PhD Lounge
Late-night podcast where I speak with PhDs about their research subjects, their decision on studying it and its importance throughout academic life. A podcast of entertainment and education, whose aim is to approach students and graduates who want to go through their future careers inside or outside of academia with a PhD and for those who are on a moment of uncertainty in continuing their studies further, as if we are having a drink and talk about PhD culture at a lounge on a late-night summer.
Website: https://www.phdlounge.co.uk
Socials: Facebook: @phdpodlounge, Instagram: @phdlmf, X: @phdloungecast
Business email: luisphdlounge@gmail.com
Thank you for tuning in, it's been a pleasure!
PhD Lounge
Late-Night Interview: Eilian Richmond, PhD. 3MT, Earthbound, Literary Inconsistencies in the Bible, Balance between PhD and social life and more...
Students and Graduates,
Eilian Richmond is a PhD graduate from Swansea University, who wrote his dissertation about the literary contradictions and hyper linkage within the Bible using his upcoming novel Earthbound as a reference.
Earthbound is a satire whom Eilian in his comical and satirical tones, challenges the biblical scenes by mixing his doctoral arguments with his satirical scenes based on biblical episodes across his novel.
Strong language, puns and (doctoral) criticism about the literary contradictions across the Bible are mentioned. Listener discretion is advised for those who have read the Bible and follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and God's words.
Get 10% off on Spotify cards by typing PHDLOUNGE10 on the link below:
https://sportifycards.com/?ref=phdlounge
Plus, save 15% off on Black Friday by typing the code BF24 and automatic savings up to 35% with free shipping on orders over £40.
I earn a small commission on the product bought using the above link, which helps support the podcast at no extra cost to you.
Are you a PhD student/graduate who would like to be featured on PhD Lounge or for any business inquiries? Email me at luisphdlounge@gmail.com
Thank you all for tuning in, it's been a pleasure!
References about the biblical hyperlinked texts and their literary contradictions: Philosophadam. (2021, June 20). The First Hyperlinked Text: The Bible and its 63,779 Cross-References. Words From the Wind. https://philosophadam.wordpress.com/2018/05/16/the-first-hyperlinked-text-the-bible-and-its-63779-cross-references/
BibViz Project - Bible Contradictions, Misogyny, Violence, Inaccuracies interactively visualized. (n.d.). https://philb61.github.io/index.html
Reach out Eilian Richmond, PhD: eilianjohn@outlook.com
linkedin.com/in/dr-eilian-richmond-502933239
https://www.instagram.com/drrichmond19
Students and Graduates!
This is a mid-roll from my late-night talk with Ilana Horwitz, PhD, about her book The Entrepreneurial Scholar. A New Mindset for Success in Academia and Beyond. Use the code IMH20 when buying her book at Princeton Univ Press
Innovative Language Spanish101.com
Learn Spanish with Innovative Language and you'll get 25% OFF by typing SPECIAL25OFF
Students and graduates,
Have a break from this session by hearing a late-night talk I had with Michael Gerharz, PhD, about the impact of communication in your PhD and in public.
Thank you all for tuning in, it has been a pleasure!
Sportify
Sportify personalises FIFA style sporting cards with a 10% when using the code PHDLOUNGE10
Sportify personalises FIFA style sporting cards with a 10% when using the code PHDLOUNGE10
Disclaimer: This post contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no extra cost to you.
Website: https://www.phdlounge.co.uk
Donation tab - https://www.phdlounge.co.uk/donate
Buzzsprout subscription - https://www.buzzsprout.com/1808542/support
Instagram: @phdlmf
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/luismaia94/
Linktree: https://linktr.ee/phdloungepodcast
All of these observations that the books of the Bible are anachronistic, like they're of their time, all of these observations that you have multiple different authors, all interested in different styles, so there are different genres of writing. So you have all of these cooks all involved in making this Frankenstein's monster thing which is cobbled together at the end. All of these arguments for why or explanations as to why these contradictions exist are not arguments against the position that I'm taking. They are arguments for it.
Speaker 2:Hello students and graduates, welcome to PhD Lounge, the podcast in which PhDs have a drink and talk about their research topics. Today's late night session is a talk with a PhD in creative writing from Swansea University. But first and foremost, I returned back to Swansea after spending two holiday weeks in Portugal, in my home country, and, to be fair, the weather in my city, faro, was warm, between 18 to 25 degrees Celsius. Sadly, I didn't have the time to have some natural tan, but I was so happy to reconcile with my mother, rosa, and my brother, pedro, who are also on holiday until December, returning back to Germany and Norway respectively. During those two weeks I spent time in gardening my house with my mother and brother, removing a huge amount of weeds and arranged the dirt to make the garden beautiful and ready to receive rainfalls. Went to buy new clothing and shoes. Had quality lunches. Visited my grandfather, the father of my mom. Jews had quality lunches. Visited my grandfather, the father of my mom and the last grandpa of my family. Celebrated the 25th anniversary of my brother back on the 7th of November, encountered with my nanny who cared me when I was a toddler while my mom was at work, and celebrated the anniversary of my aunt, my mom's sister, along with my cousins. It was a relaxing moment to spend some quality time in Portugal, keeping myself a bit away from my dissertation and my external tasks in order to refresh my mind and resume my fight towards success.
Speaker 2:However, I had time to prepare some material for the PhD launch, scheduling new late-night talks and solo sessions about the PhD universe, now back in Swansea since the 18th of November. One of the first things I did first was to watch the second installment of Gladiator featuring Paul Maskell, denzel Washington, pedro Pascal and many more Washington, pedro Pascal and many more. As an ancient historian in training, I must say that director Ridley Scott, although he did utilize real and historical people for his plot, the accuracy of the historical chronology was upside down. Nonetheless, the cinematic effects and the action of the film as a whole was excellent and hit the fictional wishes of Scott's audience was excellent and hit the fictional wishes of Scott's audience. In fact, this second film and the first one of Gladiator, released back in 2000, are fictional stories blended with real characters from ancient Rome, where Ridley Scott had the freedom to do it, even though I do not appreciate the historical alteration of the historical events at the time. Despite that, I enjoyed watching this new installment and the previous one, which I watched years ago, and I recommend you to watch it anyway, despite the historical inconsistencies. And if you're an ancient historian tuning in to this late night session, don't be angry at the film, since you know already that Scott has a tendency to quote-unquote, rewrite documented evidence for his own sake and for most of his audience that loves fiction.
Speaker 2:Now it's time to introduce my next guest at PhD Lounge. As mentioned above, he's a PhD graduate from Swansea University in creative writing. He wrote a novel called Earthbound and he talks about his novel in his dissertation, arguing the inconsistencies within the literary accounts that were written in the Bible and blending them in the satirical character of Earthbound. So, for the listener's discretion, it is an argumentative criticism about the Bible and Christianity overall, with a mix of satire, puns and strong language from my guest During the talk. We praise your faith and we respect your religious beliefs, and you're free to believe in God and Jesus Christ, regardless of what others say about these amazing public figures. So, given the controversy that may bring discomfort among the listeners, if you feel that you're not liking what you're hearing, then please feel free to not listen to the whole conversation or just don't hear it at all. And since this late night talk is about biblical satire, let me first share with you today's sponsor, spotify.
Speaker 2:Spotify S-P-O-R-T-I-F-Y specializes in creating fantasy sporting cards ranging from FIFA or EA Sports FC Ultimate Team, cards ranging from FIFA or EA Sports FC Ultimate Team, rugby, cricket and tennis, with 200 plus designs and exceptional in-house work from the team in making outstanding customer experience. You can fully customize your dream card with your name, stats, logos and anything you wish to include in your cards made of top materials for wall framing. And since it's Black Friday, you can order multiple cards and save 35% and free delivery over £40. And you can also use my discount code PHDLUNCH10 to get 10% off when purchasing your fully customizable card. When purchasing your fully customizable card, visit SpotifyCardscom and type PHDLaunch10 to get your dream card on your wall during Black Friday. Tap the link in the description to know more. Now back to my guest. Please have some drinks, grab a seat and let's give a warm welcome to a Lion man.
Speaker 1:Great to see you.
Speaker 2:It's been a while. It's been a while. It has been a while. So one of the things I'd like to just kick off how is it like to win the three-minute thesis? You've done the whole thing and all of us were just having such an effort to advance into the UK quarterfinals, but yours was more captivating. Just have a little brief thought about it and then afterwards what happened. You're very kind, thank you Well.
Speaker 1:So and then afterwards what happens? You're very kind, thank you. So afterwards you get the opportunity to re-record it and you submit that re-recording, the original recording, to the next level and they decide whether you advance or not. I didn't advance to the next stage, so I just ended with the Swansea round. Yeah, but I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Speaker 1:I don't know about you, but so much of my the PhD experience. All of those networking opportunities that you hoped you'd get from the PhD got soaked up by COVID in the first two years, so they never happened. And then when things started, when wheels started turning again, I just wanted to say yes to everything that came my way. So it was just a nice opportunity to actually speak to people about what it is that you're up to, although I must confess I did experience a little bit of imposter syndrome. Yeah, because there were lots of people in those rooms throughout the various heats who were representing really fascinating research. Yeah, and you can sit next to somebody who's you know trying to develop, even though they didn't win. Maybe they didn't have the skills as an orator to really engagingly represent their research, but their research is things like developing new technologies to better detect, hard to detect cancers and stuff. And then it comes to you and you know what are you doing. Well, I'm blaspheming in long form fiction.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so it was quite a challenge for them to see something out of the ordinary, because there's there's this gossiping around that usually goes advanced. Who advance to the quarterfinals and then to the semis and then to the final are those who are in the scientific research, in a sense of medicine, biocells, biology, whatever it is, and they start to around that. Oh, there's something biased from the judges. I don't know. I never experienced that, because most of the videos that are on YouTube focuses on those specific areas. It has to be a most of the videos that are on YouTube focus us on those specific areas.
Speaker 1:It has to be a consideration of the judges. What is the quality, what is the real-world application of the research being presented here? It has to be a consideration. I completely understand that if it was between me and somebody that was knocking on the door of curing cancer they shouldn't choose me.
Speaker 2:Someone presented cancer as the main read for the research, but that person wasn't really in there. If I should be a bit judgmental, because lacking of the presentational skills Many of them don, they don't have oral skills whatsoever.
Speaker 1:It's a really fascinating competition because I imagine if you were to plot on a graph, like on the y-axis or whatever, you had academic prowess, yes, and then on the x-axis you had extrovertedness you'd have a negative correlation. You know what I mean. Most people, the further they get into academia, tend to be very, I think, isolated, quiet people that just crack on with whatever it is that they're looking at the ability to, or the desire, much less the ability to stand in front of. However many people were in that auditorium.
Speaker 2:Last time 10 plus in the Taliesin they're just bringing their topics.
Speaker 1:I think there's probably a negative correlation.
Speaker 2:It's quite an ask for most academics, especially in scientific fields, stem fields, to get up there and try and be an orator and engage, but I'm a show-off, so I do think that there's a great advantage in the arts and humanities side because we are trained to do it and, depending on the course, on the undergraduate course, I can give you an example. My background is cultural heritage and archaeology when I was studying my undergrad back in Portugal, and one of the greatest things that the teaching staff pushes students to do is having plenty of oral presentations. So in my case, I felt a bit fine, I felt comfortable, although some of the time lapse that I had, that I wanted to say something and I had to improvise a lot and then hearing the rest of it was a very well.
Speaker 1:You presented yourself well and you rocked a poncho when you did it.
Speaker 2:I seem to remember. I think it was like shouting a bit oh my God, provide an end. But then coming down all the things. I'm not saying I should have won, I'm not saying that or I would be so arrogant on that, but saying that I was hesitated a bit of what I was going to say Because I had the paper inside my poncho and I was thinking in taking it off. But then no, let me just be confident on myself. And then just trying to to read about it and say, well, it happened, but it was, it was a great run, it was a great experience.
Speaker 1:Just to ask the people. It was cool. The only thing that came of it really was I. I then got invited to speak at the research and innovation awards. Oh, all right, earlier this year, yeah, in the Grand Hall on the Bay Campus. Yeah, which was cool.
Speaker 2:Oh, it was cool. Is it just big as in Taliesin?
Speaker 1:It was. It's a very posh annual thing that the university holds. It's a formal three course dinner thing, 300, 400 people in the room, yeah, and so I. I delivered a version of my presentation, but because there was no timer, oh right, I took a few liberties and added a few bits and pieces so you had more freedom to do it. Had a little bit more freedom, yeah, yeah, so it was I. I delivered mine, and then the subsequent winner of um this so it was. I delivered mine, and then the subsequent winner of next year's Swansea round he delivered his as well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, that was cool. That was cool. So now you got your awards on the fireplace, if you have one there.
Speaker 1:Somewhere holding a very scruffy bunch of papers, is a glass?
Speaker 2:No, nice, so yeah. So back to what we were talking before about your topic. If you just tell us how your educational background led to do this, phd involves literature, religion, as you told me once well, my educational background probably isn't all that relevant.
Speaker 1:My undergrad degree is in educational background probably isn't all that relevant. My undergrad degree is in geography and I'm a teacher by training, but I've always been very creative music writing, this kind of thing. I was working in the private sector in 2017. I had some. I was working in the private sector in 2017 had some personal circumstances shake me up a bit. I decided, well, I'm going to go and I'm going to do something that I actually really want to do. I went back on supply teaching to give me the flexibility to go back to university and I did a masters in creative writing here in Swansea, the product of which was one novel, or at least an amended version of a previous idea, and then stuck on to do the PhD. I enjoyed it so much. Yeah, not so much a professional strategy, more a personal ambition.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:I enjoy doing it. It's a cool. It's nice to, when you create something creative, artistic, to know that you have eyes on it, giving you feedback one way or the other. They're cool rooms to be in if you are that way inclined.
Speaker 2:So and then that led you to your PhD. But also you had something already positioned in, say some sort of you've written a book, positioned in say some sort of You've written a book I've seen, I've just checked, I checked your about yourself on goodreadscom and then you have already a novel.
Speaker 1:So back in 2015, I self-published a very early version of a book that I wrote called Glum Glum, which was this Well, or is this big satirical, irreverent?
Speaker 1:Take commentary on the TV talent show when the protagonist struggling with mental health issues enters like an X Factor, britain's Got Talent type thing to find his diagnosis, yeah, more valuable a commodity to the people that make the show than his actual musical ability.
Speaker 1:Sure, and there's a, there's a love story running through the middle of it and there's a friendship story running through the middle of it and a family drama and there's a bit of commentary on about family drama and there's a bit of commentary on about the nature, I think, of some mental health diagnoses, whether or not it's suggestive of a neurological problem or whether or not it's just a symptom of an unmet need some description. But it's that book that I self-published, and I mean I self-published and I mean I self-published to an audience of about 10 friends and family. It was ultimately a really expensive way to produce a PDF for your mates and then, but it was that that I then took to the masters and rewrote, and so the version of the book that exists now, which I'm pushing up to agents, is quite different from the version that existed so you had your first written as a draft then basically, in retrospect.
Speaker 1:Yes, it was a draft.
Speaker 2:wow, so then that also you said to the masters, but also it gave you like a boost to go to your PhD and then writing your next novel.
Speaker 1:Yes, Right, yes, so the next novel was so. I grew up in a really deeply religious household, a non-denominational evangelical Christian household. So young earth, creationism, biblical literalism, flavor of the day. When I started to uncouple myself from these ideas, it wasn't the conflict with science as it is for some people. Some people learn stuff about biology, about evolutionary science, and see how that's irreconcilable with the story that they've been told and that starts to unravel things for them, or maybe the findings of cosmology or whatever. For me it was more that it offended more sort of basic intuitions about storytelling. The story didn't make sense. Yeah, so the novel that I wrote for my PhD, earthbound, which I'm now pushing up to publishers also Is it finished already?
Speaker 2:It's done.
Speaker 1:It's all done and it's. I'm in the. I will very shortly be in the submission trenches trying to get people interested in that. That story tries to wrestle with some of those topics, some of those themes.
Speaker 2:So you've written that in a satire as well. So are you challenging those religious assumptions that you make, the criticism that you've done throughout your PhD and your novel as well?
Speaker 1:Yeah, so there are two elements to the PhD a creative writing Sure, I'll flash this out because it's quite interesting, because I think it's quite unlike some of the other PhD courses. Yeah, and there's these two elements. You've got the creative element, which is, you know, your novel or your screenplay, or your poems, or your collection of short stories, whatever it might be, and then you've got your thesis, which looks to sort of unpack those lines of academic inquiry that you started to draw in the creative one and try and assess the extent to which that creative piece actually answers the questions that you laid out. In my case, I wanted to know to what extent my novel Earthbound hopefully soon to be available in fine bookstores, eddie.
Speaker 2:I'll make sure to put on the pole position to buy it.
Speaker 1:Yes, please Could resolve narrative error as I saw it in the Bible.
Speaker 1:So for those of you unfamiliar, those 66 canonical books of the Protestant Bible or I think it's 72 in the Catholic Bible tell the story of and I'm going to echo the 3MT presentation Tell the story of, if I can remember, an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent, eternal being who creates a perfect world which he then has to punish with suffering because it wasn't quite so perfect after all.
Speaker 1:Then he finds that the punishment didn't have quite the ability to affect what he was hoping for and so benevolently kills everything on Earth in an apocalyptic flood which he then benevolently promises to never do again. Later he learns that murdering everybody and then repopulating the earth, starting with one especially incestuous family, didn't result in quite the sorts of societal thriving he had in mind and decides that the best remedy would be to send himself in human form to an earth he knew would be hostile to him, sacrificing himself to himself in order that the humans could save themselves from having him torture them for eternity over the sins that he chose to include as part of their original design. And in the end, after, there are ten-headed dragons with big stars out of the sky with their tails and there are women giving birth on the moon, and these vast armies having at each other, he finally destroys the baddie of the piece whom he made in the first place. Yeah, but only after arbitrarily imprisoning him for a thousand years first. He then creates a new Earth and he starts again.
Speaker 1:Only, this Earth is actually perfect, just like he said the first one was so my contention was that if that story were presented to you now for the first time as a piece of contemporary fiction like, I say, a book, a film, whatever it would be torn to shreds on account of its plot hooks or sort of narrative errors, to sound sort of slightly more intellectual. And so my work was firstly to categorize these eras. I categorized them in one of three ways. The first, factual error. So that is, claims about the real world that we absolutely know to be untrue. So the earth isn't just thousands of years old, we are the product of evolutionary processes. There was no first man or woman. There was no Adam and Eve. The stars are giant nuclear reactors in deep space. They aren't just twinkling little lights in a dome-like firmament that separates the waters above it from the waters below it. There was no global flood and no one didn't cram millions of different animals onto a boat smaller than the titanic with with one window. Yeah, I mean, in a work of admitted um, fantasy, that might not be too much of a problem, but in a piece set in the real world, much less, like one that claims to be actually materially true, it kind of of a problem, but in a piece set in the real world, much less like one that claims to be actually materially true. It kind of is a problem, excuse me, like you can write a fictional legal drama, but you still need to represent the law correctly. You could do a medical fiction. Needs to, for the most part, represent medicine correctly. If a rom-com set in New York panned out across the Golden Gate Bridge, you'd have a problem. Second was expositional error. So this is where the narrative finds itself in conflict with itself.
Speaker 1:So Stephen King's Misery is a scene where Annie wards off some reporters outside the house with a shotgun. She fires off a shotgun and then, when she's back in the house, it's then described as a rifle. So is it a shotgun or is it a rifle? It's in conflict with itself. In Robinson Crusoe, there's a scene where he strips down to swim up to a shipwreck and when he's on the wreck he's described as filling his pockets with biscuits. Did he take his clothes off, or didn't he?
Speaker 1:So in the case of, in my case, I'm talking about biblical contradiction. I'm talking about passages, one passage or verse saying something irreconcilably different from another elsewhere in the canon. So you know, we have different genealogies of Christ in Matthew and Luke, where Jacob's father is either sorry. Joseph's father is either Jacob or Eli or Eli, I'm not sure. Either way, it can't be both. You try and get the four gospel accounts to agree on any of the major events or any of the major details of Christ's birth, life, death and resurrection, and it can't be done. They're constantly disagreeing with each other. You know, matthew has the resurrection happening, or the crucifixion, rather happening at the time of King Herod, and then Luke has it happening with Quirinius as the governor of Syria, who wouldn't be the governor of Syria until after Herod died, to which is Eret, yes. Then the third case, the third type of Eret, is motivational Eret. This is the one that I think is the most important.
Speaker 2:I think the most interesting, so is it more controversial? Has some controversy when you presented it to your supervisors as well, a little bit, yeah, a little bit.
Speaker 1:More controversial was the tone that I decided to strike rather than the subject. I'm sure we'll come to that. There was motivational error I think that's the most interesting Characters or coalitions of characters behave in ways were in front of her. Third was motivational error, where I think that's the most interesting where characters or coalitions of characters behave in ways counter to their stated motivations or traits. So in popular fiction you've got in your Lord of the Rings. If the goal is to send that ring back to Mung Du, back into the fiery chasm for Manceke, why not send it there on one of those giant eagles you see in the first place? Or in Harry Potter? If it's incumbent upon the magical community to keep themselves a secret from the rest of the world, why have your new recruits enter your world by running headfirst to the brick wall in one of the busiest train stations on earth? It doesn't seem conducive to secrecy.
Speaker 1:So in my case I'm talking about the God character. We're told he's benevolent and all loving, john 3.16. He did so love the world, he gave his only son and he cares for our well-being, yet behaves in the most malevolent of ways. He orders genocides of the Amalekites and of the Canaanites. He annihilates everything in a global flood. I think we were speaking earlier about the collective punishment of the Egyptians for the actions of their pharaoh. Why would he do these things? Why create mankind with the capacity for sin in the first place? Why allow suffering? Why punish people for operating as he essentially programmed them to do so?
Speaker 1:The central question of my thesis was, I guess, twofold. It was. The central question of my thesis was, I guess, twofold. It was how many of these errors, so how much of the evil either directly mandated by God or just tacitly approved by him, could be explained in the same way as the suffering visited upon the character of Job in the Old Testament, which is to say as the product of a wager which is from God himself.
Speaker 1:So the book of Job is really interesting because it has God being goaded into a bed by Satan. Yeah, where God is saying that this man here is the greatest man in all of us and he's the most devout and especially proud of this man is the greatest man in all of us and he's the most devout and especially proud of this man. And Satan goads him into a bed, saying well, I bet you that I can get him to speak ill of you if I just visit upon him requisite suffering and he allows it to happen. And then the next 40 chapters after he's had all of his livestock killed, he's had his kids killed, he's had everything. Chapters after he's had all of his livestock killed, he's had his kids killed, he's had everything destroyed he's been covered in pestilence and oils and stuff.
Speaker 1:Yeah, the next 40 chapters is a three-way conversation with him and his friends. Yeah, who are just well three of his friends and then, about two-thirds of the way through, a fourth friend appears from nowhere that he's been hiding behind a curtain the entire time and it's unintentionally, hilariously funny. It's something like a cross between a Monty Python skit and an Always Sunny episode, because all of his friends just tell him in every which way possible that he should just stop whining, because he clearly deserves what's happened to him. A new narrative over the biblical account to retcon or, I guess, reframe other questionable events in the story, like the fall, the flood, the crucifixion, also as the consequences of a series of similar wages, whilst preserving as much of the original narrative as possible, you know, whilst then smuggling in some theological critique and argument and making as many overt sex jokes as I can.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and that's really interesting seeing how you're fleshing out the Bible in just a couple of minutes and saying this in modern terms. When we go to a priest and then say forgive me, father, for I have sinned, and all those kind of stuff, and then he explains about the Bible. It's all about the positive things about the Bible, but it's rather a collection of stories from the, from people previous to the apostles and now the current apostles, as you said Matthew, luke, peter included. It's just they talk about the most gruesome and evil things that mankind at the time was doing.
Speaker 2:I can't say much because I didn't read the whole Bible itself. I was just consulting some of the verses and I'm using also some of those in my thesis, such as the book of Job, as you referred, to explain some of the biblical scenes, like Moses crossing the Red Sea and why would God allow that such atrocity to the people of the land of Israel, the Canaanites or the people who are living across the Syrian desert down further to the Jordan River? It seems that they want to try to not tell us those things and just blindly follow what any priest says, blindly follow what the Bible says, without asking first was this really? Was this really true at all? Yeah, what? Those were the Apostles and the people who wrote the Old Testament, also the New Testament, and were they eyewitness? We don't know, because we weren't there and so we just like we just have to focus on you read the work of someone like Bart Ehrman, I think, predominantly a New Testament scholar.
Speaker 1:But the idea that any of the biblical texts that we have show written by eyewitnesses is a pretty fringe idea. A fringe idea. Well, all of these, all of the texts, are the eventual written representations of stories that would have been relayed orally first over many generations. So the idea that the people who put pen to paper were the witnesses of the stories they recount does bear a great deal of scrutiny. I don't think it's a view held by many people.
Speaker 2:Sure, they also rely on Jesus' teachings. Sure, right, yeah, how does it work now? And how did you use that then? Also on your thesis, how did I use those, if you use the teachings of Jesus, that they mentioned in the Bible, if I dare to say? Well, there's.
Speaker 1:There is a baby in the bathwater. There is a baby in the bathwater. If you take Jesus in half of his words, you take the Sermon on the Mount stuff, you take the Turnier, the Cheat, you take the Golden Rule the one to others and you build up from the ground a philosophy on that and nothing else, I'd probably have little truck with you. It would be a benign belief, I think, and I think that what's interesting is that most people, most Christians, people who identify as christian there's a discussion of this in the essay, where I incorporate some pew research group data people who identify as christian have predominantly their bible read to them once a week in the form of an organized sermon. They don't typically spend a great deal of autonomous time alone with the Bible rifling through them. Obviously some do, but for the most part no.
Speaker 1:Most of the time no, and those sermons will concentrate as for reasons you can well appreciate on the Jesus and half his moves.
Speaker 1:They will concentrate on the good stuff, on the fluffy stuff, on the Sermon on the Mount.
Speaker 1:They're very unlikely to spend a great deal of time sifting through Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Exodus. They're very unlikely to build a sermon extolling the virtues of beating your slaves so long as they survive for three days. They're very unlikely to extol the virtues of accusing your wife of being a virgin of not being a virgin, excuse me on her wedding night and then expecting her father to produce proof that she was in fact a virgin. Let's not think about what that proof might look like. And then, upon his failure to provide said proof, stone that woman to death on her father's doorstep. They're not going to spend a great deal of time on this tricky ethical terrain trying to figure out why on earth the benevolent creator of the universe would prescribe these things as insensible behaviors. They will stay on the Christ story, and I agree that the Christ story itself, as I said, is baby in the bathwater. If you wanted to build a society up from the ground on some religious teaching somewhere on the globe, you might be best served with a certain amount of money.
Speaker 2:Well, I would assume that going to church we're all literate on one hand and then not asking questions would be something rather quote-unquote illiterate. Because I've been in the church a few times and now that we're having this chat about this and also using that in your PhD, is why not asking questions to the priest when the sermon is being given? Right like a Q&A, right like a Q&A, right like a Q&A? It seems that they are so reluctant to focusing on the reverend as the representation of God and Jesus Christ at the same time, and they just I could say that they're afraid to ask. I don't know if you've. Have you tried once?
Speaker 1:It requires a certain degree of biblical literacy to ask incisive questions in the first place. People asking questions of priests in that setting are more than likely not looking to challenge the priest. They're looking for an affirmative answer to something. They're looking for some comfort, I imagine.
Speaker 1:The utility of religion I don't think is to be sniffed at. I think these arguments for the utility of religion sometimes understate the case. Sure, the idea, if you sincerely have this belief that the universe was created with you in mind, the creator of the universe knows you personally. He spent fuel, he burnt fuel in making you deliberately the way that you are Sure, and he has everything planned so that, no matter how gnarly your life gets, it's part of a plan and at the end of that plan you will be rewarded with paradise in the afterlife. That belief, to say that that belief is useful as utility implies is understating itself. Right is useful as utility implies is understating itself. The benefits to a person's morale sincerely believing this are off the chart. I don't think are easily replicable by any other means, which is why people have such difficulty letting go of what we're saying.
Speaker 2:So, yeah, that's the problem with religion and nowadays it still affects and no one seems to be capable, the general population doesn't seem to be capable of asking those questions. So I guess to say that you've done an amazing job in doing it and asking those questions. And I was really curious about the famous diagram that you've shown to me, the two diagrams, one in the negative and one in the hyperlinked text.
Speaker 1:Sure, so I first saw Project Reason's version of this diagram first, which takes on a horizontal line a number of biblical verses in chronological order, and then it connects them via these arching red lines. Yes, and these arching red lines represent, yes, and these arching red lines represent every time one verse in the Bible says something different to another verse in the Bible elsewhere. Mm-hmm, that diagram exists in another form, sure, which is curious. I first came across this where it was Jordan Peterson's online, one of his online lectures about the Bible, and I think Jordan Peterson is clearly a very clever man, and when he first came onto the scene, I think he was rather quite brave and he said many things that I don't disagree with, but when he talks about religion, I think he was rather quite brave and he said many things that I don't disagree with, but when he talks about religion, I think he's, and the Bible specifically, I think the man has lost the plot. He has. He didn't create this, but he was the first person I saw use this version of the diagram whereby the red lines were coloured blue instead a little turquoise, yes, and all he said is that.
Speaker 1:Well, this just represents where one verse references another verse, so it references the same theme or the same event or the same whatever, right. And he then went on to describe this in very flattering terms. He said well, look at this, this is evidence of the Bible as the world's first hyperlinked document. Right, because it's constantly referring to itself. Nowhere in that analysis does he actually mention the fact which is what the red-lined version does that so many, the overwhelming majority of these parches do indeed join two or more verses that refer to the same event or theme, but they do so in such a way that is irreconcilable. They refer to them in different ways. So, as we said, like the contradictory genealogies of Christ or any of the major details of Christ's birth, life resurrection.
Speaker 2:But isn't the problem of the different time periods that the people who gathered and done the whole writings to make it into a single volume wasn't the fact that they were doing through their creative ways of that? They were doing through their creative ways of how they would write, based on their own faith and how, if go back to, if they eyewitnessed or they heard someone saying this, and then using their own creative context to write what it was actually interesting for the people to read in the centuries ahead.
Speaker 1:All of these observations that the books of the Bible are anachronistic, they're of their time. All of these observations that you have multiple different authors, all interested in different styles, so there are different genres of writing, so you have all of these cooks all involved in making this Frankenstein's monster thing cobbled together. All of these arguments for why, or explanations as to why, these contrad exist are not arguments against the position that I'm taking. They are arguments for it, which is that this thing is a human invention. Right, it is man-made. Address in the answer is the issues that arise from affording some of our books a status that you don't afford to any other of ours. So a Christian will afford the Bible a status that it doesn't afford to any other book on the shelf.
Speaker 1:Every single other book on the shelf, including all of the other religious scriptures to the Christian, are obviously human inventions.
Speaker 1:They are the product of a human or human mind. And if the moment you say that it's not the product of a human mind, it has been divinely revealed to us. You can't then fall back and say, well, these contradictions exist because of all of these human errors, right? Sorry, you don't get to play that game because you've just told me that it's the product of divine revelation. You've told me that the hand, the omnipotent hand of omniscience, has touched this thing Right. So you can't then tell me that you know these human, these really boring cotidian human errors are responsible for the inconsistencies. But the moment you say that it's been divinely revealed to us, you make that book uniquely resistant to update and to moral critique. It's infallible. Who will read a question and that belief, given what these books actually contain, what they actually say? Some of the moral behavioral prescriptions that they make lead to attitudes and behaviors in the real world which are a problem, but from God or from the writer or the readers, or all of them.
Speaker 1:Well, obviously I don't believe in God, so I'd say it is all the product of human. All we're dealing with is ideas. We have these ideas competing in this free marketplace. Product of human yes, all we're dealing with is ideas. We have these ideas competing in this free marketplace, yes, and the ideas represented in the religious scriptures are, more often than not, pretty bad.
Speaker 2:Right, I'd say, and so, and I completely agree with you, although the time, the contrast it's difficult to make a contrast between our modern times with ancient times, because they lived accordingly with their own faith and religion but go straight to the fact that it is still a human-made project. In a sense, it betrays, and I think it sounds like an, it sounds like a excuse to say that, oh, I did this, but god commanded me to do this. I mean, no, you've written, you've written that and it's there's the evidence and yeah so well, I'm, I'm not.
Speaker 1:I'm not discounting the possibility that the authors of the Bible, at least some of them, sincerely believed the things that they were writing to be true, right? I'm not discounting that possibility, right? I mean there's again. I was going to quote. I was going to cite Bart Ehrman. Again, you've got a good book called Did Jesus Exist. So Bart Ehrman's an interesting character because he's not a religious man. Yet he will argue for the historicity of Christ. Yes, so he will say that it's more than the preponderance of the evidence suggests that there was this Jewish rabbi that amassed a following. Yes, suggests that there was this Jewish rabbi that amassed a following and to whom all of these stories were attributed. But then won't go the full hog and say that this person was the son of God.
Speaker 2:Yeah. I've lost my thread so we were making the criticism of and I think you've done that. You know, phd, through your novel that it's a freaking excuse from whomever wrote them wrote the whole collection to make it into a single source.
Speaker 1:Yeah, right, that's what I was going to say. So it might be the case that the people surrounding Jesus at the time this is what I was going to say. So it might be the case that the people surrounding Jesus at the time this is what I was going to say that people surrounding Jesus at the time sincerely believed him to be the Son, the Son of God, but that in itself wouldn't be an especially remarkable thing. There are people roaming the planet today that are surrounded by people who believe them to be Messiah.
Speaker 1:Yeah roaming the planet today that are surrounded by people who believe them to be Messiah. There are people roaming the planet today who have followers in the thousands, who will sign affidavits, they will sign testimonies claiming to have seen these people form miracles, right, all of the miracles. They've resurrected people, they've walked on water, whatever it is. Yet this isn't breaking news. This doesn't warrant any time on the 10 o'clock news. Nobody cares. So the idea that you take these claims and, instead of making them contemporaneously, instead of making them now, you set them in 2,000 years in the past and all of a sudden they become uniquely credible, yes, seems a bit strange to me.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it is a bit strange indeed, as again, it goes back to the issue of who eyewitnessed those events. And if those events were true, how can it be descriptive without being too metaphoric for it? Yeah, right, right.
Speaker 1:The eyewitness thing is funny, isn't it? It's not a common position taken by scholars of the Bible that any of the authors describing the events decades after the fact were actually witnesses to them. But even if they were, I still wouldn't care, right, because if you know I could meet somebody today, I could stand in a room full of a hundred mental people, yes, who all believe maybe mental is unkind. Vulnerable people, yeah, all who claim to have seen or heard particular things. Mm-hmm, I wouldn't feel any obligation to believe them if the things that they were telling me were this person. I just saw this person resurrect someone from the dead. No, you didn't.
Speaker 2:Yes, I can tell you the fact that I've witnessed many people claiming that, and I can give you the example. In country, we are very catholic, yeah, and there was one famous image of jesus being depicted as a bearded guy with long hair. Yeah, and he was told by a worshiper I've seen jesus like this. Maybe it's. I think it's just only the imagination of the person. That's thing of it, because we are people that have loads of imagination and we are driven by images. Her view of Jesus was like that.
Speaker 2:Some claim that Jesus hadn't appeared, and I can state also an example, the example of archaeologists. I think that thing was around in the 2010s, I'm not sure about it that they went some carving, stone carvings, that they assumed that would be Christ Right Now. Well, now I can understand. Where's the? Some of the writings that can relate to that? Yeah, are those really credible? Where's the? Are there probably any incongruencies in the writing? As you talked to me, told me about the red diagram with the red things. We can't safely say that we saw this figure, or whoever goes back again to the. I don't care. I don't care.
Speaker 1:Even if you were able to establish the authors of those books were eyewitnesses to the events that they are retelling, which they weren't Even if you were, I still wouldn't care. It still wouldn't speak to the veracity of the events that they are describing, because the events that they are describing, because the events that they are describing, they are describing magic, they are describing the survival of death, they are describing resurrection and various other things. And there's that old Carl Sagan quote of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence. Yeah, and you said right, quote of extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and you said, right, it's sorcery. But then comes the contradiction If saying it is sorcery, then blasphemy arises. So everything they say, if everything they would say, is considered blasphemy, so no Right. And another thing as well if, though, some of the people I don't know I'm just touching some dangerous words here they maybe would be people from the elite, just to make them, just to write them a piece of a piece of writing to show to their audiences, maybe whoever would read?
Speaker 1:you don't think. Not necessarily were the authors of these documents holding a sincere belief that they were cynically written for political reasons probably, I don't know they might have been written from a political standpoint societal standpoint.
Speaker 1:I mean political expediency must have played a role at some point in the development of the religion. Whether it was as early as the writing of the scriptures. I don't know it being announced as the writing of the scriptures, I don't know. You know it being announced as the official religion of regions in the past. It's certainly a political event.
Speaker 2:We can also relate that to the modern days now, right With the 1965 film the Greatest Story Ever Told, and you actually, in fact you mentioned that on your PowerPoint, the 3MT.
Speaker 1:I've entitled my thesis the essay that accompanies the novel the Greatest Story Ever Told, but with a sarcastic little question mark.
Speaker 2:Yeah, and obviously we were talking before and it is an interesting film and had some of the inconsistency on that. But there's missing action over there and then fast-forwarding, there's the Passion of the Christ and the Bible and the Son of God Some of those are more gruesome, and the Bible and the Son of God, some of those are more gruesome. Again, it's just we live through image observation. We don't know in modern times, we don't know if that actually happens, or just a compilation of stories. And one of the things I do like is you said to me you use it in a satirical way as you're writing about earthbound. Yeah, I'm correct. Could you tell us, share a bit of us, about your sample you shared with the prodigal son. I've read it and you said you might giggle. I did giggle, especially on the scene of the Where's the guy, what's the name, especially on the scene of the Where's the guy, what's the name. Let me just, I have to get a check and um, yeah, Gavin, gavin, officer Gavin, he meets Grizzly End.
Speaker 1:So there's the opening scene to this.
Speaker 1:I'll give you a bit of a flesh out of the story for you. So my story, earthbump, as I say, fleshes out these wagers made between God and Satan. But the protagonist and it always feels strange describing him as a protagonist, given how overtly antagonistic the man is so the voice of the narrative is this sadistic, awful serial killer called Dr Daniel Lang, who is cornered and executed by the police and then sent to hell Right, and then, throughout the course of the story, he finds that he's quite instrumental in the last wager made between God and Satan. I thought it was really interesting to have the voice that is providing the commentary on all of these malevolent, awful, barbaric things, that God does not be a morally superior voice, not be someone that is passing judgment, telling you how awful these things are, rather somebody actually quite in awe, rather somebody thinks murder and all the rest of it is really really great.
Speaker 1:So the prologue starts with our protagonist, dr Daniel Lamb, back in his family home, having murdered his father, the reverend, and his Aunt, sandra in the most over-the-top. So Sandra is described as gutless, despite her belly flap Right and being fastidiously tidy. So she gets executed disemboweled with one of these stupid brass puffin figurines she has lying about the house. And then she has her entrails sucked out with a Dyson Hoover. And then the father the good father, the reverend is found bent over his large mahogany desk with his own tongue inserted into his own anus because he spoke of nothing but unfettered shit, and with his eyeballs rattling around in his whiskey glass because his alcohol was the only thing that he had eyes for. So this should give you some sense of the tone that I'm struggling.
Speaker 2:No, I do like it because you also use, you swear a lot, and that's a good thing as well. Right, it's true. Also, it also says that if you swear, you you're committing sins or you're blaspheming and all of that. Why is that In their own sense of believing in God? I think the guy wouldn't have time to check on that.
Speaker 1:Yeah, I find it difficult to imagine that the guy that instructed King Saul to murder every man, woman, child and animal and animal don't let anything escape. I find it difficult to imagine that character having that much of a sensibility about the word fuck.
Speaker 2:I truly agree with you because it is a satire. After all, you told me, it is about theire. After all, you told me, it is about the people, the audience and people, and also, especially nowadays, uh, giving a fuck about everything, of being entitled and offended of everything, yeah, and it's messed up with religion. So let's say, for example, family guy yeah, that I there's an episode where they religion. Let's say, for example, family Guy yeah, there's an episode where they talk about Jesus, the word of God, and it's a satire. It is funny as fuck. Yeah, yeah, they still criticize going again.
Speaker 2:If we recall John Lennon, about an interview he had that the Beatles were popular as Jesus Christ, but he was misinterpreted and he explained that. But it goes against to those who follow blindly Jesus, which happened to that tragic ending of Lennon in the 70s, I mean saying, hi, there, you got shot. It's just people just being so sensitive. And they say it is sensitive to an extent, but it shouldn't be up to an extreme. If you don't like it, just don't read it, don't watch it. Even comedians do it.
Speaker 1:This is why mainstream comedy is so shit to them, isn't it? Because everyone is so petrified of causing offense, in other words, walk. Well, this is it.
Speaker 1:There are comedy clubs out there that expect comedians to sign in advance of their performance. Yes, a declaration that says I won't tell any racist, sexist or homophobic jokes or whatever. Well, there's the death of comedy right there. I always think my barometer tends to be that if you are causing offense for offense for the sake of offense for its own sake, then you're a bit of a dick. It's easy to do, it's cheap. If, however you are, you consider offense the collateral damage of a point worth making, then I don't think you can go far wrong. You would probably offend all the white people. So there may not be people who are offended by Strong language, say by overt violence, by sex jokes. Right, that's not my audience and that's fine. There are other books for you out there, right? If you are offended by that stuff, stay away, right.
Speaker 2:However, Sorry, Elan. Which audience will you seeking with Earthbound?
Speaker 1:So I am a big fan of an author.
Speaker 2:Because I like satires. I can tell you that.
Speaker 1:Well, it's quite difficult knowing where to pitch this, where to send it, Because it doesn't. It's hard to identify agents that are explicitly interested in funny stuff.
Speaker 2:Yeah.
Speaker 1:But there are. You know these books are out there because I read them Right. So you read something like Kill your Friends by John Liven. I don't know if you're familiar with this. No, kill your Friends by John Liven tells the story of a music A&R guy so desperate for power and status yeah, he murders his way to the top. He's a psychopath. He doesn't care about anything else but his own interests. But it's hilariously funny. Yeah, because he really revels in what he's doing, or at least the author revels in what he's doing. Yeah, john Niven has written books like this.
Speaker 1:I think Irvin Welsh has written books that revel in the violence that their narrator, their main characters, are performing. There's a book called Filth by Irvin Welsh. Of course not quite as overtly in-your-face funny, I don't think. For me is a book called Filth by Irvin Welsh. Not quite as overtly in-your-face funny, I don't think, not quite as comedic in terms of rapid punchline, but I think this sort of occupies a space somewhere between John Niven's Kill your Friends and its sequel, kill them All, wow, which I heartily recommend to anyone.
Speaker 1:They're really, really, really fun and like Douglas Adams on Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. So what I'm dealing with is no less absurd than the stuff in Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but it's presented in a much more adult and in-your-face-and-graphic way. So it's some sort of bastard love child of John Niven and Douglas Adams. And again, sorry to interrupt you in my, in my viva, niall Griffiths, the author of Sheepshagger, which again is, yeah, is another book. The author of Sheepshagger, which again is, is another book which really doesn't shy away from the violence perpetrated by its main character, described it as Seven. You know the Fed, the Brad Pitt movie, seven meets the Simpsons, yes, which I can live with. I'm cool with that.
Speaker 2:And it's all about just having a laugh and writing novels is. It is an art, sure, right, yeah, and we touch in this that if you don't like it, just don't buy it. Don't invest your energy in buying it, just don't buy it.
Speaker 1:Tune the channel read another book, watch another film, listen to a different song people keep.
Speaker 2:It isn't blasphemy, it's a not, as you said, because I can. I mean it is blasphemy, but I'm cool with it. Yeah, it is blasphemy, but blasphemy for, but I'm cool with it. Yeah, it is blasphemy for some people, not for many People keep conflating being offended with having a punt.
Speaker 1:Yeah, they think their personal offense constitutes a robust argument. Yeah, sometimes your offense is argument. Yeah, sometimes your offense is irrational.
Speaker 2:Yeah, there's nothing to say more. Just one thing here when you've written your novel and you presented it in your PhD, did you also make reference to Islam and Judaism? I recall the satanic verses, for example. And what happened to Salman Rushdie I saw it live. I think it was live-streamed. I think so when he was presenting a speech in New York. The guy just rushed to it and just stabbed him and one of the things that it is a despicable act.
Speaker 2:But what most irritated me was the mainstream media claiming oh, this is Islam thing. How about making also the contrast when Saramago you probably know, the Nobel Prize of Literature Portuguese he wrote about the gospel according to Jesus Christ, Okay, and he was censored, Right, Because he was making some.
Speaker 1:But did he live the rest of his life under the incredible threat of?
Speaker 2:death. He did, he did. He was even called atheist by the priests. And not only the gospel according to Jesus Christ, but also he wrote about Cain, okay.
Speaker 1:Right, he was smeared, is what I hear you telling me, but did he live the rest of his life under the very credible threat of death in the same way that Solomon rushed him?
Speaker 2:I assume so, but he died peacefully, right. He lived until his days.
Speaker 1:I consider myself lucky to have been born into the Christian religion, in that I was perhaps destined to separate myself from it and perhaps destined to want to write some sort of satire about it. But if I had written if I had been born in another part of the world, I'm not so sure I would have had the freedom to write the correlated satire about. Islam Salman Rushdie has written some dangerous books. My father has that book.
Speaker 2:I haven't read it because I was looking for it and I couldn't find it.
Speaker 1:It's such an interesting story because the satanic verse is that it refers to. It's a non-Quranic legend that seems to imply Muhammad as being open to the idea of polytheism that he seems to approve in the legend of things uttered by these two other goddesses or something. I can't remember the specific, but it was somewhat of a footnote to the story. Some people have drawn the analogue. It did something approximating what Dan Brown did with the Da Vinci Code for Christianity you tinker with a few details and you build this admitted work of fiction off of that thing. And he had spent three decades of his life in hiding, Turned his life upside down.
Speaker 1:Not only you know, there were protests across the Islamic world. There were protests across the Islamic world. There were protests in the Western world before anybody had read the book, which is incredible to me Before the Ayatollah Pomeini then put a fatwa on it, yeah, and said that it was incumbent upon every Muslim to see that this man was killed for his heresy. And then you had people rushing to the mic, like I think it was Jimmy Carter to come out, not to condemn people who would see somebody dead through a work of fiction, sure, but to condemn the author for offending people with religious sensibility he must have known he sort of offended the Islamic world.
Speaker 2:So he shouldn't have done it? Yeah, he shouldn't have done it From the way you say he shouldn't.
Speaker 1:Well, I think he should have. I don't buy into this idea that he shouldn't have done it. I have done something here considerably more offensive to the Christian population than Salman Rushdie did to the Islamic population. Yet I will not spend the rest of my life under the very credible threat of death for having done it, and neither should have he my life with a very credible threat for having done it, and neither should have he right.
Speaker 1:If, if, if we can't be morally relative about it, threatening to kill somebody and acting upon is worse than writing a book yeah, it's, it's an admitted work of fiction. So when jimmy carter comes out, if, if the first words out of your mouth aren't threatening to kill people for saying things and writing things is wrong, then I can't take you seriously. You can't be a serious actor in this conversation, like with Cat Stevens yeah, cat Stevens. So he then at the time was Usaf Islam. He enjoyed a conversion. He was asked whether or not he'd attend a rally at which an effigy of Salman Rushdie was being burned and beaten instead, his response to which was and this might not be verbatim, but it gets the gist that if it was- only an effigy.
Speaker 1:he wouldn't be compelled to go there, so he'd turn up for the real thing.
Speaker 2:Wow, imagine if we were living in the acquisition period and you were the publicist. Damn it. You would be burnt, you'd be fried, you'd be cooked. Sure Well, I think that you know all religions, I think, are equivalently untrue.
Speaker 1:Not all religions are equivalently untrue. Not all religions are equivalently dangerous all the time.
Speaker 2:If we were having these conversations, as you say, four or five hundred years ago, christianity would be in the crosshairs Right, and I think that with this thing nowadays, with what is currently happening, and blame the Islam, blame all of this, we have to look back as well at what we learned before, what we need to be yet to be learned, as in Christianity, and plenty of atrocities, sure, and I think it was more than the Islam, I dare to assume, because it was throughout centuries and Islam is only there is nothing more barbaric than the Old Testament of the Christian world.
Speaker 1:Nothing, nothing more barbaric than the Old Testament. I have tried to narrow my criticisms in the essay to Christianity, because that is the religion to which I was born, that is the scripture. I am satirizing, yes, but I talk about this idea that the special status that we afford the Bible, making it resistant to update and moral critique, leads to attitudes in the real world that are posing, posing real impediments to progress. So I see it. So I talk about stem cell research, say yeah. Or access to abortions, mm-hmm. And the gay rights too. And gay rights Right.
Speaker 1:So two of these three things are downstream from a belief that this book is written by the infallible creator of the universe.
Speaker 1:Because this book contains this concept of souls, this idea that you are imbued with a soul at the moment of conception. You are more than your physical self and therefore, to produce the fertilized embryo that is required to do stem cell research from, even though you're talking about I think it's called a blastocyst and it's something like 150 cells, even though that is the case, you are in the eyes of the biblically people who believe the bible. You are in the eyes of the biblical, biblically people who believe the Bible in literal terms to be literally true, you are committing murder. You are destroying a soul, insofar as you can destroy a soul, you are uncoupling a soul from its body, and the same with abortion. If your first principle is that life begins at conception, with the injection of the soul, the logic of the pro-life argument is incredibly sound. You just don't do it. You can be committing murder. Obviously, I think the ethical picture is slightly more complicated than that.
Speaker 2:It is indeed controversial and better to not delve into this, because there's plenty of controversy. Again, it's just a dangerous world and nowadays it's become so sensitive that even it is difficult to have a constructive opinion. Everyone is entitled to have their own opinion. We have to be careful sometimes with what we say, but we need to challenge that. Yeah, just out of curiosity, eli, with the Earthbound. You know, when I googled it, earthbound, the first thing that came up was a Nintendobound. Yeah, you know, when I Googled it, earthbound, the first thing that came up was a Nintendo game. Yeah, okay, and it says Mother, it has three parts, it is an adventure game. Did you have the chance to watch it?
Speaker 1:No, I was a Mega Drive guy. Oh right, I was a Sega guy. So this is news to me. I have no idea. No, it was so mega dragon guy. All right, I was a Sega guy.
Speaker 2:So this is news to me. I have no idea. No, it was so funny when I researched it and there was like an overview about the thing, I think they didn't touch religion per se. They didn't touch Christianity per se, okay, but it was an adventure where three kids, they had to do a task. I'd probably be wrong with it, but this is what I saw Three tasks to do to achieve Earthbound. To achieve Mother. I wonder if that Mother would be as virginary or just.
Speaker 1:Some sort of Gaia or something. I call it Earthbound because there would be a new heaven and a new Earth. Yes, so our character, Dr Daniel Lamb, finds himself executed on earth, then is sent to hell, then is sent from hell through sort of time and space beyond the second coming and the destruction of earth and the destruction of hell and lands on the new earth. Yeah, so he finds himself.
Speaker 2:Yeah, so he finds himself Earthbound. Oh right, that sounds like an interesting title for such satire. Yeah, Even just for the to be read, it has to be read. And one thing, another student and activity question I do to my guests. So now for modern times, with all the CGI, 3D or 4K, 8K basically, and Hollywood decided to remaster the greatest story ever told. Yeah, Now you are in charge of the script to hand over to the cast. Yeah, and by looking at the 1965 original film and your novel at hand, how would you turn the film into a box office?
Speaker 1:What do I do? Who am I casting in roles? Is that what I'm doing?
Speaker 2:Yes, so you're in charge. Basically, you'll be the director, okay.
Speaker 1:And I'm doing some sort of Frankenstein's amalgam between the greatest story ever told and lies.
Speaker 2:You just imagine to be Guy Ritchie or Martin Scorsese or whoever.
Speaker 1:You can get inspired by them, all right. Well, if I've got godlike power, if I've got godlike power, here I'm trashing the greatest story ever told completely and just concentrating on my work. Yes, and that's what we're making a film of? Yes, I think it's an interesting question. Who I would cast it's like? Oh, I don't know.
Speaker 1:So in the book I rename characters with sort of modern derivatives of the name. So, god, jehovah is Jeff. Yes, lucifer is Lucy. Christ is Chris. Yes, I think God, I don't know he's got to be very, very buff. He's got to be very, very buff and very egotistical. He has to be able to do a good narcissist in love with himself, and very, very buff, maybe like John Cena, thank God, thank God, thank God. Lucy has to be very beautiful, right? Liz Hurley's already done it, hasn't she? She's played Lucifer in Bedazzled or something. I'm not sure about it. She's a good looking woman. I'm not sure Dr Daniel Laum is the interesting one. Who do you get to play the rank sadist and narcissist? It's a shame that Christian Bale has already done Patrick Baitman in American Psycho. Yes, because he did that so well.
Speaker 2:Yeah, it is.
Speaker 1:Someone of that ilk doing that kind of job.
Speaker 2:He also did the Exodus as well. Have you seen the film? No Exodus? No, he does. When he's Moses, he portrays Moses and the Red Sea Crossing. Oh, no, I haven't seen it. No, it's just Carry on. I just interrupted you Within your box office. Hollywood anti-woke. Is it Anti-woke? No, I'm just asking.
Speaker 1:Well, I Probably inadvertently. It's not that I deliberately set out to piss the far left off, yes, but I suspect it's almost impossible to avoid yes, so easily triggered they are. Ha ha, yeah, you've stumped me. I'm not sure who else I would cast. I'm not sure it is would cast. I'm not sure it is something that I would give very serious and very long thought to if it ever became a serious prospect.
Speaker 2:Would you shape up the scenes according to your novel?
Speaker 1:Yeah, I think it's got a fairly cinematic structure. Yeah, fairly cinematic structure. Some novelists you read something like I'm a big fan of and this is a really uncool thing apparently to admit to, but I really love Nick Holmby About a boy and high fidelity, brilliant novel. I won't hear anybody tell me a lie. True, but they don't have Like you watch the film about a boy and you read the novel about a boy and you can see why they've made the changes that they have in the film to give it this sort of cinematic arc, this three-act structure with a finale at the end.
Speaker 1:Not all, because the novel doesn't have that, the novel just sort of cinematic arc. This three-act structure with a finale at the end yeah, not all, because the novel doesn't have that, the novel just sort of ends. Sure, and there are a lot of novels that do this, they just sort of end, whereas in Earthbound and Glum they've both got a fairly cinematic three-act structure. That would lend itself, I think, to the conversion into a screenplay quite well. So I don't think I'd have to change much structurally really to survive the transition into screenplay.
Speaker 2:And with that I think it would be a great movie and it would be indeed a box office. So let's wrap it up here. So first, when will Earthbound be released? Or has been released already?
Speaker 1:Well, so, it's been submitted as my PhD. I will then be in the process of looking for an agent to represent it to publishers. It's a tricky thing to know what to do, to where to go. Do you go to agents to see if they can then represent it to the big boys the big boys in publishing or do you take it to a smaller independent press just to get it a bit? I've been advised, flatteringly, to take it to the agents to see if you can get big boys involved. So that's going to be my life of the next couple of months is putting together a pitch and sending it off to agents.
Speaker 2:And then final one, any advice for the PhD students. Sorry, any advice for those who are uncertain about going for a PhD, including those who think that a PhD is a degree solely for academia.
Speaker 1:Well, that, at this point, isn't true.
Speaker 1:That isn't true. It's sort of more true in some fields than it is others. So, like earlier when I was talking about experiencing a little bit of imposter syndrome in certain rooms, there are people here in this university who are doing PhDs in things that will change the world. Yeah, and I don't think that's hyperbole, I think that's true. They are contributing to a knowledge base that will at some point change the world for them. So to say that it's just a qualification for qualification's sake in these cases I think is uncanny. In my case it's probably true. In other people's cases it's not necessarily true.
Speaker 1:So, dependent on the field of study that you are interested in, you could make a real difference. If indeed you are in my boat, I'd still recommend doing it. I mean, if you find yourself in a position whereby you can support yourself financially and still do it. So I was fortunate enough in that I had teaching qualifications. Way by you can support yourself financially and still do it. So I was fortunate enough in that I had teaching qualifications to fall back on, so I can do flexible sort of supply teaching while I, while I want. Yeah, you know, I'd still recommend it if you, if you can rationalize and get on the scale not earning tremendous money for a while but can rationalize and get on the scale not earning tremendous money for a while, but earning all of your fuel, doing something that truly stimulates you and interests you yeah, do it.
Speaker 2:And if you have the resources to do it, do it. Yeah, I'd say, do it. And it's also not just academia the way out. Many people still. And it's also not just academia the way out. Many people still assume that there's also the way out of going to industry as well.
Speaker 1:Sure, yeah, yeah. Well, as I say, it's dependent on the field of study that you go into. Yeah, it can make you incredibly attractive to employers.
Speaker 2:Yeah, employers Any social media, anything else.
Speaker 1:I'm a bit of a bit of a hoonit. Yes, I don't have much by way of social media, but you are very welcome to try and find me on. I am on Instagram and I am on Twitter also. Bear with me, I will remind myself what my Twitter is. You can find me on. You can actually find me on Instagram with DrRichmond1982 because, since having the PhD, I very pretentiously insist that everybody call me Doctor. Yeah, because I paid good money for it.
Speaker 2:I'm laughing, but you're right, you're damn right, you call me Doctor.
Speaker 1:Thank you very much. So yeah, dr Richmond, 1982, on Instagram, right To marvel in images of me and my boring life. Yeah, the Twitter's not loading.
Speaker 2:No, it's okay. So, elion, thank you so much for having the time to have this chat and, finally, I think we're trying to plan this since the 3MD. It's been a while. It's been a while, but obviously, with the PhD, my job and also having other guests as well and trying to come up with more single solo sessions. Well, better later than ever, then. Thank you, elion. Thank you very much.
Speaker 2:And this was the late night talk with Elion Richmond, who shared his view about the inconsistent literary accounts of the Bible in his dissertation and novel Earthbound. As Elion said during the talk, his novel and research topic are controversial and listener discretion is advised for those who believe in God and Jesus and have read the Bible. Yet, if you're curious to reach out to Elian, I'll leave his social media links in the description in case you'd like also to explore a bit more of his doctoral research topic whether you want to undertake a PhD in creative writing or in theology in the context of the talk. For the listeners who tuned in until the end, thank you very much for it and feel free to leave a review and ratings on your favorite podcast platforms Spotify, apple Podcasts, Spotify for Creators formerly known as Spotify Podcasters and many other ones Also.
Speaker 2:Check out Spotify Cards to get your 10% off by typing PHDLounge10 during Black Friday by clicking the link in the description, and you can also check out my website, phdloungecouk, where you can also make a donation or get discounts in other brands I sponsor by simply clicking the Donate slash Affiliate tab. To follow social media, you can follow me on Facebook PhDPodLaunch, instagram at PhDLMF and X at PhDLaunchCast. If you're a PhD and would like to be featured and talk about your research topic or you want to make a collab, then send me an email at luigephdlounge at gmailcom. Thank you.
