syllogisms in the Bible, and that evangelism should not be forcing people through syllogisms until we get people up with their arm behind their back until they say, okay, fine, Jesus is Lord. Um, Christians happen to think it's the best thing in the world if Jesus was Lord. And as we tell the Jesus story, we are inviting people into a reality that is compelling, that is good, that is true, that is beautiful, and that calls forth faith. And Alex is recognizing that now is the time for Christians to tell their stories, and now is the time for people to awaken to this kind of beauty.

SPEAKER_08

I think what's already happening in terms of this abandonment of the propositional in favor of the narrative is probably a good thing. I'm happy to see it. I like it. I don't know if this is going to lead to Christianity. Definitely leaves more room for Christianity because Christianity works much better as a story than it does as a scientific hypothesis. And I don't mean that as an insult. It's obviously not supposed to be. There are no syllogisms in the Bible, there's no premise one, premise two. Um, Pascal says in the Ponce that he will never forgive Descartes. He says, I can never forgive Descartes, because Descartes sort of introduces God in chapter two to establish his like metaphysics, and then has no more need for him, just sort of gets rid of him and gets on with his business. This this idea that God is some kind of analytical tool to prop up your worldview is inappropriate. And that's, you know, that's probably right. At least that's what Christianity is supposed to be.

SPEAKER_10

It's a great point. He he gets it, he gets what Christianity is, he gets what Christianity isn't, and he gets that Jesus is at the heart of it. Alex goes on to um tell a story about how people actually tick. And people actually tick because of existential issues that grip their heart about immersing them in a deeper story. He uh makes that point. And he's sounding incredibly positive about Christianity, and Justin Briley picks up on that, and uh Freddie Sayers picks up on that.

SPEAKER_07

We've chosen a very forgiving atheist on this. Um atheist who practically sounds like he believes in God, at this point. I mean, we've I've got to ask, you know, do you do you feel like there is any chance if we get you back in ten years' time? Uh you'd have a different answer to the question. God willing.

unknown

Okay.

SPEAKER_10

It's a great line. The crowd is laughing, Justin's laughing. Alex isn't laughing. Because I don't think it's a joke. I mean, it's received as a joke, and there's something clever about it that that calls forth the laughter of the room. Alex isn't laughing. Elizabeth Oldfield's not laughing. Look at her. She's looking across and she really wants Alex to follow through on this desire of his. He says, God willing. And I think there's something very deep about that. We we started out by saying Alex's big argument with Christianity is the hiddenness of God. Where are you? And I think this is basically Alex saying, Well, the ball is in your court, God. If you show up in the person of Jesus and reassure me that he is real and true, then I will worship. And God willing, it would be a great thing to be a Christian, thinks Alex O'Connor. And uh I have to agree with him. Now, none of this solves the issue of divine hiddenness, none of this by itself solves the issues with Old Testament warfare and slavery and all the other big problems that Alex O'Connor raises and raises so masterfully. But in the last 30 seconds of this video, let me have a go at answering that divine hiddenness question. If indeed God is like Shakespeare and we are like Hamlets, then where isn't God? We are encountering him in every facet of our lives. God comes to Alex O'Connor and he comes to you and me dressed as our lives. And the particular life of Alex O'Connor, his particular studies, his particular friends, his particular experiences, they are coming to him and they are coming to you. And if we allow them to take us to Jesus, they most assuredly will. If we ask and seek and knock, the door will be opened to us. And I pray for Alex that that is indeed the case. If you want to explore Christian faith, we've got a great way for you to do it. Why don't you go to 321course.com and you can start an account. It's totally free. You can do this eight-part course. You can binge it in a couple of hours or do it video by video. There's a chat community, plenty of bonus content. There's a reading plan that'll take you through John's Gospel and it will introduce you to life according to Jesus. Why don't you go to 321course.com, start that account. Why don't you subscribe to the channel if you haven't already subscribed to it? We'll see you on the next one. Bye-bye. From now until the 3rd of December, you can join the joy and double your impact. That's right. If you set up or increase a regular monthly donation, your generosity will be matched by some amazing faith-filled partners. In its first year, well over 300 churches have run a 321 course.

SPEAKER_00

Churches like Hey, I'm Seth, I'm a pastor in Arizona, and we just ran our first 321 course, and we're gonna do it again. We saw it really valuable for a few reasons. One, the hospitality of the course. It built towards a natural progression that we thought really served people and welcomed people who came in as skeptics. They felt seen and understood by the material. Number two, it really enabled us to create an environment where volunteers who are maybe not skilled public speakers, but they're really hospitable, naturally curious evangelists, are able to play a video and then facilitate a conversation around tables. We promoted it as an exploring Christianity course and put it into our pipeline of classes that we offered. And we thought it was really helpful to people who were kicking the tires on church, sitting on the fringes, but weren't yet committed or even sure what commitment would look like to the Christ of the Bible. And so I highly encourage you to check out the material and use it in your environments. We saw seven people come to faith, and we're excited to run the course again this next semester.

SPEAKER_10

Hundreds more churches have been blessed like this, and by 2030, we hope to see more than a hundred thousand Christians captivated by Jesus and confidently sharing him with their friends. And you can join the joy and be a vital part of this kingdom growth. 321 is completely free to use, which would be impossible if not for the generosity of people like you. For instance, it costs £25 per day to support churches hosting 321. We love to create gospel seed that you can scatter. And we can't wait for you to join the joy as we love Jesus and share him with the world together. For more encouraging stories and to join the joy, head over to speaklife.org.uk slash joy. That's speaklife.org.uk slash joy and have your generosity doubled.