Balancing Faith & Reason | Matt Fradd
01:23:25 Share

I think one of the reasons I get uptight when people point to my sinfulness is because I'm afraid. Like I'm afraid I'm ultimately unlovable, that I am wretched at the end of the day and unsalvageable as it were. The Psalms speak continually as God is our refuge. And so one thing I like to say as a Christian, because I think it's true, is that Christ is the only refuge big enough for your poor and wretched heart.

And you don't need to apply your own meanness and narrow little heart to his. God is infinite in mercy. And when your sin goes up against that, this is like a drop of water being flicked into a raging furnace. Matt Fradd is a Catholic apologist and the host of the popular podcast Pints with Aquinas.

Thank you.

Fradd's guests have included The Daily Wire's very own Michael Moles, Matt Walsh, and most recently, Jordan B. Peterson. As an author, Fradd combines his intellectual depth with a pastoral purpose. In his 2018 book, The Porn Myth, he aims to discredit pornography through a non-religious lens. Whereas in his 2021 work, How to Be Happy, St. Thomas' Secret to a Good Life, Fradd seeks to cultivate a greater appreciation for the Catholic faith in our modern world.

In today's episode, we dissect ideas like toxic skepticism, the West's normalization of sin, and the pragmatic application of Catholic principles. We also explore what it means to be free and compare the ritual similarities between Catholicism and Judaism. Stay tuned for this fantastic conversation with Matt Fradd and discover what makes Pints with Aquinas a must-listen for anyone interested in faith, philosophy, and the intersection of religion and modern culture. Welcome back to another episode of the Sunday Special.

Matt, thanks so much for stopping by. I really appreciate it. So let's talk about how you engage in discussion with people who oppose you. Yeah. Because that's something that you frequently do. You don't like to term it debate because debate is very often about winners and losers as opposed to discussion, which is really more about clarifying positions and determining where people stand. So when you're discussing, say, atheism with someone, what do you do?

What do you find is the best way to approach that particular issue when you're beginning a discussion with an atheist about believing in the Bible, believing in Jesus, you're obviously a Catholic. What's the best way to approach that discussion? Defining terms. What is meant by atheism? I think there's been something of a shift since the new atheists that would seek to redefine atheism to mean something indistinguishable from agnosticism.

It seems to me though that there are three basic ways you can answer the question, does God exist? Yes, no or maybe. And so it seems appropriate to me that there should be three terms that would identify the possessors of each belief. Atheist, theist or agnostic, I don't know.

Only the theist and the atheist has a burden of proof because they're the only ones claiming something. So I think that would be the first way to go about it. Are there good reasons to think that atheism is true? Are there good reasons to think that theism is true? And I don't like debates not because I don't believe in them, but because I'm not good at them.

I find I get quite flustered and I don't think quite straight. I don't think I'm a very kind of confrontational person. But I do enjoy talking to people who disagree with me in a friendly way, like over a beer or something like that, which is what Pints with Aquinas is about. It's just sitting down and

And giving each other the benefit of the doubt, not trying to corner each other and just trying to understand where each other is coming from. So you mentioned there the kind of shift in the new atheist community from atheism to agnosticism. And that is clearly what has happened. I mean, there used to be an argument militantly anti-God. God for certain does not exist. You're a fool if you believe in religion or in atheism.

a deity. And that has moved into pretty solidly, well, I don't know and I don't care. So how would you engage that particular argument? Because that seems to be the more common one in today's day and age. And even people who tend to think that they're theists will say things like, I'm spiritual but not religious, which is...

effectively indifferent about the presence of God in their lives. How do you engage in the agnostic argument? Yeah, it's a good question. First of all, I just want to say, obviously there are atheists who have arguments against God's existence and they're very intelligent atheists, but you're right, a lot of people just don't care. It seems to me that if God does not exist, we have dogmatic answers to the most important questions we're all most interested in asking. Like, where did I come from? Why am I here? Who am I? How should I live and where am I going?

it struck me that if God doesn't exist, then here are the answers. Where did I come from? I've been coughed into existence by a blind cosmic process that didn't have me in mind. You and I are accidental byproducts of nature.

There is no objective mind-independent meaning for our life. We can adopt subjective meanings so we feel better about ourselves or something, but these aren't actually the reasons why we exist. How should we live?

well we could live in a way that's conducive to the flourishing of our group or we could not and it doesn't seem to me that would be right or wrong to adopt one of these positions if there is no moral objective moral law where are we going we will die and uh not just individually but collectively as a species cosmologists tell us that as the universe continues to expand they'll eventually be nothing you know spreading out through seemingly infinite space just

cosmic soup. None of that is an argument for God existing, of course. It might be that bleak and we might just have to deal with it. But I'm going to need a good reason to think things are that bleak. And I think when I was a high schooler, I didn't really vibe with Christianity. I didn't like what it taught. I didn't like the...

I didn't believe in the witness of the people who went to church and so I stopped going. I said I was agnostic. But I think questions like that, like, does it bother you that this is all meaningless? What if it wasn't? Would you want to know? Maybe those are the sorts of questions that could provoke desire to then have a more meaningful discussion about God. I mean, when you talk about that, I think...

realistically, actually, the agnostic view is even bleaker than that because you're using active verbs to describe how people can react to the meaninglessness of existence. If you're a pure scientific materialist, the idea that you are self-motivated, that you can self-will, the ability for existentialists to claim agency that seemingly arises from nowhere, just from the processing of neurons, is something that I think is very difficult to overcome. And so it's not even that you can make a sort of

Jean-Paul Sartre argument that you can escape the bleakness of existence by acts of will or the Nietzschean argument that shouldn't really even exist in a cold materialist universe because, again, you're just a piece of meat wandering through space on a rock.

effectively speaking. And so that sort of argument is, again, it's very difficult, I think, number one, to build an individual life on that basis and also to build a society on that basis. And furthermore, when I hear people make that argument, because they say, I'll say, so why is that argument important for you to make? And I'll say, well, because it's true. And then, of course, you're into Alvin Platinga land. Like, okay, well, what do you mean by true? What truth exists independent of

of simple evolutionary biology. You say that it's very important that you know this thing because this thing is true, but does truth have an independent meaning without an independent creator of that truth who stands above that truth?

It's interesting that you mention Alvin Plantinga because he is famous for developing this idea of properly basic beliefs. In other words, we all have beliefs and some of those beliefs are basic, meaning they're not based upon other beliefs. If we had to have an argument for every belief that we hold, that would lead to an infinite regress and we wouldn't believe in anything.

But Planting has said that some beliefs are properly basic. That is to say, we are warranted epistemically to hold certain beliefs even without arguments. He would say without evidence, but depends what you mean by evidence, such as the reality of other minds or that the universe wasn't created five minutes ago with the appearance of age and breakfast in my stomach. I never ate things like this.

It seems like we're all rational to believe in these things even though we might not be able to give arguments for them. And I think most people believe in God like that. They're embarrassed to say that that's why they believe in God. They would like to have some awesome metaphysical argument that has completely convinced them.

I don't think I believe in God because of arguments any more than I believe in free will because of arguments or that I exist because of arguments. It just sort of seems to make sense to me. And I know that that's not a reason why somebody else should believe in God, but it seems to be an okay reason for why I believe in God.

And so therefore, if you want to disavow me of my belief in God, then I'd like a reason. Sort of like, what's his name? Neo in the Matrix was given a reason by Morpheus.

to now doubt the reality, what he thought of as reality. Yeah, I mean, I think that that is such a good point. It's a point that Michael Oshop makes, just this idea that rationalism is essentially, if you take it to its logical extreme, it's like an Ouroboros, it eats itself. That most of the beliefs that we hold dear to ourselves are beliefs that

we just know to be true. And so this bizarre idea that most of the beliefs that we come to are things that we have rationalized our way to, number one, is incredibly arrogant because it's not true. But number two, it actually leads, as you say, to a sort of infinite regress because there is no root reason to assume that rationality itself exists as sort of an independent property of human beings. The idea that there is an independent reason and that reason and logic govern

Well, again, that's an assumption, and you're going to have to justify that assumption based on something, but there can't be an assumption underneath that particular assumption. And this is one of the things that, as I've gotten older, and as you move away from being a teenager, where you think, okay, I want a reason for everything, which is totally natural when you're 17, 18 years old. You think, okay, my parents didn't give me a good reason for this, so I'm just not going to do it. And then you get older and you realize, well, sometimes, most of the time, you're doing things not because there was a good reason to do them, but because

because there's a good reason not to do the alternative. And I think that that's really important and speaks to the sort of reality of what it means to be a human being. So much of modern politics, modern religion, modern thought is based on this bizarre idea that human beings are atomistic individuals who exist without any sort of presets. There are no presets in your being. And so you approach every argument with an equivalent mindset.

with an equivalent weight on every argument, as opposed to, well, actually you exist in this system, and you have to be given some pretty strong evidence as to why you ought to disbelieve this system before you move outside of that system. I think that was the original point that you're making. You're going to have to give me some good reasons as to why I ought to jettison things like free will, rationality,

eternal truths what's the pitch i think since descartes maybe we've had this idea that we have to have some unhuman inhuman way of being certain about things as if the only reason i can be justified in believing anything is if it's indubitable or self-evident or something like that but um you know if you were to press me on how i know australia is an island i would

I'd sound kind of silly. I'd be like, I've seen it in maps and stuff. And you'd be like, you believe everything maps show you? And I'd go, yeah, I thought. Or if somebody says, do you believe you have hands? And you're like, yes. And then they say, but do you believe you have hands? At that point, some people would be like, oh, I'm not sure. And that's a trick. It's a trick in that emphasis. Of course, you know you have hands. Of course, you could be dreaming.

But everything we believe, we don't believe with this unusual degree of certainty. And so I don't think that theists should feel bad if they sometimes have doubts or something like that.

We'll get to more on this in a moment. First, when did we decide to stop upholding free speech as a basic right? What's playing out right now at big tech companies and social media sites sets a pretty dangerous precedent. Everybody should have the right to express themselves freely. Sadly, the big tech monopoly has instead opted for silencing tactics and censorship. To fight back against big tech's control of the internet, I use ExpressVPN.

Free-to-access tech giants make all their money by tracking your searches, video history, and everything you click on. They build your profile. They sell that data off to the highest bidder. When you use the ExpressVPN app on your computer or phone, the software hides your IP address from third parties. That makes your activity more difficult for companies to trace and sell to advertisers. It helps keep your online presence more anonymous.

What's more, ExpressVPN encrypts 100% of your network data to protect you from eavesdroppers and cybercriminals. That's why ExpressVPN is rated number one by CNET, Wired, TechRadar, and countless others. So stop allowing big tech to revoke your right to free speech. Why not revoke their right to your data instead? Secure your internet with VPN iTrust for online protection. Visit expressvpn.com slash ben. That's E-X-P-R-E-S-S-V-P-N dot com slash ben to get three extra months for free with my exclusive link, expressvpn.com slash ben.

This is one of the things that's been so weird about, I think, our modern politics right now, is the sort of radical skepticism that's set in of everything is actually, it's a universal asset.

Skepticism is useful and necessary, but radical skepticism, meaning doubting everything around you, doubting every expert, doubting every authority, that's actually a road to nihilism. And I think that because one of the dangerous aspects of our politics and our institutions today is because they've failed, many of them, in their missions, because so many of them have sold out their credibility for ulterior purposes, the reaction of a lot of people has been to basically dispense with all institutions, right?

to dispense with the process of reasoning itself, that a question is deemed just as valuable as an attempt to search for an answer. That so long as I'm tearing away at the thing and showing that I am not subject to these authorities, that that means that I'm an independent thinker, as opposed to the reality, which is that

You're going to have to accept some authorities from time to time or you're never going to get out of bed in the morning. On what basis can you use your cell phone if you don't believe that there are people who put it together in a way that means that it's going to work? And I think that radical skepticism speaks to the destruction not only of the credibility of our institutions, but to the reactionary nature of human beings themselves. It's almost like in a time of chaos, we all seek order because we can't live in chaos.

And so where are you going to find that order? You might try to find it in the institutions or you might try to find it outside of the institutions. And it seems to me that just like there's a woke Olympics or a woke spiraling where people are becoming crazier and crazier to prove how enlightened they are, there's something like that on the right as well where the more outlandish the things that you say are, the more enlightened you are. And I think the rest of us are just off on the sidelines quite confused, quite confused.

Yeah, it's like the internet with all of this conflicting information is making us weary skeptical pragmatists. And I think a lot of people feel quite confused. I know I do about a lot of things. I agree. I mean, I think that the internet has made these things infinitely worse, mainly because it's allowed people to siphon themselves off into these bizarre silos of either radical skepticism or radical institutionalism. And in reality, the way that I think most people used to engage with

their community or with God or with religion was just naturally in their daily lives. It's why the phrase that I've been using a lot on the show and in general is everybody needs to go outside and touch some grass. Yeah, I like that. Like this sort of attempt to either intellectualize everything or to anti-intellectualize everything is incredibly dangerous. I wrote an essay recently, for myself, it wasn't published anywhere, just about

Why believe in God? And the answer that I came to is that no one quote unquote believes in God in the way that we tend to think about believing in God. Like I don't come to my belief in God, as you say, through a bunch of arguments and read the ontological argument and go, oh, well, you know what? I'm there. Like now it's happened. It's more that the assumptions that lie at the core of my being and at the core of my action in the world are religious assumptions. And that's true for even agnostics. There's a point that I've made to agnostics is

You're relying on free will you're relying on your ability to act you're lying in the idea of an eternal truth You're using bricks from the house that I built and that you've blown up But then you're reusing those bricks and pretending that they came from nowhere and that you actually Mixed the straw with the mud and you didn't I mean all those bricks are religious bricks And so when we ask whether people believe in God or believe in their community The answer is mostly in how people behave in their regular life but the internet is not a place of behavior the play the internet is a place of signaling and

And signaling is very important on the internet because when you're, again, in a disembodied universe, then that's what happens. The way that you prove skin in the game in a disembodied universe is by taking radical positions. The way you prove skin in the game in a real universe is by doing things with other people. Wow. I'm going to have to think about that for a long time. That's really interesting. Yeah, I mean, I'm glad, you know, so the Catholic Church teaches that God, the existence of God can be arrived at through philosophical argumentation independent of faith.

First Vatican Council made that clear. Thomas Aquinas taught the same thing. Thomas Aquinas says, but God revealed himself to us as well, because if he didn't, he says three awkward consequences would have followed. One, some people aren't smart enough to sort through metaphysical arguments for God's existence. I probably fit in that category. Second, people have stuff to do. So even if they weren't smart enough, they wouldn't have the time. And then thirdly, people who have enough time and are smart enough are kind of lazy and so wouldn't have done it.

And we would have come to all sorts of errors regarding God's existence. So I would say, though, when I assess arguments for God's existence alongside of arguments for atheism, I feel that the arguments for theism are much more compelling than the arguments for atheism. And when I look at arguments for atheism, I think the argument from the hiddenness of God or the problem of evil, I think are really the two most important.

emotionally disturbing arguments that would bother me. But when I look at them next to theistic arguments, I think they get swamped, personally. And I'd like to go through a couple of those with you because they're really interesting. The argument of evil...

or of suffering, that's obviously the most, as you say, the most emotionally troubling. When you see innocent suffering and you say, where is God in all of this? And we're not talking about the easy answer for human beings, which typically, if a human being is harming another human being and you say, okay, well, free will, that has nothing to do with God. But

natural disaster or baby dies. How do you deal with that argument from a religious point of view? Yeah. Well, I guess I would say that even if I don't have an answer to the problem of evil, I can still say, given my experience and given all these arguments I have for God's existence, which outweigh this argument, I can conclude that

Evil exists and I don't understand it. And that seems to me to be an okay response. Back to Plantinga, he was responding to people like J.L. Mackey who would say, okay, if God's all powerful, he could do away with all evil. If he were all knowing, he would know about the nature and scope of evil in the world. If he were all good, he would want to do away with all evil, but evil exists. Therefore, God doesn't exist. Or if he does, he's either impotent, wicked or something like that.

Plantinga says that all you have to do to escape the conclusion is to insert a fourth premise, which is namely, God may have morally sufficient reasons for permitting evil and suffering in the world.

You don't have to like that premise. You don't even have to think it's terribly convincing. So long as it's possible, it shows that God and evil are not incompatible or contradictory. But at that point, you might say, OK, fair enough. But surely the amount of evil and the kinds of evil would make it at least unlikely that an all-powerful, all-good God exists.

But I don't know, maybe I'm just not in a place epistemically to assess the evil around me. Now, if my wife was to be seriously hurt or my children seriously hurt, I might lose faith in God. But the question isn't what would I do, but what should I do?

So it seems to me, though, the problem of evil is felt most poignantly when we're experiencing a particular suffering in our own life. And at that point, I don't think apologetics is what people want. At that point, they just want you to sort of sit with them and listen to them and mourn with them.

So that's what I'd say to that. I mean, that's the answer of Job, right? I mean, everybody tries to explain to Job why it's happening to him and he keeps rejecting them. Then God says, well, I'm God. That's the only answer that's possible, which really is in the face of suffering, the only answer that really is possible. You're talking about the necessity of revelation from a Catholic point of view. I can tell you from the Jewish point of view, the necessity of revelation, right? Maimonides gives many of the same reasons as Aquinas, one of the fascinating things about

Maimonides and Aquinas as they're writing it, effectively at the same time in two different parts of the world. And they're coming to a lot of very similar conclusions about the nature of the merger of revelation and reason, which makes sense, of course, because you have the discoveries of Plato again. And so a lot of the Neoplatonists are coming to the fore. So they're reading a lot of the same sort of stuff. But the argument that I think

Judaism has made about the necessity for revelation as opposed to just natural law is that once you believe that human beings are capable of sussing out everything, then you do end up with the sort of possibility of human beings going astray in terms of how they themselves interpret the law. And I wonder what you make of that from a Catholic point of view, because obviously Judaism is very much focused on the law and it's focused on practice. And so when you read the first five books of the

of the Bible, you know, it's filled with legalese and it's filled with specific injunctions to do and not to do. In my religion, we follow all of those, right? I mean, we actually take all of the laws about kosher seriously still after several thousand years. And so when we look at that, there have been rabbis who have critiqued Maimonides saying, because he tries to give reasons for those commandments. He tries to say, okay, well, the reason for this commandment is X. And they say, well, we don't want you giving reasons for those commandments because the minute you do, you have now run into sort of the problem of Plato, right?

Is the morality above the commandment or is the commandment above the morality? They say, well, the commandment's above the morality. Like your moral take on the commandment is irrelevant, which is why revelation is necessary. From a Christian point of view, where commandments are...

secondary to faith? Would that be fair to say in Christ? How does the logic work there? Well, I guess I would say that Catholics are champions, hopefully, of both faith and reason. So what has been revealed to us

We wouldn't necessarily know unless it were revealed to us. There are certain things that one can know through reason alone. We already spoke about the existence of God. Perhaps one can come to believe, Aquinas I think would believe this, that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc. But then there are things that we can't know unless they were revealed to us. So in

Christianity, the Trinity wouldn't be something you could arrive at through reason, though there have been people who have tried to do that. They were like, okay, if God is love, then you have the one who loves, one who is love, and the love that they share, therefore. But that doesn't seem to work, I don't think.

The Eucharist would be something that we couldn't know. Maybe the incarnation. So there are some things that have been revealed to us that we couldn't know otherwise, and there are some things that have been revealed to us, such as God's existence, that we could know, but it would have been dangerous because we would have come to that belief and ended up holding a bunch of errors. But then once God has revealed something to us,

then surely we can think about why that is reasonable, it would seem to me. I totally agree with that, but I think that the key element that Judaism puts forward and sounds like Catholicism too is you don't do it because it's reasonable to you. You do it because God said so. And that what God says would always be reasonable. It's not like you would come into a belief. Christians would say any belief that's been revealed to us that we can't prove, we can at least prove that it's not unreasonable.

So we wouldn't believe something that's absurd. Right. So when it comes to the conflict supposedly between miracle stories and nature, the way that Aquinas says this, and I think Maimonides too, but you know Aquinas far better than I do, is that

You're either reading scripture wrong or you're reading nature wrong. They're the same. If the blueprint for the universe is in fact the biblical narrative, then if that comes into conflict with scientific discovery, then it's because... Bad science or bad faith. Right, exactly. It's more on this in just one moment. First, have you ever found yourself tossing and turning at night, unable to get comfortable because you're just too hot?

One leg under the blanket and one leg sticking out. It's something bizarre out of a weird nightmare. Well, Bull & Branch can solve that for you. Bull & Branch is here to help you never sleep hot again with sheets that are woven to allow airflow and feel cool and crisp to the touch. Perfect for sleepers who run hot. Bull & Branch has amazing options for hot sleepers. You can choose from 100% organic cotton percale made with a naturally cooling weave or their linen, which is made from European flax to be light, airy, and softer than soft. I'm telling you, the stuff from Bull & Branch is so good. The other day, actually, I needed some for my house.

Instead of calling up the advertiser, which you could do, I actually just went to their Bull & Branch store and just shelled out myself because that's how good this stuff is. These are truly luxury sheets that get softer every time you wash them. Bull & Branch sheets are loved by millions of sleepers. Best of all, Bull & Branch gives you a 30-night worry-free guarantee with free shipping and returns on all U.S. orders. Get your coolest, most comfortable sleep ever during Bull & Branch's annual summer event, 20% off site wide, plus free shipping on your first set of sheets at

That's bullandbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com slash ben for 20% off and free shipping. Limited time only. Exclusions apply. See site for details.

When it comes down to practical living for people, why choose Catholicism versus Judaism or choose Catholicism versus Protestantism for that matter? Because many of these sort of natural law things that we are all able to suss out – and Judaism does have a version of natural law called the seven commandments –

the Sheva Mitzvah B'nai Noach, the Seven Commandments of Noah, the Noahide laws. And the basic premise in the Talmud is that those are all discoverable by human reason in the sense that there's a doctrine Talmudically that's called Tinoch Shanishba, meaning that

If you were to find a baby in a forest, you wouldn't expect the baby in the forest to know about the laws of kosher. You wouldn't expect that the person grows up, they eat kosher. They're not responsible for that. There's no way that they could possibly come to the conclusion that you shouldn't eat swine, but you should eat cows, for example. But there are certain things that every human being should be able to come to the conclusion about, and that would be things like

You should believe in God, you shouldn't commit murder, you shouldn't commit sexually immoral sins. All of those sorts of things are things that you can sort of discover on your own. So when it comes to Judaism looking at natural law, there's obviously sort of boundaries

to that. You've said the same thing is true of Catholicism. So why believe Catholicism as opposed to Protestantism or Judaism or any other form of sort of monotheistic religion? Yeah, I think the only good reason to believe anything is that you think it's true. So I think of Catholic apologetics, let's say, as a three-story mansion. On the first level, you might have theistic apologetics, which concerns does God exist and what is he like and has he revealed himself to us or not? The

The second level might be Christian apologetics. Who was Christ? Do we have good reason to think the New Testament reliable? Did Christ actually rise from the dead or not? Did he establish a church? These sorts of things. And then the third level would be Catholic apologetics, which would consider those Catholic distinctives.

So I think that God exists, that he revealed himself most fully in the person of Jesus Christ, and that Jesus Christ established a church and gave that church teaching authority. And so that's why I'm a Catholic.

and not a Protestant. And that's why I'm a Christian and not a Jew. So when you look at sort of the development of Catholic doctrine over time, this is a question in Judaism too. What are the limits of proper interpretation? And this is a huge question in Judaism because obviously you have a written document. That written document is handed down, Jews believe, by God on Sinai. And then there's a whole body of oral law. And that oral law obviously has morphed over time, right? This is the sort of

rabbinical Judaism that is traditional Judaism. And so the idea is that human beings have the authority to interpret but not to remake. So if you were to go into Leviticus and just rip out a section of Leviticus and say this no longer applies, then in Judaism, that's no good. By the same token,

There's a constant process of interpretation and trying to figure out exactly how to apply those eternal principles to modern circumstances. How does that process work inside Catholicism? Yeah, I think the way it would work would be by saying just what you did, that nothing can contradict what has been given to us through scripture and tradition.

So there are certain things that are non-negotiable, such as that baptism is efficacious in our salvation, that it's not merely a symbol, that the Blessed Virgin was free from sin from the moment of her conception, that the Eucharist is truly the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ under the appearances of bread and wine, that sodomy is always evil, that fornication is always evil. These sorts of things have been revealed. And so we might try to then understand this

things around that topic, for example, the culpability question. You know, so for example, like masturbation is something that's condemned in Catholicism and has always been. But then you might go, OK, given now what we understand about psychology, can we ask the question how culpable, let's say, a young person is who is trying to figure things out, you know, or alcohol? You know, like if we know that drunkenness is a sin, but, you know, you kind of have to test alcohol before you know your limits. So what about that question?

So I think that's why I would say that Christ gave us a church and gave that church authority to help us discern these things. So I don't have to go back into 2000 years of history, but I can submit to the church when it tells me things like Mary was conceived without sin and so on. One of the things that's really interesting, I think, about the

anti-religion view of religion is that you talk about sin and people get very upset. There's very little in public life that gets people more upset than the use of the word sin. The minute you say something is a sin, people get very, very uptight. They believe that they are being judged and they think to themselves, I'm not going to listen to anything this person has to say. And what I think people who are not religious don't understand is that

There's not a religious person alive, as far as I'm aware, who believes that we are capable of being sin-free. The idea that the standard holds, even when you don't uphold the standard, is something that I think is completely...

foreign to people who don't exist within religion, that's really troublesome. One of the arguments that comes up a lot in politics, and it comes up with religion too, is the hypocrisy argument. And what I've always said is that's not an argument, it's an emotional appeal. Because usually the people who are saying, okay, well, there's a priest and this priest violated his own precepts when he did X, Y, and Z, they're not arguing that the priest did something bad. They're arguing that the standard itself is bad and that the priest is therefore worse because the priest says that the standard is good and has violated the standard.

The sort of argument that's made in politics and religion all the time, to me that argument is almost always an emotional attack on the standard itself rather than violation of the standard per se. I go through my life violating God's precepts, I would imagine, on a fairly regular basis. And that doesn't mean that I'm right to do so. It just means that I'm a human being.

Yeah, if I can kind of preach for a second here, as a Christian, I would say, and you can give me your answer as a Jew. I think one of the reasons I get uptight when people point to my sinfulness is because I'm afraid. Like I'm afraid I'm ultimately unlovable, that I am wretched at the end of the day and unsalvageable, as it were.

that the Psalms speak continually as God is our refuge. And so one thing I like to say as a Christian, because I think it's true, is that Christ is the only refuge big enough for your poor and wretched heart. And you don't need to apply your own meanness and narrow little heart to his. God is infinite in mercy. And when your sin goes up against that, this is like a drop of water being flicked into a raging furnace.

So if you talk about my sin or if I become aware of it, this makes me uncomfortable. And I think at that point, what I tend to do is want to downplay my sin or look at people who are worse than me. But I think the answer is instead to look at the great mercy of God and go, okay, this is...

My trust is in him. He is my righteousness. Yeah, so this has come up a lot in terms of the topic of one of your books on pornography. So this has become like a very hot issue in the United States, obviously, and in Europe particularly. The sort of normalization of pornography. It's been...

I wrote about this back in 2005. I wrote a book in 2005 called Porn Generation, How Social Liberalism is Corrupting Our Future, in which I talked about the destruction of an entire generation of people because of the rise of pornography, the mainstreaming of pornography, the turning of porn stars into actual stars, and all the rest of it. I was chided as a prude at the time, of course. And then pretty much all the predictions changed.

came true, that this was actually really devastating to the soul of human beings, that it really harms people. And yet to point out that pornography is indeed a grave evil, that it actually does harm to both the participants in it and the people who use it, that is now considered something that is utterly unsayable in public life. Is that right? I mean, I think that you can say it, but

You were seen as weird. It feels to me like the tide might be turning a little bit. I agree with you that most people would not want to say that pornography is wrong all the time. I agree with that. But it seems to me that you're hearing more, even comedians, kind of making fun of things like masturbation and pornography. Pete Holmes is a good example of this. I'm not sure if you've heard this bit, but he says something like, masturbation isn't just gay. It's double gay. You're masturbating a man while being...

getting, you know, masturbated by a man. Like this is, this is clearly cream puffery at its highest. To be a bit more serious, St. Dominic says, the man who governs his passions is master of his world. We must command them or be enslaved by them. It is better to be a hammer than an anvil. And I think the man who continually kind of gives over his life to pornography is,

becoming emasculated, he's being robbed of the ability to be masculine. As a Christian, I would look at Christ's words, this is my body given up for you, and that this act was the most masculine act, and it's something that I should try to replicate with my own wife, in that I deny myself for her good,

But pornography trains a man not to say this is my body given up for you, but the opposite. This is your body taken by me. I deny and forsake and trample over your dignity for the sake of my pleasure. So, yeah. I think this goes to one of the the.

most fascinating things about Catholicism in general is the focus on the embodiedness of human beings, which runs directly counter to all modern strains of thought. So the way that these sort of post-

the Cartesian world has taken up this argument, is that the body is one thing and the mind is another. It's this weird Gnostic dualism that exists in how we think about ourselves. That, okay, so your body wants porn and your mind is separate from your body, so what damage could you be doing to yourself? Because you aren't your body, you're your mind. And so your mind's out here, your body's over there, your body's doing a thing, who cares? It's just like any other act that you're doing. It's defecating or eating or whatever else it is. So what difference does that make? And Catholicism insists on the embodiedness

of human beings. Maybe you can talk a little bit about why that's so important and how that, the falling apart of that notion of embodiedness has really corrupted so many elements of our politics and thought. - It's a great point, yeah. We are our bodies. We don't have bodies, we are bodies. We are a composite of both body and soul, both equally a part of who we are. When I kiss my daughter goodnight, I really do that. I don't manipulate the husk which is not me and press it against the husk which is not her.

You know, if we weren't our bodies, then when we shook hands earlier, that would have been like, I don't know. We didn't ever come into contact. And that seems silly. If somebody slaps you, they slapped you. And we know that. Yeah. And so when we deny that we are our bodies, you're right. We can either act like...

disgracefully, what I would say shamefully, or maybe we fall into the kind of thinking too highly of the body as if that's the main thing and then we neglect the soul. But yeah, what we do with our body really matters. And so, but I do think it's important when we demonize pornography, which I like doing, that we say what the problem isn't. You know, like the problem with porn is not sex, sexual desire, or nudity.

The first commandment in the Bible from God to humanity is Genesis chapter 1 verse 28, and it was to have sex, be fruitful and multiply. Sex is good, which is why you can make it bad. It seems to me that if the fact that you can make sex so ugly is a sort of indirect proof for why it could and should be beautiful.

Because you can't make ugly things ugly. But you can make very beautiful things very ugly. Like if there was a pile of trash here and I kicked it and then said, now look at it. It wouldn't look much uglier. It would just be ugly. Nudity is good. The body is good. The reason we talk about pornography degrading the body is because we believe that the body has grade to begin with.

We don't talk about degrading paper clips and tumblers. We do talk about degrading the body because we just believe, it seems to us, that there is this sort of intrinsic worth to the body. So to sum all that up, I would say it's been said, not by me, but somebody else, the problem with pornography actually isn't that it shows too much. It's that it shows too little, that it reduces the mystery and beauty of the human person completely.

to a sort of two-dimensional thing for my consumption. And we just shouldn't be treating human beings like that. So one of the ways this is broken into the public debate, especially now, is with regard to what role religion should have in, say, government policy. So there's been a widespread debate over regulation of things like pornography. Now, for myself, I'm very much in favor of local regulation of pornography.

The only reason that I might not be in favor of national legislation on pornography has nothing to do with the right to pornography. It has much more to do with the pragmatic approach to legislation. Can you govern a nation that has widespread disagreements on issues like pornography top down in that way without spurring a backlash that would be significant enough to actually topple other things that you're attempting to do? I think much the same way about abortion. I'm fully pro-life.

Actually, I take a Catholic and not Jewish position on pro-life positions, I would say. And with that said, there's a difference between my position on abortion and what I think might be the pragmatic way to actually achieve that long term. So the argument is really not one of the morality of banning

pornography or abortion. If I were a dictator for a day, I would absolutely do it. The question is one of the pragmatic effect. Can you achieve that long term? So I've had this argument about abortion or pornography with regard to, you know, for example, state level legislation. Take abortion. So I've suggested that if you're in a state like Michigan, going for a full scale abortion ban that is likely to fail

is actually a mistake. What you should do is you should go as far as you can without losing the majority in the legislature, for example, and then accustom people to that idea and then move it back. And that's an immoral position. I get that that's not the full-scale moral position, but also you have to sort of merge pragmatism with morality. How do you address the role of following

these sorts of issues into pragmatic application. - We're definitely in your zone of expertise here, so I can only say what seems to me to be the case. We live in a democratic republic, so the idea that we're going to convince most Americans that all pornography is evil and should be banned is just not going to happen.

happen so yes I would like to see pornography banned because I think it destroys the family um you know you want to destroy Society then destroy sex because sex is at the bottom of it you know it's like sex

It comes together with the couple, which brings the family, which brings about society. So if you want to destroy society, aim your sights on sex. And I think that's what pornography does. So I would like to see it banned. But given that I have no ability to bring that about, nor do I think it's actually going to happen.

Then I certainly think educating people about the destructive nature of pornography, that over the last 40 plus years, there has been a metric crap ton of studies that have come out of academia from neuroscience, psychology and sociology. And all of it says that pornography is detrimental to the consumer, to our relationships and to society as a whole. So it's a soundbite, but I like to say if you're pro-love and pro-science, you should be anti-porn.

Now, none of this is to condemn individual struggling. In fact, I think we should struggle with pornography. What I mean by that is struggle doesn't mean give in to. It's not synonymous with you don't try. Struggling implies a sort of violent resisting. Yeah.

So if somebody says to me, I'm struggling with pornography, I would say, good, keep struggling. And so I certainly wouldn't want any man or woman out there who's watching this to feel condemned by me. I would have them realize that they were raised in a pornified culture. They were probably exposed to pornography at a young age and they can be free of this and they should be gentle and patient with themselves as they seek to gain mastery over this thing that's had mastery over them for so long.

So when it comes, again, to sort of the broader question of governance, one of the cases that I've made is that conservatism or religious morality or morality of any sort, it tends to be built ground up, but it can be destroyed top down. Okay. Meaning that...

institutions of American society have basically destroyed, I think, traditional morality at a very local level through things like national policy, by perverting incentive structures, by replacing, for example, the role of what a church was in a community, which actually had sort of an economic role. It has societal role, community role, and then government sort of supplanted that. That can be destroyed, but it can only, it can't be rebuilt permanently.

top-down through sort of government mandate. And I think that's one of the big arguments that's happening on the right right now. There are a lot of people on the right who have sort of suggested, okay, if you gain control of the government, then the first thing you should do is try to cram down morality as fast as possible, and that will change the nature of how the society works. Now, I'm not arguing that there's no situation in which

that's possible. I'm just arguing as to whether that is practical. What do you think on that? That's more of an opinion matter than a moral matter. Yeah, it's a good question because law, it seems to me, is something of a teacher. So if I'm raised in a society where pot smoking is illegal, I might come to believe that it's immoral, whether it is or whether it isn't.

Sometimes I think that from my experience again, not the ideal, but what I'm seeing is sometimes it seems like things need to be let into society so that we can learn our lesson the hard way. Because it seemed to me like five or ten years ago, everyone was like proclaiming the greatness which is pot smoking, for example. Whereas now it seems like there's a lot of people who are like, the cool people are like, here's why I've given it up. Here's how my life became better.

Now, how much destruction does that leave in its wake? How many people have not learned that lesson? That's a scary thing. But yeah, once the cat's out of the bag, I don't know what the solution is to do except to educate people. Again, I'm not involved in politics or anything like that. So...

i'd leave that to to better minds i'd like to live in a country where pornography is illegal i'd like to live in a country where the majority of people think yeah this destroys families this perverts the most sacred human action i mean if what is the most sacred human action it's not washing the dishes as good as that is i mean it's not playing football it's not having a drink clearly it's that act by which new souls are come into existence

And it seems to me that a society that perverts that is going to destroy itself. And I think pornography is one of the key weapons against the family. And so therefore, I'd like to see it banned. Is that pragmatic? Would that have backlashes? I haven't thought that through. So what do you think, going back to sort of some of our original questions, what do you think is the best way to societally approach morality in a way to convince people? Is it arguments? Is it discussion? Or...

Or is it more, I think, what's been happening lately, which is, as you said, the excesses of the secular left have become so extraordinary and so extreme that people are sort of reverting back into a second look at religion. And there are a lot of people who gave it up when they were kids, mainly because...

I think for a lot of people, and this is true, I think, in every faith, it's true in Judaism for sure, they get taught a sort of third-grade version of what God is and what religion is, and then they never kind of level up. They are asked questions or they ask questions when they're 15, 16 years old. They don't have authority figures who know how to answer those questions, and then they turn away from religion because they realize that the third-grade version of God is, you know,

A man in the clouds. Exactly. That doesn't actually wash with reality for them. And they turn away and then they come back and have sort of this second look at religion. So in a sort of bizarre way, it could be the excesses of the left are pushing people back into religion better than any religious argument could. Seems that way. It seems I think sometimes that Jordan Peterson, who I recently had on my show, is like a gateway drug into religion. He seems to have supplanted the quote unquote new atheists who are somewhat old now. Yeah.

And so I think you're right. The excesses of the left are causing people to take a look at tradition and to perhaps be more humble in the face of our ancestors and say, what did they know that we didn't? Now, I wouldn't want to hold to Christian belief

like Dawkins seems to assume, just because it would hold society together. Like I would want to hold the Christian belief because I think it's true. If Christianity is not true, if God doesn't exist, then I don't think we should believe those things. You know, when I was a kid in December, I would believe in Father Christmas and that belief made me both happier and better behaved.

especially around Christmas. But that's not a reason to go on believing in Father Christmas, Santa Claus. And it's not a good reason to go on believing in God if he doesn't exist. But it's exciting to see people taking another look at it. And it's really exciting to see really kind of intellectually serious people, I think, like Dr. Ed Fazer, who you've had on the show, Bishop Robert Barron, who you've had on the show, and others kind of help people engage with the metaphysical arguments of God's existence to show them this isn't silly.

Yeah. So on that last point, it's a really interesting one. You know, the idea that you wouldn't believe in it if you didn't believe that it were true, even if you felt that it was societally good or societally useful. So one of the ways that I've seen Jordan talk about truth is in terms of pragmatic truth. Like, what does truth mean? Are we talking about a truth like two plus two equals four? Are we talking about a truth like murder is wrong, which are not quite the

The same thing. So, you know, when it comes to the pragmatic truth of religion, it is easier to prove the efficacy of religion than it is to prove the factual truth of Revelation on Sinai or Jesus rising from the dead. This was my experience. I was 17 years old. I was agnostic and angsty and went on this trip to Rome in Italy. And the thing that began to open my mind to the possibility of Catholicism being true wasn't their arguments at first. It was their joy.

They weren't cynical. They were happy. They were kind. They were normal. They were good looking. And I'd be like, why do you believe this? I'd never met people like that. I thought they were like unicorns. And then they started kind of giving me reasons. But if I hadn't have seen that joy and that optimism and that energy, maybe I would have been less open to the arguments. To get back to your original question as to how do we convince people about morality,

I don't know, I think showing them the consequences of their actions is sometimes the kind of camel nose under the tent, as it were. So when I would travel and speak on pornography, I wouldn't launch into a moral argument.

I would say here are over 50 studies that show porn leads to sexual dysfunction. And here are 58 studies that show that porn supports the addiction model. And, you know, things like this, like here's how it leads to erectile dysfunction, which isn't a boon within marriage or something. How it leads to premature ejaculation. Doesn't that sound manly? So I kind of make fun of it. I like making fun of porn.

not the people who are struggling, but the thing. Like it's clearly a shameful act and sort of kind of pointed it. Isn't that gross? Like wouldn't you, you know, when I die and someone gets up and says a few things about me, I wouldn't be proud if they were like, he was really into, just loved it. And he was passionate about it. And that's great. Good on him. You know, no one wants to be remembered like that. So I, you know, when it comes to specific moral issues, maybe beginning by pointing to the negative consequences that surround the act,

and then bringing them into more of the heart of the matter. Like you shouldn't treat people as things who aren't things. Which is not all that convincing at the beginning if you're really into porn, but at the end it might be.

We'll get to more on this in just one moment. First, it's been two years since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Unfortunately, the number of abortions has actually increased since then due to the fact the abortion pill is now more readily available than ever. New estimates show the abortion pill accounted for over 60% of abortions in 2023. The issue of abortion should be on the mind of every American. The fact we're still debating the humanity of unborn children in 2024 is not just astounding, it's a damning indictment of our cultural decay. That is why The Daily Wire has partnered with Preborn to bring our documentary,

choosing life to you for free. Choosing life serves as a powerful antidote to the left's poisonous lies about abortion. And thanks to pre-born, the series is now available to all free of charge over at dailywire.com. Please join me in showing your appreciation by supporting pre-borns cause. Pre-born is the largest pro-life organization in the country. They provide free ultrasounds to moms dealing with unplanned pregnancies to introduce them to the precious life growing inside them. One ultrasound costs only $28. It could be the difference, but

So one of the sort of fascinating struggles, I think, inside religion is the struggle that a lot of teenagers feel between what they think are rules and freedom. And our society has elevated freedom above rules, and in fact, rules are now seen as impositions on the self.

What your parents want of you is an imposition on you. What your institutions demand of you is an imposition on you. You're supposed to be a freewheeling individual who's free of all of these things, and freedom is the central goal. And I think that one of the things that I've been arguing for a long time is that

freedom, and it's a place where I have some disagreements actually with some people who I'm very close friends with at the Daily Wire, and I've found some commonality with the aforementioned Michael Mills, who's excreble in every other fashion, but he agrees with me on this. And that is that freedom is of instrumental rather than inherent value. There's a John Finnis argument that effectively speaking, the idea that freedom is the highest value, or that liberty sort of, liberty ennobles

any enterprise as opposed to virtue, which does ennoble any enterprise, right? That is not true. There's an argument Joseph Raz makes, the philosopher, that effectively, if you are told that there's a gun to your head and you have to kill the guy next to you and you do that, are you more or less morally blameworthy than if you say, listen, I chose to kill the guy next to me, right? Liberty has not ennobled the project.

in any sort of way. Liberty has actually made it significantly worse because now you bear moral culpability for it. So in other words, the exercise of liberty was originally meant to exist within boundaries. And that's the whole sort of role of religion. It's meant for choice when there is moral...

Apathy is the wrong word, but there's no moral demand that is placed upon you to act in a particular way. And society, by championing liberty and rights above the roles that they were meant to exist within, has destroyed a lot that surrounds it. And I think that that's what you're seeing a lot in Western society, is the idea of the individual, the freewheeling individual standing up against institutions. That has led to the destruction of many of these institutions. Right.

Right. I agree. Freedom exists for the sake of love. And we can be free from things, but we are also free for things. As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen joked, you don't go up to a cab driver and say, are you free? And when he says yes, you say, hooray for freedom. Freedom exists for something. And so it seems to me that in America and other countries, when you talk about freedom today, we often mean freedom from constraints. But we should be free for things as well.

You know, like the man who can't say no to his next beer, is he free? No, he's kind of enslaved by his passions. The man who cannot say no to look at pornography, is he free? And so on and so forth. Yeah.

And this is a case that I've made that it's a huge mistake people make in quoting Exodus. When they say, when Moses says, let my people go, there's an end to that verse, right? So that they may serve me in the wilderness. And everybody always forgets the second half of the verse, right? You need the second half of the verse in order to make sense of the first. The basic idea of just innate human freedom is the highest value is not a biblical concept. It

It really is not because you're supposed to be subject to the mission that God has placed in front of you. One of the theories that I've been developing over time is something that I'm sure it's not original to me, but I've termed for purposes of discussion role theory. And that is that what religion really is, what the Bible really is attempting to do on sort of a practical level is it sets up –

and enshrines rules for human beings. And there are a wide variety of these roles, as opposed to sort of virtue ethics, which is about cultivating virtue within yourself and is sort of hard to define because virtue can be interpreted in so many different ways, or deontological ethics, the idea of a rule-based ethical morality, which, again, Judaism sometimes falls into, this idea that there are rules for everything. But

The suggestion that I make is that what those rules are really designed to do in Judaism or the way that religion is generally designed is in order to preserve certain important roles that you're meant to fulfill. The roles that basically are spelled out to Adam. You're supposed to cultivate the garden. You're supposed to be a husband. You're supposed to be a father. You're supposed to be somebody who is a creative force able to name the animals. These are all roles, and then liberty exists within those roles. But as soon as liberty begins to destroy those roles—

then liberty has become libertinism and is effectively destructive. Yeah, whoever sins is a slave to sin. And the Lord is calling me to love my wife and to love my children and to put them above other things, above other pursuits. And all my other pursuits should be ordered towards those ends.

But if I begin to engage in pornography or adultery or binge drinking, then my freedom to do that very thing that God is calling me to is now impeded and everyone suffers as a result and I become less happy. - So on a broader level, what do you think are the biggest dangers to religion today? Because it seems like there's sort of bizarre optimism that has emerged between the two of us about the failures of secularism leading to a reversion back to more traditional religion.

But that's not what the numbers are showing in, say, Europe or the United States. What they're showing is decline in church attendance in Europe and the United States, which is devastating, I think, on a general level. I mean, I've been calling for people to go back to church as a Jew. If you're a Christian, go to church. You should. It's better for you. It's better for your kids. We need more Christians in American society, and we need them in European society. What do you think is the greatest danger to religion today? Okay.

i can only well i can't only but i will only speak about catholicism it feels like to me sometimes that the church is being or the house is being burnt down from two sides on one side i would say it's the fire of modernism and this might be the most dangerous thing namely trying to make the church like the world where we just kind of run after the world and bend down before the world and

But on the other side, it's a sort of set of accountism where we kind of reject the authority of the Pope of Rome and sort of set up ourselves as the arbitrator as to what is true and what isn't and who we should listen to and who we shouldn't. And those are two very kind of polar opposite things. I think they're reactions to both maybe. And so we see the abuses within the church,

We see certain sins not being condemned as forcefully and loudly as they should be. We see perhaps liturgies that are celebrated with a lack of care and reverence. And so because that seems like such a threat, we rush to the other side and where we do have good priests preaching against the evils of abortion and things like this. But then maybe there are other errors involved here that we haven't begun to look at.

Do you have something like that in your community? Oh, for sure. So I think that typically speaking, since the Enlightenment, the big danger to Judaism has been the rise of modernism, the rise of individualism. The one thing that Jews held in common during the

1700 years or so when Jews were effectively forced into ghettos, is that they were in the ghetto. So the idea was that they were forced together. Judaism was defined by keeping the law. And then the gates were opened. And then it was like, okay, well, you can now become a citizen of general society. And that forced a sort of crisis in Judaism that was approached from three different angles. One was a full sort of assimilationist ideology. My Jewishness should disappear. That would be good. And I should just become a citizen like any other. And then there was a sort of

a sort of halfway position, which was the best of the modern world can be taken in by Judaism and engulfed in Judaism, and Judaism can essentially

out through the modern world, taking the best parts of it and rejecting the worst parts. And then there's a full-scale rejectionism by parts of the Jewish community. And that was, okay, well, when you open the gates, you also let in a bunch of bad influences. And so you see that breakdown in, I would say, the modern world in terms of sort of reform Judaism in the United States or Reconstructionist Judaism. That would be sort of the first more accommodationist, assimilationist view. The sort of modern Orthodox, which I consider myself, which is the sort of merger of a

not secular values, but secular technologies with Jewish values and living in the modern world, having a job, accommodating yourself to democracy, these sorts of things. And then you have wings of the Jewish community that would probably be termed ultra-Orthodox by the media, where the goal is to just shut off all influences whatsoever because you're so afraid that those influences are going to draw your kid out into the open where they're going to be attacked. And you can see, you know,

the truth and particularly the sort of rejectionist viewpoint that the danger is so great that you just can't allow yourself any sort of interface with the problem is, of course, that that removes the biblical commandment to be a light unto the nations. Because once you've stopped engaging with the world, in my viewpoint, from a Jewish viewpoint, then what is the mission at that point other than to sort of just hold steady? And I think that that has tended to happen in

I feel like that's mirrored in some aspects of Catholicism also, that a vibrant and functioning religious community has to have both an internal vision as to how you preserve your community and an external vision as to how you wish to transform the world and spread the light that you're supposed to bring to the world. And the more missional your religion is, the more it's likely to give your kids a sense of mission and lead to a sense of growth as opposed to decline.

And I think that you can kind of tell it by its fruit. So one of the things about the state of Israel right now is that the state of Israel is the only Western society that has above replacement rates of birth, which is kind of an astonishing thing. You go to Tel Aviv, which is a secular center of Israel, and because there's sort of a national mission in Israel,

People in Tel Aviv average over three, the fertility rates over three per woman. This is like a place that is secular as San Francisco, but they're culturally oriented toward the Jewish state, to take an example. Without a common mission within Catholicism and a muscular mission within Catholicism, I think that it tends to wither on the vine as well.

Yeah, 100%. Yeah, I think there is a reaction to a sort of pansy Catholicism or a reaction to Catholics who apologize for the hard stances the church has taken against so-called homosexual marriage, which is a fiction, or contraception, or sexism.

what have you, we've seen a lot of leadership and then ourselves, we always like to point to leadership, we fail to point at ourselves, have maybe been too soft, too weak in proclaiming what Catholicism should be proclaiming.

And so you see a reaction to that, and part of that reaction is fantastic, and then some of it might lack charity. I think there's also like a contingent within Catholicism that wants to go back to what they see as the glory days during the Crusades or something. But the way I see it, it feels like...

I don't know, Christendom is kind of back to the first couple of centuries. And so our goal shouldn't be to go back to the 13th century, but to go back to how the early Christians lived in communities with each other, loving one another. You know, the Romans said, who are these people? They knew them by how they loved each other. And so...

it was stephen covey in his uh in one of his books that talked about the sphere of influence uh sphere of control sort of power you know and i don't know i think more and more i want to be concerned about the things i have authority over and i want to be less concerned about the things i can do nothing about because when i spend my days listening to the terrifying news that's taking place either in the country or sometimes within the church

I'm not actually dedicating my time and energy to the thing that God has given me authority over, namely my wife and my children and my apostolate, my mission. But what I find is when I actually dedicate my time there and sort of block out the noise that shouldn't concern me because I can do nothing about it anyway, I find that my sphere of influence actually begins to grow. So I think a cause of anxiety among many people today is just this onslaught

of bad things that are taking place. And it's kind of addictive. I wonder how you do this every day when you wake up and stick your head in the toilet bowl and go, what's in here? How do you stay sane? For me, the key is limiting the exposure. So I don't have Twitter on my phone, for example. And that's a deliberate decision not to have Twitter on my phone. So I engage with that particular hours of the day and then I just don't engage with it.

a lot of other times of the day. And when I'm not engaged with it, I'm engaged with my family full time. I'm engaged with my community full time. And is the Sabbath just awesome? The Sabbath is the greatest thing that God ever invented. It is the best thing. And, you know, the death of the Sabbath is the worst thing that I think has happened to Western civilization. Christians need to adopt this. I would like to see something like, maybe not exactly like this, but

I think all people would benefit mentally just from totally detaching and unplugging. 100%. What do you do with your lights on like Friday evening? So we have presets. So you can get electronic presets these days. It makes it very convenient. So you can set the lights that they go off at a certain hour and on a certain hour. Or you just leave them on before Sabbath and you figure out, okay, like, I

I don't want the light on my bedroom, but I do want it on in the kitchen. Is your fridge still running? So they have a Sabbath mode on the fridge. Come on. So it actually keeps the fridge running, but the light is off inside. Sabbath mode. Yeah, exactly. Amazing. So depending on the kind of fridge you have, virtually all of them now have a Sabbath mode where it can turn off the light. So modern technology has made Sabbath like super easy in certain ways because you can actually preset all this stuff. There was a big controversy in Jewish circles over how to treat electricity. Okay.

in the early days when electricity became very common. And so there was some talk about like, is this capable of use on Sabbath or not? So the way that the Jews try to embody sort of broader ideas about the Sabbath is obviously with law. So for example, the way that we define the Sabbath is we say there are 39 different malachot, right, actions that are rules about how you can act on Sabbath. We define those by things that were done in the tabernacle during the normal week, but you couldn't do them on the Sabbath.

So we learn from that, from the Bible, that you weren't allowed to, for example, build. You weren't allowed to kindle a fire on Sabbath. So then you extend those principles out into a variety of sort of other laws. So the question was, how do you treat electricity? Is electricity a thing that is banned by these rules or not? And it was a big controversy at the time, the early 20th century particularly. And the kind of solution that Judaism came up with, because it tends to be a religion that –

treasures the old as opposed to the new was we are going to, we'll come up with some kind of what I think are jerry-rigged excuses for why electricity is not to be used on the Sabbath. So they suggest that it's akin to fire, for example, or that when you complete a circuit, that's a form of building. What's funny about this, I think, is that

I was thinking about this a lot in the context of just generalized religious doctrine. So one of the big criticisms, obviously inside religion is too doctrinal, right? You get this in Catholicism too. So much doctrine. So why do you have so much doctrine? Why can't we just cut through the thicket? And the answer is because in the absence of doctrine, you end up actually destroying the principle.

And so I was thinking about this in the context of euthanasia, for example. So Catholicism has, you tell me I'm wrong. You shouldn't kill innocent people. Right. You shouldn't kill innocent people. But there is also the doctrine of double effect, meaning if you have like an older person, you...

You don't have to take abnormal measures in order to save that person's life. And also, if you're attempting to alleviate pain by giving morphine and the person dies because you're taxing them. And you might even foresee that, but you didn't intend it. Exactly. So if you are a secular person, you're like, well, what difference does that make? What you first saw or what you didn't foresee? You're just killing a person with morphine. What difference does that make? But it's the doctrine that protects against the abuse. Meaning that because Catholicism says, no, you're attempting to alleviate pain. You're not attempting to kill. That prevents you from just saying, okay, kill the old guy. Right.

Right. And so I think that Judaism, you look at things like I was just talking about with regards to turning lights on and off on Sabbath. It's like, oh my God, that's illegalistic. Why don't you just ask the guy to turn it on or turn on yourself? Like, what's the problem? But the whole point is that once you say it is okay to turn on the light, then it becomes okay to turn on the light. And once it's okay to turn on the light, it's okay to turn on your phone. Once it's okay to turn on your phone, then it's okay to do a wide variety of activities that you don't actually want people doing outside.

on Sabbath. And so there's, there, there are a bunch of catch-all terms in, in Judaism. Like they'll say something is not Shabbos stick. Okay. Shabbos stick just means in Yiddish that it's not something that you should do on Shabbos. It's not recommended. There's a lot of not recommended. What would be an example of something you shouldn't do? Okay. So for example, I could theoretically leave on my TV.

All of Shabbos. Right, I turn on, just like a light. I could leave it on on Friday night before Shabbos comes in. I could leave it on. I could watch the ball game on Saturday. That would be considered not Shabbos stick, right? Like it's not in keeping with the spirit of Shabbos. How do you cook? This has now become me interviewing you. Yeah, yeah. I'm going to keep going. It's interesting. I never get these questions. How do you cook food? Okay, so the answer is that you're not allowed to cook.

On Saturday. You're allowed to reheat things, but if, for example, so I'm not allowed to cook, it comes down to liquid versus solid. It gets very abstruse. So, for example, I'm allowed to leave something cooking from before Shabbat. This is why you see people eat cholent, right?

Right. Cholent is like a stew. OK, so it's a very common in the Jewish community. Cholent. And so you'll leave it on cooking like all night. And because you didn't start the cooking process on Shabbat, you just left it there. But if you take the Cholent off, you're not allowed to put it back on the flame. Right. Because then now you've now you've started a new cooking process. Cholent actually started to become a thing because of the fight between Karaites and Pharisees and Pharisees, because Karaite said, well, it says you shouldn't kindle a flame.

And so if you're kindling a flame, that means you really shouldn't use the flame. And so the Pharisees were like, well, no, it says that you're not supposed to kindle a new flame. And so it became a cultural differentiator to actually start cooking something before Shabbat and leave it cooking over Shabbat to say, I'm a Pharisee. I'm not a Karaite, for example. Fascinating. Yeah, it's really interesting. So the

you're allowed to reheat solid food. So if I have like a, if I have, you know, chicken or something, yeah, like chicken, as long as there's not too much sauce, right? Because if the sauce turns it into a soup, it gets very, very detailed. No, but you're right. It's like with children, you know, we all understand, give them an inch, they'll take a mile. Well, we're like that as well. And so when you start to shut down these rules, the whole thing. And this is one of the things that I think is so fascinating about Catholicism. I've talked about this with Bishop Barron, is that

So Catholicism, Christianity started off as a rip on Phariseeism, obviously, from a philosophical level, right? Our top guy was doing that, yeah. God bless the Lord. And again, that's actually nothing new in Jewish history in the sense that Jeremiah does the same thing. If you read the prophets, the prophets are constantly saying things like, does God need your sacrifices? He needs you to be kind to the poor. He needs you to give charity. He needs you to think about virtue. Does he really need roast meat? That's actually, Jesus is saying something, that's why

Jesus is Jewish. I mean, he's not saying anything that's actually super foreign to Judaism in the segments where he's criticizing Pharisees. But the attempt of Christianity to sort of get rid of aspects of the law

this is a question I have for Christians, ends up being backfilled by attempts to sort of reinstate the law, meaning Catholicism is rich in doctrine. So if Christianity started off as an attempt to get rid of many of the rules as unnecessary in order to reach the virtue that the rules were attempting to reach, then, you know, how...

Why is it that there is so much doctrine in Catholicism? Can you think of an example within Catholicism? You're like, that's really interesting that you do that. So all the ritual, for example. Yeah, like at mass or divine liturgy, those sorts of things. Right, exactly. That sounds very Judaic, meaning Judaism mandates you're supposed to daven three times a day. There's an actual set service, right? And so three times a day, davening is praying, sorry. Right.

I slip into the Judaic language. But you pray three times a day and you say the same service three times a day and it's very ritualistic and it's very repetitive. And I have very ritualistic prayers that I pray. Every single morning, I have a very specific thing that I do. Every night, I have a very specific prayer that I pray.

And these sort of anchor me throughout the day. Exactly. Exactly. And so I think that what's fascinating is how the divergence, the original divergence, ends up becoming more of a convergence. If you watch how Catholics practice and how Orthodox Jews practice, there is a lot of similarity there. Yeah, I don't know if it was that we kept the moral law, not the Mosaic law, because the understanding was now that the Mosaic law wasn't what justified you or saved you or something like that. I have another question for you.

Why don't you want me to be a Jew or do you? I don't care. Why? Because I want you to be Catholic, obviously. Right. And by the way, I appreciate it. This is what I've always said to my Catholic friends, my Protestant friends. As long as you're coming at me with a book and not a sword, that's great. And they're not being annoying and...

Yeah, exactly. Just berating you or something like that. I mean, even if you want to be annoying about it, that's fine. You care enough about my soul that you want me to be saved. I appreciate it. It's much appreciated. And we'll find out in the overtime period who is right and who is wrong. But why don't you? Because we talked about earlier about the only reason you should believe something is because it's true. You presumably believe I believe falsehoods and you believe true things. So why shouldn't you encourage me to abandon some of my beliefs and adopt some of yours? Right. So doctrinally, what Judaism believes is that the commandments of Israel

Israel were only given to Israel. Okay. Meaning that the seven Noahide commandments that I referred to earlier, those are incumbent on all of humanity because they're given to Noah, right? Before the Jews actually arise as an independent family and people. And so those apply to everyone. So if you're not a member of the Judaic tribe, then those rules don't apply to you. So the 613 commandments that apply to me are boiled down to seven for you. And so what that means is that if you want to join in to do those commandments, like that's not required of you. Like sure, you

welcome if you want, but certainly Judaism doesn't feel the necessity to force... To evangelize and to bring people into death. Being chosen doesn't mean being superior.

I think this is one of the great misnomers of sort of history, is that when the Jews say that they're a chosen people, what they mean is that they're better than everyone else. It's like, no, in the same way that if I choose my oldest child to take out the trash, that doesn't mean that my oldest child is better. It means I need my oldest child to take out the trash. That's not the same thing. And so the sort of idea that Jews are, in their own minds, superior to everybody else because it is incumbent on them to do that,

That's obviously not how Jews think, especially because there are a bunch of commandments that are incumbent on men in Judaism that are not incumbent on women in Judaism. Does Judaism then believe that women are of lesser value than men? But apart from little laws, there must be metaphysical things that you hold as true that you would like me to believe. Or at least you would like me, I don't mean to be confrontational, but you clearly would

Christians to realize that Christ was not the Messiah. Maybe you don't want that, or maybe it doesn't bother you, you don't care one way or the other. - Right, so the way-- - But like when I look at Mormons, I'm like, look, I love you, and this isn't a criticism on you directly, but Joseph Smith was not a prophet.

My Muslim friend, I love you, but like Muhammad was a liar or a lunatic. Maybe he was possessed, but he wasn't a prophet. I have to say that in love. And so I would wonder. And maybe it's just that you have a public platform and so you don't want to get into that to offend people unnecessarily. It really isn't that. I mean, the Jewish doctrine is that as long as you believe in God, as long as the actual seven principles,

the actual seven commandments to non-Jews are believe in God, no eating the flesh of living animals, actually one of them. You have to establish courts of law, no murder, no sexual sins, no idolatry, and I believe no stealing. It's like seven of the ten, of the big ten, right? We don't actually believe that non-Jews are even bound by the Ten Commandments.

They're bound by the seven commandments in Judaism. So it boils even further down. So how you believe in God is of little consequence to me so long as you do believe in the monotheistic God. What if I believe in a God that lives on top of a mountain and whose name is Jeffrey? And I say, that's God. If he doesn't fulfill the fundamental properties of God, then that doesn't count. Which would be what? So the fundamental properties of God would be that he's in charge of the universe, creator of the universe, master of the divine law, God.

Yeah. All-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving would probably be in that category. There's debate in sort of Jewish circles as to whether you have to believe that God gave the commandments at Sinai, whether that's a debate between a couple of major rabbis, Maimonides included, as to whether if you discover those seven laws on your own, but you don't believe that they were given at Sinai, does that count? Mm-hmm.

So there is some doctrinal debate there. But in general, the basic idea that there is only one path to God in the same way that there is in Christianity, that doesn't exist in the same way. What about like a Mormon who believed that God was once a man like we are? I'm not saying you've given much thought about this, but would that be a place where you'd be like, no, I need to evangelize you? Or not that word, but I need you to come to believe in God differently than you currently do. So the answer to me is I'm going to go with the I don't know answer.

Like pretty much everything else in Judaism, there's like major debates on all of these things. There's a debate for a long time in Judaism over whether, say, Trinitarianism is monotheism or if it's not monotheism. Right? Like that was a serious debate in Judaism. It's come down on the side of it's monotheism. Okay. So I wouldn't know the answer as far as, you know, Mormon doctrine specifically. Let's put it this way. If you're talking about like paganism...

Judaism would have a problem with paganism. So let's say that you believed that there were a hundred gods and they all ruled over different aspects of humanity. Then Judaism would say that does not fulfill the seven. And if you were in dialogue with somebody like this, would you feel obligated to try to help them to help divest them of that error so that they could be saved? Sure.

I mean, yeah. So then I would feel obligated to actually, in the same way that if somebody believed that adultery was morally acceptable, I would feel the obligation to say, well, no, actually, adultery is not morally acceptable, and it's better for you to not believe that. So Judaism is very weird that way. And historically speaking, it's kind of interesting to see whether that is an outgrowth of

the direction of Jewish history or that was inherent to the religion? Right? Because, obviously, when Joshua comes into the land, mass conversion takes place, right? When, when, and,

in the pre-Christian era, Judaism was one of the fastest growing religions in the Roman Empire. A huge percentage of Alexandria was Jewish. There were huge Jewish communities in Egypt. And so it was an actual more proselytizing religion. And so one of the questions of Jewish history is sort of... How did that change? Was the Jewish move away from proselytization historically driven or ideologically driven? Or is it a sort of ideological justification of how history had gone? Mm-hmm.

In the same way that, for example, if you look at the historicity of matrilineal lineage in Judaism, if you read the Bible, it seems pretty clear that lineage is through the father. But in Judaism, lineage is through the mom. So the question is when that sort of shifted. And historically speaking, that's probably around the time of Ezra. It's like 400 B.C. or something like that. But there are all these sort of weird issues in sort of biblical adherence as to when things shift and how the history of that goes.

Well, thank you. One day I'm going to have to have you on my show and just ask you questions for a couple of hours. Again, you should. I know what I know. There are rabbis who know way more than I do, who I would definitely recommend that you talk to. And so you can get sort of the basics from me, and then I'll tell you that I don't know a lot of things on that show. But yeah, I think that the one thing that comes through, just to kind of sum up in terms of where we are religiously, and this is the case that I've been consistently making, is that when we

When we talk about the West and Western civilization, that a muscular pursuit of religious values, and in the West you're talking Christian values, is absolutely necessary to the upholding of the West. That all the fundamental premises of the West are built on these Christian values. The reason people say Judeo-Christian is just because many of those values are held in common with Judaism, and obviously Christianity and the New Testament are based on the Old Testament originally. But the eternal values of Christianity

of Judeo-Christianity, of biblical living. Those haven't changed with time and they can't change with time and they shouldn't change with time. What do you think is the best way to insulate those values from the predations that we've been talking about? Against, say, the family? Yes, I mean, the attacks on the family would be an excellent. Yeah, I think withhold, I think

I'm being hyperbolic. Okay. So if people stretch this too far, they'll misunderstand me. But get married before you're ready. Have more kids than you can afford and then move into a bubble of other like minded people and raise them in the faith.

Now, of course I could qualify all of those things. Obviously you should discern. Obviously you shouldn't have more children than you can afford or if it's dangerous to the wife or something like that. And by bubble I don't mean solipsistic living where it's insular and we don't engage with the outside world. But there's a sense in which all of those things are right. People talk about communities today as bubbles disparagingly, but that's how humans have lived forever.

this new way of living where we live on a street next to people we don't know this is unusual so i live in a little town in ohio it's not a very pretty town but there's a lot of fantastic people who live there and we kind of have the same values and so my 15 year old daughter doesn't have a cell phone and it's never really occurred to her to ask for one because we hang out with other homeschooling families who also of course would

wouldn't give their child a smartphone. Living life in kind of common like that where my children don't have to feel like freaks because they don't have Instagram is really helpful. You know, like if I was to send my child to a school, be it Catholic or public,

and he didn't have a phone or she didn't have a phone, they would be a sort of, they'd feel like a social lapper by the time they were nine or 10. So I'm a big fan of homeschooling. I don't think it's the only way, but it's the way we've chosen. But then I also think you clearly want to have your children engage with the world. And so we speak really openly with our children from very young about, like I teach my kids about pornography from the age of six.

I say something simple like pornography is pictures or videos of people showing parts of their body that they're bathing suit should cover and you should always tell me if you see it. Very unscandalous, you know, so educating them in that way and I don't know. And then just having other attractive, by attractive I mean just good normal people

in their life. So it's not just my head saying these things. It's the next door neighbor. It's the friends. Does that make sense? Not only does that make sense, I live very much the same way. I think that the loss of community is the single greatest factor in the decline of religion. The supplantation of community by

in terms of even things like financial support, like one of the things the church used to provide, and it still does where I live. If there's somebody out of a job in my community, we all try to find that person a job. And if that person falls on hard time... I love how Jews do that. I wish Catholics were more tribal like that. That's awesome. Yeah, but I think that's true for church. I mean, Mormons do it too. I don't think it's unique to Judaism, in other words. But yes, we definitely do that. Mormons are great like that too. Yeah, I mean, I think that if somebody in our neighborhood is having a hard time, people immediately step up

and, you know, will move to pay their bills and try to help them out. And that sort of economic interdependence actually creates a thriving society. And that's how things used to be. I mean, it also means that rich people hang out with poor people, right? Class divisions go away when you're all attending the same synagogue or the same church, and you're all pointed in the same... You're praying in the same direction. You're not praying to the richest guy. You're praying toward the front of the church. Those...

bonds cannot be duplicated. You can't remake them in their sad social fashion. It's bizarre. You had the Surgeon General of the United States say that loneliness is a public health issue. And I just thought to myself, yeah, but the government can't solve that public health issue. The only way to solve that public health issue is you need to go to synagogue or church. That's the only way to solve that issue because there's nothing quite like being engrossed in a community. And that does set social standards.

I mentioned the birth rate in Israel. One of the reasons you have that birth rate is because everyone around you has four kids. - That's great. - I mean, like in our community, like four is a bare minimum. Like when we had our fourth kid, it was like, okay, welcome to the club now. Where are the other four? You know, like that sort of generalized social expectation and a recognition that that requires community support. Meaning if you're at the playground, a kid is acting badly,

In American society, if someone says something to your kid at the playground, then you are supposed to get mad at that. How dare you parent my child? That's terrible that you're parenting my child. Well, in a traditional religious community, if somebody parents my child, the answer is good. They should be parenting it. Like, if I'm not watching and my kid does something bad, I want somebody to discipline my kid because we all hold the same standard. And that's why we have to hold the same standard when we live in these sorts of communities. It would probably be unchristian to suggest that we come up with a bumper sticker that just says, outbreed the bastards. Would that be wrong? I don't know, but...

So that's cool. So Judaism, you guys have a lot of kids. Mormons have a lot of kids. Outbreed is... Catholics try. Yeah. I mean, that's going to be... That is going to be... The future of humanity is going to be, unfortunately, because... We just need to breed, but then not have them indoctrinated into atheism and modernism. So I was at the store the other day. My wife came out and she went, there was a family in there and they had a lot of kids. And I went, were they neat or disheveled? Neat. Ah, Mormons. Yeah.

If they look terrible and stained, those were good Catholics. Well, Matt, it's been amazing to have you here. I really appreciate it. Everybody should go check out your work because it really is fantastic. Again, thank you for the time. Thanks. The Ben Shapiro Sunday Special is produced by Savannah Morris and Matt Kemp. Associate producers are Jake Pollack and John Crick. Editing is by Olivia Stewart.

Thank you.