#807 - Alex O'Connor - Why Is Cultural Christianity On The Rise?
02:16:28 Share

Hello friends, welcome back to the show. My guest today is Alex O'Connor. He's a YouTuber, writer, and a podcaster. Christianity is nothing new, but it's seeing a resurgence in popularity among some unexpected groups, public intellectuals and

and Gen Z. What is going on that only shortly after it was cool to be an atheist, it's now cool to go to church on a Sunday again? Expect to learn whether we are actually seeing a Christian revival, if the new wave of Christianity is just right-wing conservatism in disguise, whether you can choose

to believe in God, if new atheism was a failure, why there is not a current Muslim revival, what happened to the gospels that were missing from the original Bible, whether there's two gods in the Old Testament, and much more.

I have to say, religion, I'm aware, more than half of the planet is religious. So if you're someone who isn't and you kind of forget that that's maybe the most important thing in tons of people's lives around the world, that's kind of me. And I'm actually getting really interested in having these conversations. I think that it kind of...

helps to fill in some of the gaps that we've been talking about with this meaning crisis and people struggling and depression and community and all the rest of it. And there are lots of existing solutions that have maybe been forgotten about or criticized kind of out of existence for a lot of people that see themselves as rational. And now there's this movement coming back around where you're sort of taking it as

Christianity is a productivity strategy or it's like a lifestyle. Very interesting. And Alex is the man to talk to about this. And the stories about the Old Testament and stuff are, to me, fascinating. History of the Bible is so interesting. It's just, it's story time, but it's real. It's real history story time. It's so great. I really, really hope that you enjoy this one. But now, ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Alex O'Connor.

three two one what it's really funny the way he's like you're the only person it's not like someone else doing it's not someone else going three two one right right it's like you just you're sort of like right you said like deep into the soul three two

Alex O'Connor.

straight in with the question, you know, none of this, none of this gallivanting around. How are you? How's your day been? Tell us about yourself. You've been in Austin for a week. I don't need to know how you are. Yeah. I mean, these, these fair people don't know how I am, but they also don't care. So you've struck a sort of perfect balance there. I, I'm writing an article about this at the moment, which should be out by the time this episode's out. Who knows? Not, not I, not this reviewer. Um, I'm opening with this quote from the gospel of Thomas, the apocryphal gospel of Thomas. One of those, um,

ancient gospels that didn't make it into the New Testament and yet is filled with these wonderful and bizarre stories about Jesus. At one point in this apocryphal gospel, he condemns some of his followers. He says, you've become like the Jews who either love the tree and hate the fruit or love the fruit and hate the tree.

There's some similar imagery in the canonical gospels of "by their fruits you shall know them." A good tree doesn't produce bad fruits. But interestingly here, people get this criticism all the time, like you claim to be a Christian but you don't really act in accordance with it. You're like nominally a Christian but you're not displaying the sort of radical compassion of Jesus or something like that. It's a very common criticism that you're not acting in accordance with your beliefs.

But we've been seeing this strange reverse phenomenon emerging where you've got people who like the fruits but don't even believe in the existence of the tree. So usually the criticism is like, look, you love the tree, but you're not producing the right fruits. But in this case...

You've got an emerging class of thinkers who are unwilling to say that they believe in the actual truth of Christianity and yet are at least Christian adjacent or sympathetic to Christianity or kind of a bit depressed about the fact that everyone isn't Christian anymore. This is your reality.

Douglas Murray's, Constantine Kissin's, Jordan Peterson to some degree. Andrew Huberman? I suppose, but then he does say he actually believes in God, right? Okay. So maybe he likes the tree, but the fruit is... Yeah, I mean, I don't know if he... I mean, I don't listen to much Huberman, but maybe his fruit is...

is fine, is very Christian. I don't really know. But in the case of these thinkers, the reason they're interesting is because people talk about them all the time in this Christian revival phenomenon. I've got a friend, Justin Briarley, who just wrote a book called The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again, or something like that. It's very hopeful, but I think a bit too optimistic because the case studies it points to are the people that I've just mentioned, people like this,

Tom Holland, the historian who, well, as I write in this article, Tom Holland, not the actor, but in a sense an actor, because he sort of likes to pretend that Christianity is true, even though it's not. The interesting thing about these guys is that they won't say that it's true. They're unwilling to say that it's true, and they call themselves cultural Christians. Richard Dawkins, arch archetypal atheist,

also, I mean, recently called himself a cultural Christian. He's been doing it for years, but it got a lot of attention recently when it did it on LBC. And it's kind of interesting, you know, so you're going to spend your entire career just lambasting this religious tradition and undercutting the truth value of it and then getting depressed when the cathedrals are empty and being turned into mosques, which is what's happening in England. Like,

You may have sort of shot yourself in the foot a little bit there, but there's nothing inconsistent, strictly speaking, with saying that you like going to Evensong, but you don't think any of it's true. So what we're seeing is an emergence of people who are more sympathetic to the Christian ideal, or what they perceive as the Christian ideal, which is a whole other can of worms.

but without actually believing in the truth of it. Most believing Christians will say, "If you do not believe historically that a man called Jesus died on a cross and rose from the dead, then your faith is futile and you're still in your sins," as St. Paul put it to the Corinthians famously.

So these people sort of can't be counted among a Christian revival, but I think Christians have a lot to celebrate that at least now the culture is shifting from a sort of new atheism, Christianity is evil and terrible and wrong, to, yeah, it might be wrong, we'll sort of brush that bit under the carpet, but try to display the virtuous ethics of Christianity. Although in my case, they're not actually wrong.

advocating for a Christian ethic, they're advocating for a sort of right-wing traditional conservatism, which is not the same thing. Just to tie a bow on your previous analogy, when you talk about tree and when you talk about fruit, what are you referring to? The tree is the belief in God.

the Christian religion, as it were, and the fruit is the fruit of that belief. If you're to be a good Christian, you believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Because of that, you believe in a radical philosophy of forgiveness and compassion and charity and asceticism. You live that life out to the best that you can in the knowledge that there will be inevitable failure that you can then apologize for. A lot of people will say, "I'm a Christian," but they do none of that.

They don't go to church, they don't pray, they don't act like a Christian, they don't show any charity or compassion to their brother or sister. So what do they do? Or whatever else. Well, they could be selfish. And of course, everybody is selfish to some degree, but a Christian likes to regularly remind themselves of that and apologize for it and repent of it and make efforts to try to avoid it. But a lot of people, you know, like if someone barges past me on the street,

then I will always just think it is possible that person, their wife's going into labor,

And, and yeah, it's like they say, don't attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity. Like also what can be attributed to somebody having some kind of excuse or, or justification, um, something that you would understand. It's like, have I not ever barged past someone? Called the fundamental attribution error. Sure. Yeah. That is, this is why I love you because you always have a, have a, have a label to, to perfectly stick on all of these concepts. It's wonderful. Um, yeah, I mean, I, I, if I, if I,

experience that and think to myself, well, I'm going to be charitable here because, you know, but for the grace of God, there go I. I think, well, that's a very Christian sentiment, Alex, you know? And if you met someone who's a Christian and you said, what do you like about Christianity? And they said, oh, I just love this figure of Jesus who would just go around forgiving people. And even when people deserve punishment, let him who is without sin cast the first stone. That's the most

It's just the most based part of the entire Gospels. That's just unbelievable. Unfortunately, it's not in the earliest manuscripts of John, so it was probably added on at a later point, and Jesus probably never actually said that. Not that that really matters in my view. But then if somebody said that they liked that, and then somebody accidentally spills a drink over them, and they get up and just deck them

You'd be like, "Well, hold on a second. I thought you were sort of embodying this Christian ethos." And they'll sort of talk the talk but won't walk the walk. And so in that case, I think they love the tree but hate the fruits. That might not be the correct interpretation of Jesus' saying in the Gospel of Thomas there,

But I think it's a worthwhile analogy to sort of abstract and use in the context that I'm putting forward here. Also, it makes a good opener for an article, so I'm going to do it anyway. Why is this happening? What has occurred recently that's caused Christianity, cultural Christianity, this sort of revival of it, utilitarian Christianity, if you want to call it that?

Which I quite like as a term. Yeah, there are a few things for this. Functional, utilitarian, practical Christianity that isn't an affirmative set of

truth claims, but rather a sort of protective cloak to be worn. It's more like stoicism. It's a cultural thing, yeah. The cultural Christian. I mean, think of Richard Dawkins. Loves going to Evensong, likes a cathedral, thinks that God doesn't exist and that the Christian stories are ludicrous fantasies. This is your cultural Christian. Why are they beginning to re-emerge in droves? For a few reasons. First, new atheism.

either creates or describes this vacuum of spiritual ungroundedness. You don't need any of this religion stuff. I know that it's obviously evolved in the human psyche for some reason,

And every single human society we find, doesn't matter where we look, they all have some kind of sense of the numinous, some kind of distinction between the sacred and the profane. What's a numinous? Numinous, you could say the transcendent, something that sits above and beyond, a little bit mystical, a little bit out there. You know when you ask somebody if they're religious and they say, no, I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual. And you're like, what the hell does that mean? And they're like, I just sort of believe in something.

"Well, I believe in this microphone. I believe it exists." They're sort of getting at this ethereal other, this something. And every society, wherever we look, society has developed this feeling. There's clearly something intrinsic to human nature that drives us towards this religious impulse. But the new atheists come along, as the old atheists did before them, but the new atheists did it more fervently in saying, "No, not only is this untrue, not only in the sort of where Sigmund Freud says that your belief in God is

I don't know, the result of some kind of childhood repression, trauma, whatever, okay. But he's still going to think that it's an intrinsic part of the human psyche. The new atheists come along and say, "Well, I also think it's false." But you also don't need it. You don't need this celestial dictator telling you what to do. "Oh, you only do right and wrong because you're scared of upsetting the big man in the sky. Well, that's a terrible source for ethics." And everyone goes, "Yeah, you know, damn right. Yeah." And it's sort of like a rallying cry. It was really

Some of these speeches, especially in the case of Christopher Hitchens, they make you want to stand up and give a round of applause. It's just amazing. Part of it is appealing to this common humanity. 'Are you not good enough yourself to stand up and live a good life?' and all of this kind of stuff. Everyone's like, 'Yeah, absolutely.'

But we've seen the fruits of this as people begin to sort of throw off religion and societies begin to throw off religion. What people have perceived happening is the creation of a spiritual vacuum. And if it is the case that human beings are naturally religious, they have an impulse towards... The most fundamental thing I think we have an impulse towards is the idea of the sacred, the idea of something which is separate and untouchable, that shouldn't be mixed with the profane, that shouldn't be...

That usually has attached to it a set of dogma about rules, what you're allowed to do with it, what you're not. And those rules aren't entirely justified by reason alone. It's considered to be self-evident. Just this separate thing that we treat as totally sacred. So that's your God. And the idea is that if you remove the God, something else has to fulfill that.

place. Something has to fill it in. And so the right-wing conservatives will say that environmentalism, veganism, gender ideology, all of this kind of stuff has become a new religion. And although it's maybe a bit of a lazy phrasing, you know what they mean. You know exactly the kind of thing that they're talking about, right? And

The left will criticize nationalism as filling that role. Populism and populist leaders, people get religious about Donald Trump, which they do. It's amazing to see the power and influence that man has. It's almost spiritual. So to cut a long story short, or to append a long story with a conclusion, I should say,

I think what's happening is a bunch of right-wing thinkers are seeing what is fulfilling the vacuum that new atheism created: wokeism, Islamism, a few other things. There's someone in particular that I should mention, but

and they're saying, "I don't like this." They're realizing that the kind of secular humanism that's promised by the new atheists just kind of isn't cutting the mustard seed, as I like to say. It's not doing it. I recently was in New York and I watched Richard Dawkins and Ayaan Hirsi Ali have a discussion. Ayaan Hirsi Ali was supposed to be at the meeting in Washington DC in 2007 that created the Four Horsemen of New Atheism: Hitchens, Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris.

and it becomes this huge cultural moment. The Four Horsemen, they're still talked about today as a group. She was supposed to be there. She was an incredibly successful new atheist writer, speaker, debater. Earlier this year or last year, she announces in an unheard article that she's a Christian now. Incredible, just absolute headline news in this niche. Yeah. Well, this is the thing. It's sort of like, how predictable was it? Well,

She'd been hanging out with the Jordan Petersons and stuff, and she's got her footing in the right-wing cultural space. It's kind of not surprising if you knew that this Christian revival thing was happening anyway. But her entire article for UnHerd

I mean, it mentioned Vladimir Putin, and it talked about wokeism and China, and it talked about Islamism. It mentioned Richard Dawkins more than it mentioned Jesus. It's the story of why I'm now a Christian, I think the article was called. It had nothing theological, no spiritual experience, no philosophical argument, just I'm not happy with the way that our culture is going. I'm suspicious of

the rise of Wokeism and Islamism in China and Russia, and Christianity is our best defense against that. So a lot of people criticized it and said, "Well, what do you mean you're a Christian?" Richard Dawkins' response to her in his article was to say, "Seriously, I am a Christian? You're no more Christian than I am." Which is really interesting because a lot of people look at Richard Dawkins and say he's basically a Christian, and a lot of people look at Ayaan and say she's basically an atheist. So they're both sort of making the same criticism

in the opposite direction. So they got together in New York and I was there and I watched it. And to everyone's surprise, I think, Ayaan did actually affirm belief in the truth claims of Christianity.

So she's not just fruit, she's tree as well. It seems that that's now the case. But the interesting thing is when Dawkins, because Dawkins was ready to show up to this discussion and say, and tell her why she's not really a Christian. Because of the tree, the lack of the tree. Yeah, you know, I know you like the stories and all of this kind of stuff, but like, you're not really a Christian. And it was actually at the beginning, Ayaan told her story of conversion where she really opened up about depression, suicidality, just utter despair, being not strong enough to commit suicide, but not wanting to stay alive anymore.

And then she tries praying. Some therapist after hundreds that she'd seen tells her that she's got a spiritual poverty and she should try praying and it works. And eventually she gets sort of lifted out and she's got this, the thrill of life is back and everyone's applauding because they're so happy for her. They cheered at that.

And it was almost comic the way that Dawkins listens to the story and goes, well, that's very moving, Ayaan, but do you think that Jesus was born of a virgin? But interestingly, Ayaan basically said, if I'm not mistaking her, she said that she chooses to believe these things. She chooses to believe that Jesus is born of a virgin, that he rose from the dead, which seems kind of weird and a bit obscene. How can you just choose to believe something? And a lot of people will say, well, I can't choose to believe something. You can't choose to believe that Australia doesn't exist. It doesn't work like that.

But interestingly, I began to notice that if somebody becomes convinced that Christianity is true, like through philosophical argumentation, historical argument for the resurrection of Jesus, okay, Christianity must be true. And then you hear all these moral claims that it makes about family values, gender roles, stuff. And you think, well,

I don't know about all of that, but I've just become so convinced that Christianity is true that it must just be that this is the moral way. And I choose to just believe that. No one really bats an eyelid. They might think it's wrong to do that, but they don't think it's illogical. They don't think it's like an illegal chess move, as Peterson would say. Reversing the stack and going in the other direction is something where people go, hang on a second. So Ayaan obviously just deeply resonates with the Christian story, the Christian ethic, the Christian community. She said that when she was going around

criticizing and mocking religion for years and years and years. Islamists would send her death threats. Christians would send her letters saying that they're praying for her, you know, and she thought that was the difference between those two religions. So it was a really interesting story from her. Something's obviously deeply resonated. So she says, well, whatever that is, that's realer than real. That's the most important thing in my life.

And so, yeah, I choose to believe the factual stuff as well. And that seems like a much more, like intuitively, it seems more illegitimate to go that way. But, you know, I think people do it in the other direction all the time. In other news, this episode is brought to you by 8sleep. I have been using my 8sleep mattress for years and I cannot imagine...

living without it. During the summer, I find it difficult to sleep because I'm a warm boy and Eight Sleep is the ultimate fix. I don't need to worry about how low I can crank the air conditioning because my mattress is literally temperature controlled. And now Eight Sleep have launched their newest generation pod,

the Pod 4 Ultra. Pod 4 Ultra can cool each side of the bed individually up to 20 degrees below room temperature, keeping you and your partner cool. And for those who snore heavily, it can detect your snoring and automatically lift your head a few degrees to improve airflow and stop it. Eight Sleep is clinically proven to give you up to one hour more of quality sleep

Is it possible to choose to believe in God?

not like naively, not like, well, try it, try it for yourself. You don't believe in God or do you? Maybe you're an agnostic. I don't know what you, what you, what you think about this stuff, Chris, you're probably sort of what agnostic atheist. Yeah. Agnostic. So just try it out. Like believe in God for a second. Good to go.

I don't know what that would mean. Right, exactly. It's sort of like, how do you even begin to... No, you can't do that. But what you can do is... It's complicated by the fact that I don't believe in free will, but shelving that for a minute. Okay, so assuming that there is some libertarian free will and you can have authorship over your actions and choose when to raise your hand and stuff, you can choose to do things which will knowingly affect your beliefs. It seems a bit disingenuous, and maybe it is, but like,

If you only read Christian literature, only spoke to Christian guests, and did so without going into the conversation with an attitude of, "I'm going to sort of criticize and object, but I'm just going to listen and learn." If you did that for like three years and only hung out with Christians and went to church every day, Christian worship music, you'd probably become a Christian. It probably would happen. You did it with vegans. Yeah, but that's actually another good example is that if everyone you know is a vegan, everyone you know is a vegan,

and you only listen to like vegan speakers and they're always talking about how immoral everybody else is and all this kind of stuff, like you're going to become a vegan. Chances are, you know. So you can choose to surround yourself in a community and with certain literature that will at least sort of

open you up. I suppose. So you can choose to do that. Interestingly, as an atheist like Ayaan was, or Dawkins, even though you are there in opposition, you are actually surrounding yourself a lot of the time with people who talk about religion, who think about religion, who think about the transcendent and God and ideology and dogma and stuff like that. That's right. And so a lot of people criticize me for being soft on Christianity.

I accept the charge. I am. Because I quite like Christianity. You know, I'd call myself one of these cultural Christians if I could make a bit more sense of the concept. Like, I get what they're driving at. They're like, look, I...

I like the message of Christianity. I like its ethos. I like its ethic. I like this figure of Jesus. And I can see societal benefit for people believing in God and religion and having a unifying moral and all this kind of stuff. Like, yeah, sure, that's great. And maybe that is a result of me spending too much time with Christians. It's possible, you know? You lived with some for a while. That's right, yeah. Yeah, I lived with Christians and...

a lot of my closest, smartest friends that I talked to about philosophy and definitely theology with, they're Christians. And it's great. It's incredibly edifying. I have a wonderful time. But I try to spend time with different people from different backgrounds with different ideas all the time.

But yeah, you can choose to sort of adopt your surroundings. And the thing is that is disingenuous in the sense that you're essentially just aesthetically deciding which worldview you want to put on. Sort of irrelevant is the truth claims that it makes. But I totally understand it, especially for someone like I am. If you're someone who, I mean, imagine what it's like to be actually suicidal.

months, for years, to literally have hit rock bottom and have nowhere else to go. And suddenly you discover this thing. You discover this thing which after years and years of struggle with the deepest and darkest struggle that a person can go through, you get this sort of hand that you can grab hold of and it just lifts you out of this, brings you back to life, you know? And then just as you're sort of there and thinking, oh my goodness, this is

I've been waiting for your tears streaming down your face. You've got Richard Dawkins going like, yes, but do you actually believe in the virgin birth? Why do you keep bringing that bit up? Because it shows a difference in what people care about. The cultural Christians care about the ethic and the society and what it does for people. It's sort of a sociological project. Whereas for, I would say,

theological Christians but also atheist critics. It's more about the truth claims of a religious worldview. If you look at the comments on this discussion that they had, a lot of people will be like, "Oh, so Ayaan's just done a Jordan Peterson, basically. She's just done this wishy-washy, 'Well, the truth doesn't really matter.' By the way, this approach

of like, it doesn't really matter, you know, did Jesus rise from the dead? You know, I don't really know. What I really care about is just like how it feels, man. It's the kind of like attitude that would get you condemned as a heretic in the early church. You know, like, oh, you don't affirm the belief in the resurrection of Jesus. You know, it would be bad. So the reason I bring it up is because there are two different approaches. One is

One is very left-brained, one is very right-brained. Honestly, it's sort of, what about the facts, the science? The other side is sort of, what about the narrative and the sort of feeling and the ethics and the poetry? And that's the left brain and the right brain battling it out right in front of you. Yeah.

Has Christianity gone soft? We've spoken about how sort of the atheist side coming in is assessing religion, specifically Christianity, with perhaps less of a fine-tooth comb. In order for Christians to say, with open arms, we permit you, person who does not have an active belief in God, in the resurrection of Jesus, in many of the things that are

important to faith, and you just said that would have been heretical. Is this both sides nerfing the bar that they need to get over, one in order to believe and the other in order to accept? Maybe. There's also the difference between the Christian religion as practiced in the history of the Christian church, with a particular emphasis on modern Christian Europe and how it behaved. There's that kind of Christianity, and there's a kind of Christianity which is like

emulating the figure of Jesus, which is I think the important thing. So for example, has Christianity gone soft? Well, consider the Christianity of the Crusades versus the Christianity, the sort of lukewarm half people don't even believe, like less than 1% of the population are going to Church of England churches. Yeah, that's definitely gone soft, but arguably the kind of

either military or strong-armed Christianity that emerges in the history of the Christian church is itself an inappropriate hardening of the Christian message. The figure of Jesus- It's like Christian relativity. What is the base for Christianity? Yeah, exactly. And religion is always famously just used to buttress political aims and campaigns. Functionally, how can we

have this ideology, this dogma to be able to drive us forward, perhaps if we wanted to invade some other country. Yeah. Or how can we motivate people to believe that we're on the right side here? Famously, Adolf Hitler, people debate all of the time whether he was a Christian. Who knows? He was a Roman Catholic and he never renounced it, but he wasn't acting very Christian, let's say. But he did have

the belt buckle of every Nazi soldier have "Gott mit uns" written on the belt buckles. Atheists weren't allowed to join the SS, didn't want them. Didn't think they could be trusted, I suppose.

Hitler says explicitly in Mein Kampf that in standing guard against the Jew, I'm doing the handiwork of the Lord. So he's using this religious terminology. And a lot of people like to point out to me, like I'll hear Christians say, yeah, but he was actually an atheist. I mean, he was just pretending to be a Christian surely. And I'm like, well, why would pretending to be a Christian make it easier for him to be a fascist? You know what I mean? It's sort of a bit of a confusing thing. Yeah, because people use religion in this way. And so there's the question of like, well,

you know, was Adolf Hitler a Christian? Well, maybe if you ask him, let's say we discovered some text or some bit of the table talk that we didn't otherwise know about and he says, "Yes, I still very much believe in God and believe I'm doing Christ's work." There's a sense in which you could say, "Ah, see, he was a Christian." That's what the atheist might say. But the Christian would say, "I don't care what he claimed to be. Being a Christian is doing the work of the Lord. Being a Christian is enacting the will of the Father."

So interestingly, maybe you don't even need to believe in God per se to be a Christian. You just sort of need to do the will of the Father. It's hard to know what counts as being a Christian. But I think the two approaches that clash in this I. Ann Dawkins rumble is the difference between the approach that says the thing that matters is that you live the right kind of life and have the right kind of ethics, and the other side which says the thing that matters is that you get the right theology.

that you have the right truth claims. To me, that seems a lot less human. It seems a lot less

in accord with the way that Jesus spoke and behaved and acted. I mean, he's not going around settling theological disputes really. He's responding to theological disputes and people are trying to test him theologically, but he always responds to them with a sort of vague classiness that sort of transcends the dispute. It almost makes nonsense, the disputes. So yeah, I don't know. Okay, has Christianity gone soft?

Yes, politically. Clearly, it just doesn't have the political power anymore. A lot of nominal Christians don't really believe in what they're saying. They sort of go to church because they feel like they have to, but don't actually have the same kind of passion that you'd like to see in a firmly spiritually convicted Christian population. It sort of doesn't exist, at least in Britain. I don't know about America. It's probably

much more enthusiastic here. But in Britain- The interesting thing about America, I spent Easter Sunday at Austin Ridge Bible Church. This is the first American service that I've been to. The only other time that I've been to a service recently was at Ripon Cathedral on Christmas Eve. Ripon Cathedral, Christmas Eve,

245 year old woman with a C shaped spine playing the organ. Uh, everybody's singing hymns, brief talk in between, uh, very sort of, um, cobwebby classic sort of British Christmas thing. I,

I go to Easter Sunday, Austin Ridge Bible Church. I pulled up behind a 150 grand Corvette supercar that had God now as the number plate on the back. That was the first thing. I went in, the lady that was the warmup act for the main person that was giving the sermon for the day started using religious language. And I was like, oh God, we, you know, straight into it. And she said, guys, please, we must remember to have patience and

and forgiveness, and we must give grace. When turning right out of the car park onto Bee Cave Road, I thought, oh wow, okay, this is an interesting use of sort of semi-Christian language here to direct traffic. And then the opening act was a six-piece rock band

complete with 20 person backing choir, fireworks, a full LED wall that would have made my nightclub career look paltry with the lyrics up behind so that everybody could sing along, even me who didn't know the words. Lead singer, very charismatic, playing the guitar, dude on the drums, black guy playing saxophone, set of glasses on. They come up, they do an encore, they leave and

another lady comes on introduces stuff and then a guy comes out and with a mic and you know there's a sort of background music that swells when it's important and kind of stays quiet when it's not and then he leaves and then the band comes back on and they do maybe one or two more songs and then everyone goes outside and there's starbucks coffee and stuff and then they ask for your money they didn't ask for my money actually they were rich enough yeah um

Not once was the word religion used. Not once. Nobody in that room thought of themselves as religious. They have a direct relationship with Jesus and with God. Oh, sure. It's all about, it's just Jesus. Jesus, like super, super Jesus stuff. And that, I was like, what is that? What's Christianity when you kind of rip

much of the ideology side out of it i don't even know is that what is that missing what is it that they've done what have they taken out of what i would be more familiar with from what i would have learned in so far as they're doing that they're probably getting something right which is that christianity is not so much a set of truth claims a religion as we'd use the term today as it is a relationship with the person christianity is a relationship with jesus that's what it is um

So, I mean, the word religion is famously very difficult to define and also kind of doesn't exist as a concept until relatively recently in religious study and comparative religion because you find religious communities from a thousand years ago and religion isn't this thing that they do. They don't have work, family, religion, you know, like

get my MOT. It doesn't box off like that. It just is- Permeates. It's the air that you breathe and the water that you swim in. It doesn't really make any sense. It's like a fish trying to define water, which I'm sure the fish can do, but only once you take it out of the water and show it what it was swimming in before. But it wouldn't consider itself to be swimming in water.

I think Immanuel Kant had this image of a bird or a dove flying through the sky and sort of thinking, like feeling the wind resistance and thinking, "Gosh, if only I could get rid of this wind, I could fly so much faster, I could get rid of the air." And that's kind of what people are doing with religion, you know, "If only I could get rid of this resistance." But you're sort of throwing out the baby with the holy water.

So they're probably getting that right. I'm not sure about the whole megachurch situation. Having said that, I've never been to one. Pretty cool. Seems more comfy. A friend of mine recently told me that he went to one of these megachurch experiences in England, actually.

was just sort of overcome with emotion. Tears streaming down his face uncontrollably, like a sort of unbelievable experience. And I thought, wow, I mean, that's amazing. But then I also have a friend who

We recently accidentally stumbled upon a traditional, I think it was a Catholic service. There were four guys singing some choral songs and we were holding candles. It was a concert. They said, free concert. And we went in and they gave us candles after going through the metal detectors. They gave us these candles and we were sat there and there were these four guys singing this Latin Christian music. And my friend used to be a sort of

like a real American style Christian, you know, and said, like, wow, I've never experienced anything like that. That was amazing. Like just, that was really amazing. And I thought, gosh, it's just because it's not what you're used to. You know, the person who's used to that will be amazed by the megachurch. The person who's used to the megachurch, oh my goodness, this megachurch stuff is ridiculous. But it's sort of,

Yeah, I think it's called- Eating one meal for the entirety of your life and then going, oh my God. Because what it shows you is that you can separate out this idea of being a Christian or worshipping God from all of the trimmings that you think necessarily go with it. Standing in this-

drafty old building with a bunch of elderly people going, "We believe in one God, the Father," and doing the Nicene Creed and going up and getting in queue for communion and the trembling priest putting a bit of bread on your mouth. You think, "Gosh, this is a bit lame."

And it is. So then you go to a megachurch and you think, oh goodness, right? You can isolate the Christian bit, put it in a new context, and suddenly it's amazing again. Maybe Christianity isn't so bad after all. So it's got a lot of utility for that reason. But yeah, I mean, my understanding of what the mass should be, of what church should be, is a meal.

Jesus, last supper, breaks the bread, drinks the wine, says, "Do this in memory of me." It's the Passover meal. Well, it's the Passover meal in Matthew, Mark, and Luke.

in John's Gospel, Jesus dies before the Passover meal. Maybe the other way around. Because John's trying to say that Jesus is the Passover lamb who's being slaughtered. And so there's a kind of biblical contradiction there as whether Jesus dies before the Passover or after the Passover. That's kind of a side point. So I think that what the mass is supposed to be, Jesus says, you know... I mean, the whole reason the mass exists, the Eucharist is sort of the...

the zenith of the mass, where you eat the bread and drink the wine. That's what Jesus did before he died. He said, "Do this in memory of me."

But it was a meal. It was a feast. I have a feeling that in early Christian communities, the Mass was a meal, but then they stopped doing that because it became too much about the meal. People used to just show up to eat and drink and be merry. But then why not? Why not? Because it should be a joyous occasion to be together. Operationally, nightmare. Yeah, probably. I don't think there should be hard and fast rules exactly on how to do it, but I am a little bit suspicious of the whole

I don't know. As you know, people have made this criticism of mega churches and I don't like the money. I don't like the sort of fame, the celebrity, the fact that you used the term warmup act in a, in a church environment just seems wholly inappropriate. Um, but like,

The criticism that's often made is that it tries to get you in a state of vulnerability by using musical tricks and stuff. I've seen some people tweet this. It's a social media thing that crops up every now and again. People say, "Oh, I used to think that I really loved God and I was really into worship, but turns out I actually just liked music. Turns out I actually was just really into drums." It's kind of a joke because they're like, "Oh, it was just the music." But

Yeah, like, hold on, just take a step back and ask the same question again. Well, why does that music move you in that way? You know, sure, Coldplay can do it too, but then arguably Coldplay are sort of approximating the same kind of spiritual openness that people are trying to achieve at church. The only difference is that when they do it at church, they then use that state to sell you God rather than sell you merchandise, you know? We'll get back to talking to Alex in one minute, but first I need to tell you about Momentous. Trust really is everything.

Yep, when it comes to supplements, a lot of brands may say that they're top quality. Yeah, but few can prove it. That's why I partnered with Momentus. They make the highest quality supplements of anyone on the planet. Two fundamental parts of recovery are sleep quality and proper hormone levels, which is why I trust Momentus' sleep packs and their Tonkat Ali. Plus, their entire range is NSF and Inform Sports certified, meaning that even Olympic athletes can use it. That is how highly it is tested. What you read

on the label is exactly what's in the product and absolutely nothing else. Best of all, there is a 30-day money-back guarantee. So if you are uncertain about either of these products, you can buy it completely risk-free. If you do not like it for any reason, they will give you your money back. And they ship internationally. You can get a 20% discount site-wide by going to the link in the show notes below or heading to livemomentous.com slash modernwisdom using the code modernwisdom at checkout. That's L-I-V-E-M-O-M-E-N-T-O-U-S dot com slash

Modern wisdom, the code modern wisdom. A checkout. What about when you walk into, you've been to the Vatican. Oh yeah. Right. What about when you walk in there? You walk through the doors. It's the best front end of a funnel I've ever been into. Well, look, the Vatican is a, if you go to St. Peter's Basilica, where you've been, I mean, it is just like breathtakingly huge. The sort of the scale of the thing is enough to sort of make you...

And it's actually so big that your eyes aren't parallaxing properly. So it's kind of difficult to even tell how big it is until, for anyone who's ever been there, there's writing. Big gold band that goes all the way around and there's writing. And I was there with a priest. And I haven't verified this, but he told me that each of those letters was two meters tall. Yeah, I heard that on the tour. The letters. And I genuinely...

I was like, I don't believe you. I literally, I'm looking at it right now. I'm staring at it. It's so small. I don't believe you. I just don't. And the statues on the top level are built bigger than the ones on the bottom so that they look the same size.

It's a strange illusion. I kind of wish they hadn't done that because it would give you a better idea of the size. But anyway, okay, yeah, amazing or inspiring. But at the same time, it's designed pretty poorly from the outside. I mean, you've got Michelangelo's dome, which is like at the back of the basilica, which you can't see from the front, which is just poor design because of the fact that you've got like three different architects who all had different ideas of what to do and were planning things separately. And they all just sort of got...

shoved together and so you get this great big frontier. But imagine if you could see that dome from the front. It would be spellbinding. Also, the fact that the St. Peter's was built off the back of sale of indulgences. So the Catholic Church said, give us money and we'll shorten the time that you spend in purgatory and you get to heaven quicker. And they used that money to fund the building of the church. So it's a little difficult to be, you know,

inspired when you start to realise what kind of building you're walking into and the kind of history that surrounds it. God now. Yeah, I mean, but then there is still, but then it's exactly the same thing as the God now thing as the megachurch where there's

If you start thinking about it, you think, "Well, this isn't right. This is bad." You might go into a megachurch and say, "Well, this is terrible because they're just trying to make money." And then you go into St. Peter's Basilica and you think, "Well, this was raised on the sale of indulgences." But there's still something amazing about it. There's still something that inspires awe, and that's the important bit, I think. So yeah, it's an amazing place to be.

Like every human attempt to approximate the awe of God will necessarily be beholden to our failures as immoral creatures. Talk to me about the political dimension of this Christian revival. Yeah, it's just a bunch of right-wingers getting upset about Islam and wokeism, basically, in my view.

I mean, Douglas Murray goes to church on Christmas and sort of likes to be - I mean, Justin Briley talks about Douglas Murray as one of his examples of people who's sort of very Christian-friendly, sort of cultural Christian type. I don't know how true that is. I haven't sort of kept up with Douglas' writing on this stuff, but say it were true. It's like, why is that?

Is it because Douglass has sat in a church, prayed deeply for an inward sign of the true religion of the universe, or is he just upset with the way his country's going? I think it's more likely the latter. Constantine Kissin recently called himself a cultural Christian in a video, and it's the same kind of thing. It's not a theological thing. He'll say, I'm an atheist, but I'm a cultural Christian. Russell Brand got baptized. Russell Brand got baptized, but again, this is slightly different because he...

says he actually believes it, right? Actually, I don't know. I mean, again, I haven't kept up with Russell Brand. I don't listen to him, but presumably he'll actually believe in the resurrection of Jesus and stuff to have been actually baptized. So I think that where somebody has actually sort of developed a Christianity and a truth claim, I believe Jesus rose from the dead. I don't think that's just- Is that not Christian revival? Yeah, I mean, sure, that would be an actual Christian revival, but I don't think

the thing that people are pointing to and saying, but look at this upswing, I don't think that's happening as much. I don't know. I don't know what the stats are on baptisms and stuff. It wouldn't surprise me if there's a non-zero number of people who start to look at the fruits. And it is possible to ayaan husi aliyat and kind of go back up to the tree. You think, well, yeah, it's going to work both ways. Yeah, in a way, like...

If you can't see the tree, you can just sort of like start picking up the fruit and following the trail and it will sort of lead you to discover the tree. For some people, for sure. And again, you're around the people, you're going to mass, you're going to service. These are your new friends. They're talking about it all the time. I've got to read this. I've got to study, but someone gifted me a study Bible. I know what this is. So there's two, I wasn't sure what your position on this was, whether you think that it's a upswing in understanding

utilitarian, functional Christianity as opposition to certain movements that a number of people have got a problem with, or just conservatism

wrapped in religious talking. So does it exist as a revival of conservatism with a new bow put on it or in opposition to push back against other things that people are concerned about? That was what I was unsure. I think it's the conservatives who are pushing against this stuff. So new atheism, what's new about new atheism? The sort of political dimension. It's as much...

a movement, a sociological movement, like I say, more so than it is a theological one. It's the reason that New Atheism found its way onto the national press. It's on Fox News, people debating. In the way that now it's like, I don't know what it is in America, like, you know,

gender studies in schools or whatever. It used to be like evolution in schools. That's what you turn on the TV and imagine that. You would turn on the TV and you'd find your Tucker Carlson and people just going on and on and on about evolution and God and religion and Christianity. I mean, it's amazing. It was doing exactly what the woke social justice stuff is doing now in that space.

So the new atheism thing was this cultural phenomenon, talking about politics. It did the theology stuff a little bit as well, but it was a social movement. What kind of social movement was it? Well, broadly speaking, it was left-wing. It was an interesting subset of YouTube atheists who went on to be anti-SJW reactionary types. But broadly speaking,

the atheist community that sprung up, Christopher Hitchens, the socialist, Richard Dawkins, very left-wing, more recently sort of gender critical and suspicious of Islam, all that kind of stuff, which puts him more on the right. Same thing with Sam Harris, but these guys are like traditionally left-wing people, right? And it's all very...

You know, Christian nationalism is suppressing gay rights and gay marriage and abortion and all of this kind of stuff and contraceptives and divorce laws and all of that, right? So new atheism is quite left wing. So whatever like space it creates culturally, the people who are going to sort of say, we don't like this, we don't like what's happening, we want to react against that are going to be conservatives. So like in other words, it's like it's both. I think it is in many ways a reaction against this vacuum, right?

But the people who are reacting against that vacuum are going to be probably more or less conservatives. They used to call the Church of England was known as the Tory party at prayer.

what they called them. The fact that nobody is now going to Church of England churches means that it feels like a sort of waste of a good label. And I think the cultural Christianity movement could be called that, the Tory party at prayer. Not the Tory party, because the Tory party is probably about to cease to exist in England. Have you seen this? I think right now as we're speaking, it's got to be about half past or quarter to two. It'd be like right now,

There's a seven-party debate happening on the BBC. Nigel Farage is currently stood at a podium probably shouting at a bunch of other people. It's amazing. Reform UK are two points behind the Conservatives at the last poll I checked. I remember hearing that

Well, look, I mean, we're in store for either another sort of 1997, like, super Labour success, or the actual sort of... It's like an existential moment, as Andrew Marr has put it, for the Conservative Party. It's sort of amazing to see. So maybe not the Tory party at prayer, but the...

English right. Conservative people at prayer. You know, at prayer, even if they don't know quite who they're praying to. Isn't it interesting though, you know, one of the things I noticed since moving over to America is that there is no equivalent of the Christian right in the UK, or there wasn't, right? You know that, you know what I mean, Bible belt. Oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Like, you know, it's for God, it's country, it's patriotism, and the constellation of beliefs kind of right themselves. I mean, what religion...

But what religion is our prime minister? And also, if you are... Kirstarmer, is he a Christian? I literally don't know. I have no idea. And if he was, I wouldn't know what kind of Christian he was. And also, I don't care. And nor does any of his party, and nor do any of the population. Genuinely, it's so strange. I think our prime minister is a Hindu, as far as I'm aware, but I'm not sure how religious he is in that. But can you imagine...

it being a serious part of the conversation in Britain, your American listeners might not be fully aware of just how absolutely ludicrous it would be to be sort of on the campaign trail and somebody asking, you know, what's your favorite Bible verse? And when like Donald Trump can't think of a Bible verse, you know, what is it he said when he was asked for his favorite Bible verse? And he goes, oh, there are just too many. There are just so many. I love it all. I love them all. That's a bit of a scandal. It's like the leader of the Republican Party...

doesn't know his favorite bible you know like in the uk it just it just doesn't so not salient yeah and and so maybe i think people are sort of noticing is that the

the right in America is quite strong, got a presence. Do you think that this could be a potential angle for a future British political party to tap into? I don't think they can tap into Christianity, at least not yet. I don't think it's nearly strong enough. But I think a lot of people in the UK are getting desperate because their country's going down the pan. There is no such thing as a sort of small C conservative party because the Tory party are

two left wing for the right wingers and two right wing for the left wingers. That's why they're ceasing to exist. They've sort of fallen between two pews and they're going to possibly have to hang up the hat. So I think people in the UK are quite sort of, especially right wingers in the UK are quite desperate.

So like we don't have a movement, we don't have a home, we don't have a party that we can vote for. We don't have a way to get ourselves represented in parliament. So what are we going to do? And they're sort of trying out different things. And one of these things is like, well, what if we all just become Christians again? Maybe that will do something. But it means that if you pay attention on Twitter to the kinds of... Because it's not just the...

thought leaders but also like you begin to notice in the comments you know there's more people there's just more people there are more people who are who are fervent there's more people with little uh display pictures of like a crusader you know with the with the with the with the sword and the and the helmet on and stuff and and you realize that if there is sort of a christian revival happening it might be a revival of the sort of strong-armed um

like we're not going to take this kind of Christianity rather than the meek and mild. I've heard you talk about the difference between strong arm Christianity and meek and mild Christianity. Is the reason for the strong arm Christianity that this revival is coming in opposition?

to a bunch of things that seem quite aggressive, that seem quite militant, whether it be rising threat from China, Russia, Islam, gender ideology, wokeism, whatever. Yeah. I mean, I think a lot of people are, for those who are, and I shouldn't, you know, this is all hypothesizing and I can't say that whether most people who are sort of considering Christianity are going to doing so for theological or political reasons, but of the people who are doing it for political reasons,

Arguably, the politics comes first. Their primary concern is having a strong ideological... And this is the cultural question. This is the people who will say, I don't believe in God, but I sort of like the Christianity stuff. What do you like in Christianity? For many of them, they say it gives them this protective layer against...

these ideologies that they don't like or the vacuum of no ideal how does it give them a protective layer well that's the question to ask right and i'm kind of the wrong person to ask there because i'm i'm not sort of part of this crew but if you did ask them i mean i know it's a little bit vague and a little bit difficult to pin down but it to any extent that it does offer a protective layer against ideologies you don't like it has to be a bit more strong-armed it has to be defensive it has to put up a shield right and so it really depends on who you ask right but but let's just

Hypothesize for a moment. What is it that you get from utilitarian Christianity in opposition to secular liberalism? What does it provide you that you can't arrive at without the Christianity bit? Content. Secularism doesn't have content. Secularism is just like a sort of rule, a political rule that says that you're not allowed to let religion

have any sort of any particular region have any hand in like political affairs you just got to sort of have a hands-off approach to religion right it doesn't actually provide anything it's not a world view

Christianity is a world view. It allows you to say there are things that are right and wrong. In a secular liberal government, you might say, "You have this opinion, you have this opinion, and because we're a secular liberal society, even though I think you're wrong, I think you should be in parliament, I think you should become the prime minister if that's what the people want," all of this kind of stuff. Whereas if you have an ideology that just says, "No, there are right things and wrong things, and our country is one that believes in these right things, then if you believe the wrong thing,

No, you know, you're not going to become the prime minister. You're not going to like. So I think it sort of provides you this ability to safeguard your worldview. In other news, this episode is brought to you by Mando. Mando whole body deodorant will have you smelling great. It's powerful enough for the toughest body odor, but gentle enough to use everywhere on your body. You've probably heard that some deodorants have some dodgy chemicals in that you probably don't want to be putting on your skin every single day. Mando is absolutely

Aluminium-free, baking soda-free, cruelty-free, and dye-free, so you can smell fresh from head to toe without rubbing any sketchy chemicals into your skin. If you're looking for a great place to start, their starter pack is an absolute steal, and it comes with a solid stick deodorant, cream tube deodorant, and two free products of your choice. Deodorant is a personal preference, and if you're unsure about whether or not you're going to like it, you can buy Mando and use it for 60 days, and if you do not like it for any reason, they'll give you your money back.

Also, they ship internationally and offer free US shipping on orders over $25. You can get up to 40% off Mando's starter pack by going to the link in the show notes below or heading to shopmando.com and using the code MODERNWISDOM at checkout. That's shopmando.com and modern wisdom.

So there's more structure, it's sort of buttressed in this way. But what is it about Christianity which is particularly useful up against a woke Chinese-Russian assault? Well, that to me is still a bit of a mystery. It tells me that insofar as people are, specifically when they're talking about political issues like China and Russia,

I would ask that same question. I think the only answer you can give is that it's somehow tied to a sort of a political, yeah, like a political sort of, what's the word here? Like, what's the word? What am I looking for? I don't know. Like, I know, like a forceful restatement of your political commitments, you know?

And the fact that that's tied to Christianity is a bit of a mystery to me. I don't really know. Is it that it's something that seems more steeped in ancient Western values? Yeah, so that's the other thing, is that it's Western. But this to me seems quite contingent. This is why I'm separating out Christianity as what Jesus teaches and what Christianity is. And Christianity, which is, like I said earlier, with the specific emphasis on the history of Western Europe, is

People think that Western civilization is a result of Christianity. That's it. In fact, yeah, I think that's what's going on here. So you get Tom Holland, the historian, who has popularized this idea in his book Dominion that all of Western civilization is essentially Christian without realizing it. So, yeah.

We've taken what were once non-obvious, controversial, ethical, contingent statements - things that a lot of people thought were true, a lot of people thought were false, were quite radical, quite controversial - and they've so successfully embedded themselves into our culture because of the rise of Christianity that we now describe them as self-evident truths. It's just self-evident that every person has worth, that slavery is wrong, all of this kind of stuff. It's just self-evident. And so we don't need

Christianity to teach us that anymore because it's self-evident. Tom Holland's thesis is something like, "What you don't realize is that it's actually come from Christianity even though you now don't realize it." So if you cut off the Christianity, you cut off the basis for this entire Western ethic in the first place. So people who care about Western ethics, people who care about preserving the West and preserving the Western ethic,

might buy into this Tom Holland thesis and say, oh, okay, so I really care about Western ethics and Western ethics is Christian. Therefore, if I care about Western ethics, I should care about Christianity and upholding Christianity. Who cares about upholding the West at the moment? The political right. So particularly in Europe, you have this right-wing Christian sort of friendship merger. What about its usefulness as a prophylactic against wokeism?

It's kind of the same thing, right? What's woke culture trying to do? It's trying to undermine Western civilization, the history of Western Europe. It's trying to rewrite the books. It's trying to say that a lot of the West is evil and patriarchal and white and racist and all of this kind of stuff. This is what people dislike in the so-called woke movement. If you ask someone like Douglas Murray,

"What's the big trouble with wokists? What don't you like about them?" What will he tell you? He'll say, "They're undermining Western civilization." So it's still this sort of let's save Western civilization approach. And I think that this has come at the same time as the popularization of the thesis that Western civilization is Christian. Therefore to save the West, we save Christianity. It's like an equation. Yeah. Yeah, sure. Well, how do you mean like an equation? Like you sort of add them together.

Yeah, that's how an equation usually works. Yeah, like as in they're treating them as the same. Correct, yes. That you can, if it is, or the enemy of my enemy is my friend, right? Yeah, it's, I don't know, it's a bit like, I'm trying to think of an example here of like where else people just sort of go a bit, they sort of, they cozy up to an ideology because it's sort of,

I know it helps. And I don't mean that to be sort of cynical because we're not always conscious that we're doing this, but we become attracted to this ideology, become attracted to this religious tradition and think, oh yeah, like I like Western civilization and the people who are talking about this Christianity thing, they seem to care about it. They seem to recognize that, you know, there's a lot of importance in Western civilization. So they suddenly find themselves becoming more attracted to it. But it's important to stress that like,

I don't think this thesis is correct. I'm not sure. I still haven't actually read Through Dominion by Tom Holland. I really need to do that with the amount that I talk about. That's why I'm always very careful to talk about his thesis. But I think Western civilization, what's it defined by? Free speech, freedom of religion, capitalist economy. Basically, all of these things which

I mean, you can say that nominal Christians have established these historically, but if you actually flip open the scripture, there's no way that you can describe this as Christian or Judeo-Christian, especially with the Judeo part when it comes to the abolition of slavery. I'm told that this is, oh, it's essentially a Christian movement, the abolition of slavery. As if the Bible, which explicitly condones and teaches you how to take slaves, how to bequeath them as inheritable property,

to your children. If you march up to a city to attack it and you see a beautiful woman

I'm not misquoting. It says if you see a beautiful woman among them, this is in Deuteronomy 21, but I might be wrong about that. Then you can take her as your wife. And if you want to do that, then you take her home. In this bizarre ritual, you shave her head, trim her fingernails, give her exactly 30 days to mourn her parents who you might have just killed, and then you can take her as your wife. Okay, so now we're told that despite all this sort of scriptural

endorsement and instruction that, well, the abolitionist movement was essentially Christian. Oh, and the women's rights movement is all Christian. It's all Christian ethics equally cropping up. I'm like, okay, so maybe it's the case, maybe that God was always against slavery and always sort of pro-woman and social justice and all this kind of stuff. It just took us literally thousands of years to work it out. And this just so happened to coincide with the Enlightenment.

It's possible. Or maybe actually, no, maybe this isn't a Christian message.

When I asked specifically, "How is this abolitionist movement or whatever, how is it Christian?" It's like, "Well, Christianity teaches the worth of the individual, the emphasis on sympathizing with the victim. This is the big thing. It's like the idea that Jesus comes down. Everyone's expecting the Messiah to be this great military leader who's going to liberate the Jews from Roman occupation." Instead, you get this man who's poor, ascetic,

and is crucified. I mean, we're so used to the crucifixion narrative that we forget how embarrassing it is and shocking it is for your Messiah to die a slave's death. I mean, it's an extraordinary story. It's what makes it such an attractive one. And so we're told, well, you know, this idea of sympathy for the victim is uniquely Christian, and that's where we get the care that comes in social justice. Social justice movements are all about caring about the victim. Like, yeah, okay.

But the Bible does explicitly tell you you're allowed to own other human beings as private property. So how do you square that one? In other words, Tom Holland might be right that the nominally Christian Western ethic has built up, or the nominally Christian system and religiosity has built up this Western society, but it can't actually be scriptural in my view. I might just be wrong about this. It's a little bit confusing to me. That's why I find it difficult to answer the question.

why are right-wingers attracted to Christianity? Or are they? Are they attracted to Christianity as in are they attracted to the message of the gospel? Or are they attracted to what the sort of Christian church and Christian religion has historically been able to politically provide? I wonder how much is that

it provides a more stable and sophisticated sounding, by virtue of how long it's been around, pushback against something that in comparison is flimsy, contemporary, less steeped in nostalgia, less stable in that way. If you were to create a thing

that would act in opposition to super progressive, very new, very contemporary, very quickly changing. You would choose the most Lindy story that you can. What's the one that's been around for as long as possible. And we can kind of forget that bit. We don't need to really worry about shaving the head and cutting the fingernails. We don't really need to worry about the slaves and passing them down to your children and stuff like that. And I suppose that with Christianity, because

It is, as Sam Harris said, it's a relatively low T religion. They're quite prepared. It seems to me like they take less offense at people playing fast and loose with the literal interpretation. It's okay that he omitted that thing. I get the sense that the Islamic faith is

would not be so okay with you piecemealing your way through their particular doctrine yeah that's what i was about to about to say or bring up well i mean because you're quite i said it yeah i'm not sure i think sam harris said it first right okay yeah i'm the middle of the human centipede between sam and you yeah i suppose so yeah why not yeah you can put it in those terms if you like and another reason i love speaking with you chris um i think yeah as as

I like to put it, Islam is more high tea and Christianity is more like high tea, if you know what I mean, like T-E-A. Why is there not an Islamic revival? Because, well, no, sorry, there is. This is the other thing, this is what I was about to bring up actually, was the fact that like, okay, a bunch of like, you know, our political establishment, civil service have just been totally taken over by this woke culture, man. And everyone's a bit like, come on, seriously? Like, really? Yeah.

you know, on the anniversary of D-Day, we've got pride flags flying over Regent Street instead of the British flag. I think that's true. It might not be true, but you get the point I'm making. People are like, "Ah, I'm fed up of all of this." Probably is somewhere. Fed up of all of this nonsense. And so you just said you need something that's old, tried and tested, and can stand up against this. And so you get a bunch of particularly, I think, disaffected young men

who, you know, Islam is very attractive to them because it says, "Well, look, you don't believe in all this crap, do you? You don't believe in that. You believe in certain kinds of values. You believe that you should stand up for yourself. You believe in gender roles. You believe in this, right?"

like yeah i do actually it's like well this is islam can give you this and it can justify it and it can give you the the strength and the community behind you to assert those values and not have to worry about being some kind of like outcast or condemned or whatever no because like we we all believe the same thing as you and we're growing and we're popular and nobody wants to criticize us because we stand up for ourselves you know okay yeah sign me up for that whereas the christians are still very much like sort of

Yeah, like you say, they have the message of turning the other cheek. This is the Jesus figure. And their belief as well is that you will be judged eventually, not necessarily right now. Yeah, it is a different sort of message of salvation. I mean, Christianity has the sacrifice of Jesus for your sins, and Islam doesn't have that. Islam doesn't believe that Jesus died on the cross. Again, because we forget how radical it is that killing a prophet is,

God wouldn't allow that to happen. So the idea of Jesus dying on the cross is a total anathema to the Islamic understanding of who God is. Because again, Islam is much more proud and stand up for yourself kind of thing. Having this embarrassing slave death for their prophet, it doesn't run. So Jesus doesn't die on the cross in Islam.

Whereas in Christianity, yeah, he dies on the cross and he sort of pays your sin and all this kind of stuff. It's a much more like, I'm going to sort of throw myself on Christ, you know, woe to me and my sin. And so, and that's more attractive to some and less attractive to others. But it sort of means, I think that also is why you get more

like Christian churches who are sort of like, oh, we're totally open and we're like pro-pride and we've got a transgender priest and all of this kind of stuff when you don't see that happening in Islam, at least not as much to the same degree. A lot of people like to- I'm just not quite working out why that has resulted in churches, Christian churches, Christian belief that permits people to be more piecemeal.

Well, that's actually, I think, a slightly separate thing, which is important to spell out. A lot of people say simply that Islam is like, you know, half a millennium younger than Christianity, right? Because it's sort of...

it crops up later than Christianity. Therefore, Christianity has its sort of Enlightenment revival, Reformation 500 years ago, and Islam is like 500, 600, 700 years behind. So it just hasn't got there yet. A lot of people do this line, "I don't think it's right," because it sort of treats

Islam as a religion, like it's sort of still- A baby or something. And that it's not connected to the world in some way. That it's like, I'll give it 500 years and for some reason it will just happen in the same amount of time as a difficult- Like maybe, but I don't think that's true. I think it's got more to do with the way that the scripture and the prophets are treated. Like in Islam, the Quran is the word of God.

which has sort of existed for all time. And the Qur'an you hold in your hands, the mushaf, the copy, the written copy, is a copy of a message which is eternal. The final word of God is Qur'an. The Qur'an means recitation. Muhammad is illiterate, he can't read, he can't write, and God sort of speaks to him in a cave and says,

write or recite or something like to that effect and Muhammad is sort of like well I'm illiterate I can't

I can't do it." And he just commands him to do it anyway. And Muhammad is so freaked out by this that I think according to some reports, he considers suicide. He goes to throw himself off a cliff and then he goes home to his first wife, who is the first person to encourage him that he's actually heard the word of God and that he should submit to it. So she's known as the first Muslim. She's the first person to recognize the message and accept its truth. So this word of God comes to Muhammad and

is at some point at a later point written down, recorded, and there are various copies floating around. And then Caliph Uthman decides to put together an official codex, and this is where we get our Qur'an that we hold in our hands. But the actual message itself is eternal and comes directly from God. In Christianity,

Unless you're speaking to a biblical fundamentalist, who are quite a relatively new and quite American phenomenon, they don't treat Scripture in the same way. Scripture is written by men, particularly the Gospels. I mean, the letters of Paul are letters written by a man to a bunch of churches to settle theological and practical disputes. This isn't like the Word of God in the sense that this isn't like the exact words that you're reading in the Bible are the words that came out of the prophet's mouth that God put into it. It's not the same thing.

In Christianity, in Islam, the word becomes a book. In Christianity, the word becomes flesh and dwells among us. That's the opening of the Gospel of John. In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God. And then later on, and the word became flesh and dwelt among us. So you have the word of God being Jesus. In Islam, the word of God is the Quran.

And so a lot of people think the Quran in Islam is what the Bible is in Christianity. I think that the Quran in Islam is what Jesus is in Christianity. And the gospels are more like the Hadith literature in Islam, which is sort of these reports of sayings and doings of Muhammad, which some are better attested than others. You know, there's sort of dispute over which ones are sound, which ones aren't, but no one disputes the Quran. But some of the Hadiths you could say, oh, well, this one maybe didn't happen. This one did happen. We know we're not really sure. Um,

but no one disputes the Quran. In the same way, in Christianity, with the Gospels, yeah, maybe they said this, maybe they said that, maybe that's a later interpolation, maybe that was wrong, maybe blah, blah, blah, but no one disputes Jesus. You couldn't have Jesus sat in front of you and argue with him about what's true in Christianity. This is why in Islam, or in Christianity, if you want to say, "Look, I know the Bible says

all that stuff about women speaking in churches. But actually, you know, Paul probably didn't write that letter and he probably didn't mean this. And that particular verse moves around our early manuscripts. And maybe he didn't really say that. I mean, like whatever. And so you end up with this sort of, yeah, okay, fine. Some play in the system. Would Jesus be okay with it? Yeah, it feels like Jesus might be okay with it kind of thing. And so there's a bit more room to maneuver. You can't do that with Quran. You can't say, oh, well, maybe that verse isn't true. Maybe that was a mistake. Maybe that was, you know, a later interpolation because the Quran is the word of God. What's an interpolation?

Oh, like a later edition. So something that's added later into the text. So like earlier I mentioned

the stoning of the adulterous woman, which is my probably, well, it's one of my favorite stories in the gospels, where Jesus says, he who is without sin cast the first stone. It's a religious test because you've got this Jesus peaceful figure and as a woman who's committed adultery and the law is quite clear that the woman should be stoned. And Jesus is just like writing in the sand and the Pharisees are like, okay, come on then Jesus, what are you going to do here? It clearly says that she should be stoned. That's what the law says. And he's like writing in the sand. He's kind of ignoring them. And they say, Jesus, you know,

"What should we do here? The law is quite clear. We need to stone this woman." And they're testing him. What's he going to do? And he says, "Sure, yeah, okay, go ahead." But he who's without sin casts the first stone. Oh man, it's brilliant. It's awesome. It's like ethical genius. It sort of undercuts at the same time as not contradicting the truth of the law or the justice. It's this brilliant moment. But unfortunately,

It's not in our earliest manuscripts, and so most scholars believe that it's a later interpolation. In other news, this episode is brought to you by Factor. If you're too busy this summer to cook but still want to ensure that you're eating well, Factor is the solution. Factor's fresh, never-frozen meals are the best.

are dietitian approved and ready to eat in just two minutes. So no matter how busy you are, you will always have time to enjoy nutritious, great tasting meals with 35 different meals and more than 60 add-ons to choose from. Every week, you will always have new flavors to explore. Their meals feature premium ingredients like filet mignon, shrimp and blackened salmon without having to do any shopping,

prepping, cooking, or cleaning up. If you're the sort of person who wants to eat well, but always struggles to find time, Factor is basically an ultimate life hack. You always have a meal which is well-balanced, high in protein, dietician approved, and ready to go just sat in the fridge. You can get 50% off.

Plus Gnostic Gospels, which is like the DVD extras, sort of the behind-the-scenes vlog. The director's cut, yeah. Yeah, it is. Extended edition. The Gnostic Gospels are a fascinating corpus of texts, which...

We've only very recently, in the grand scheme of things, been able to rediscover and read for ourselves. We knew of the existence of a bunch of gospels that weren't in the New Testament because early church fathers were writing about them. We knew about the existence of a gospel of Judas, a gospel of Thomas. Fascinating, you know. But we didn't have the texts until in 1945, some guy was digging in the desert.

and accidentally crashes into this big jar. At least this is one of the... The stories are disputed. And just opens this jar. At first doesn't want to open it because he's scared there's a demon in it. But turns out it's got a bunch of ancient manuscripts, which he takes home and keeps by the fire. Where is it? In near Nag Hammadi in Egypt. So Egypt has the perfect climate for the preservation of papyrus. So

We're not entirely sure, but it seems that these texts were buried in this cave in the desert. That could be because Athanasius comes up with the Christian canonical New Testament, says these are the four Gospels. All of the other ones

You know, we're not going to read. They're not part of our tradition. So they end up getting sort of destroyed. So they get sort of buried in the ground to either protect them because they don't want to be destroyed or just to bury them to sort of get rid of them. It's also possible that it was a burial site. Some people have suggested that like it was...

some significant figure with a lot of texts to his name when he was buried. He was buried with these texts. That's why some people think that the story of the discovery isn't true because it was actually a grave robbing. Some people have thought maybe it was just a simple grave robbing, but the person who then discovers these texts doesn't want to admit that he's robbing a grave. Have these been carbon dated? Have they been verified, authenticated? Yeah. There's been a lot of work done on this. We

You can date the actual papyrus, but you can also - I mean, the extraordinary thing about these gospels is that the Gospel of Judas, for example, which is not found in that collection, it's not found in the Narkomadi collections, it's found at a later point. Fascinatingly, when people began to realize what it is, there's this huge scramble because it's worth a lot of money, right?

People are trying to smuggle it, because you can't just take really expensive ancient manuscripts across the border. Countries want to keep them for themselves. They want them for their museums, they want them for their researchers, but the people who find them want to sell them. So this Gospel of Judas is discovered, and it finds its way all over the place. It actually spends something like 15 years in a safety deposit box in Long Island in New York.

which almost destroys it because you go from the perfect climate of Egypt to New York City. So it was just absolutely ludicrous. It's finally National Geographic, who buy the Gospel of Judas. They sent a bunch of scholars, I think including Bart Ehrman, to...

go and verify it. They give them a bit of the text, but they can't give them too much because they can't just let them read it because they haven't bought it yet. But they need to give them enough to verify the text. So there's carbon dating and all this kind of stuff. We carbon date the papyrus, and we know that it sort of dates - I don't know what the exact numbers are - between 80 AD and 400 AD. It's give or take a few hundred years. But we also know that

Irenaeus writes in Against Heresies about the Gospel of Judas. So we know that it existed, and we know that this is dated to around that time, and we're like, this must be the Gospel of Judas. But because Irenaeus writes about it in 180 AD, we know that the top end for how late it can be is 180. So there are lots of different ways to get to- You've had to triangulate-

Exactly right. So you can date a text by carbon dating the papyrus. But also when it's been referred to. Referred to. We can do it textually, like what are its textual dependents? What does it have knowledge of? So a lot of people date the Gospel of Mark to after 70 AD because it mentions the destruction of the Jerusalem temple. So the temple's destroyed by the Romans in 70 AD, and Mark's Gospel mentions this. And so the secular historian looks at that and goes, "Well,

that means it was written afterwards. The Christian might look at it and say, "Well, Jesus predicted the destruction of the temple because he was Jesus. It was a miracle. He knew it was going to happen so it could be earlier." So there's sort of theological dispute as well. Interestingly, there was one gospel, the gospel of Jesus' wife, which was discovered relatively recently and was particularly famous because it was a fragment and it talked about Jesus' wife.

It mentions Mary Magdalene, so the presumption is that it's describing Mary Magdalene as Jesus' wife, which has been a sort of theory, Da Vinci Code-esque thing going on for a while. We have this ancient papyrus. At first, scholars are sort of like, "They think this might be real." They carbon date the papyrus and it matches perfectly. Yeah, this is an early ancient text. Then some red flags start being raised and the sort of final nail in the coffin

This is a forgery. We know now this is a complete forgery. One of the ways to prove this is that it quotes another Gospel in Aramaic. I think it might quote the Gospel of Thomas, actually, but it quotes this Aramaic translation. It's got this text that's been translated into a different language, but there's a translation error in the papyrus. On this fragment, there's an error in the translation.

And there's one other place where the exact same translation error occurs, which is a typo on a website that translates this Gospel into Aramaic. So it looks like the guy who's forged this bit of papyrus has used an Aramaic translation of an old Gospel from a website to then like- On old papyrus. On genuinely old papyrus and then written out. And also like the formatting of the

of the text, like where the line breaks are, all of that kind of stuff, is the same as on this website. The chances of that are just astonishingly small, especially with the typo. And so we're like, "Oh, okay. Yeah, that's a forgery." What is interesting in the Gnostic Gospels? How does it contribute? What are the big reveals? Well, for a start, it tells us what Christian traditions were being opposed at the time of the formation of the New Testament canon.

So, you know, we're very familiar with stories of the New Testament, with stories of the resurrection and this kind of stuff. There are Gnostic Gospels which tell us all kinds of different things. So we know that there are communities who believe things and we get to grips. We can read for the first time what early Christian communities believed that

eventually got condemned as heretical, but now from their own maths. We knew that there are heretical sects that believe all kinds of different things, but we've only ever heard about them through the writing of their opposition. Irenaeus' Against Heresies is this huge volume that writes about why all of these heretical beliefs are wrong. It tells us what people believe, but we're hearing it through a critic. Now we can read it from the horse's mouth, as it were. There's all kinds of stuff in there.

Some of them are older, some of them are newer, some of them are obvious fakes, some of them are a bit more interesting. The Gospel of Thomas might be the most famous because it's possibly quite old. I mean, scholars have dated it. Some scholars radically date it to really early, like 80 AD, which is around the time that the canonical Gospels were being written. Some date it later, but it's still very early. It's like second century AD, so pretty early.

And about half of it, I think, contain quotes. It's just a list of sayings of Jesus. It's a so-called sayings gospel. So no narrative, no crucifixion, no resurrection, none of that. Just a list of sayings from Jesus. And about half of them, I think, are also in the synoptic gospels. Half of them aren't. And they say really weird mystic things like, if you bring out what is within you,

then what is within you shall save you. But if you do not bring out that which is within you, then what you keep inside you will destroy you or something like that, which is a bit esoteric and weird. You have to grapple with it and figure out what he's going to be called. There's another one in there where, and again, these are just sayings out of nowhere. It says something like, whoever comes to know the father and the mother, he shall be called the son of a prostitute.

And then he just moves on to the next one. You're about to ask me what that means. I don't know. No one knows. Like it's so strange. And the most famous part of the gospel of Thomas is the ending. The very last quote, Simon Peter goes to Jesus and says, what about Mary Magdalene? You know, she should leave us because women are not worthy of, of, of life. Meaning like, you know, eternal life, Christian communion, you know, women aren't worthy of this. And Mary Magdalene should leave us. Now you would expect Jesus here to say,

No, no, Peter. Women are perfectly capable of inheriting eternal life. No, he says, "I will draw her close to me to make her a man so that she can enter the kingdom of God. For all women who make themselves into men will enter the kingdom of God." The Gospel of Thomas, that's where it ends. That sounds pretty woke. Yeah, it's like the earliest trans account and of Mary Magdalene in particular.

God knows, if you'll pardon the phrasing, what that means. I've heard all kinds of different theories. A lot of the Gnostic gospels seem to emphasize unity, bringing together, making two one. And a lot of the time this is framed in terms of gender. So the male and the female are to sort of unite. And so there's sort of this argument that that's sort of what's being gotten at here, but it's weird that Jesus specifies women being made into men. There's one Gnostic gospel which

We remember that in the Genesis story, Eve is created from the rib of Adam. She's taken out of Adam. It's like a separation. So some of these Gnostic texts sort of long for the reunification, saying that that was a terrible thing when Adam and Eve were separated. It seems to have this like platonic influence. Have you heard that old Greek fable of the original creature being this four-armed, four-legged, two-headed creature?

and this is the form of the human. Then they end up getting cut in half and spread across the earth. People will then spend their lives searching to be reunified. It's a very romantic story. There might be some influence there in some of these Gnostic texts where you've got this separation and desire for reunification. Isn't it interesting that the biological way that humans develop is actually that every human begins female?

Is that right? I don't know much about embryology. I have heard things to this effect. That's why men have got nipples. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. They start sort of developing nipples. Yeah, you're right. Man, it's been a long time since I've thought about that. I mean, that is fascinating, isn't it? It's funny as well because... It's correct. They just got it the wrong way around. Yeah, this is the thing. It's like a lot of people... I recently did this debate with Dinesh D'Souza, and he asked me, and we were talking about whether the Bible was true. And he said, did the universe have a beginning? I said, I don't know, like...

Sure, maybe. I think it probably did. And he said, well, how did the Bible know that? Okay. At best of 50-50 guess. Like, okay, whatever. But the point that I was making is that like people will reinterpret things either way. I think that if the universe was infinite, there's a way of interpreting Genesis to fit with that. But also what I was going to say is that like, had we discovered...

in embryology that all embryos start male and then become female, the female is sort of drawn out of that. People would go, "Ah, see, look at the story of Adam and Eve. That's what it was getting at." Like we knew the ancient wisdom sort of knew. The symbolic rib. Yeah, exactly right. And I think people sort of do that all the time. There's a great Gnostic gospel called the Testimony of Truth, which is discovered in the Nag Hammadi library. So that's buried in like 400 AD. So it's probably like second or third century AD.

and the testimony of truth retells the story of Genesis. But interestingly, if you read Genesis - and I mean the actual account of Genesis - so who are the characters in the Garden of Eden story? Adam, Eve, Snake. Who's the snake? Devil. Right. Why do you think that?

which it's just sort of traditionally the snake is the devil, but the text never says that. The text never identifies the serpent with the devil. The concept of the devil, Satan, the accuser didn't exist at the time of writing of Genesis, right? This is like one of those things about did the fruit of the loom logo ever have a cornucopia in it? Yeah, a Mandela effect, except this time, like, yeah. The original Mandela effect. Yeah, I suppose so. Like, you know, go and read the text. It's just the serpent and we're introduced to the serpent.

we're told in Genesis 3, it opens, "Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the beasts that the Lord had created." Adam and Eve are told, "You can eat of any fruit of the garden, but do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. For in the day that you eat thereof, you shall surely die." Surely die, because the Hebrew sort of says, "Die twice." It's like, "You will die, die. You will die a death."

And so the serpent comes in, this crafty serpent. Crafty is an important word there. The King James translates it as subtle. The word is arum. So the snake was more subtle or crafty or shrewd than the other beasts. And it comes to Eve and says, did God say that if you eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you'll die? And he goes, yeah. And he goes, you're not going to die. God just knows that if you eat of that tree, you'll become like him, knowing good and evil. And he doesn't want that.

So Eve looks at the fruit, sees that it's good for eating, takes a bite, gives some to Adam. And what happens? Do they die? No. What happens? Well, God tells us in the Bible, in the Genesis account, God says, now the man has become like us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and eat from the tree of life. And so he's banished from the garden of Eden. What's the tree of life? Well, who knows?

the tree of life, and inherit eternal life. So presumably, in the way that eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil gives you the knowledge of good and evil, if you eat from the tree of life, you get eternal life. And God says they must not be allowed to do that. So it should have just gone for the tree of life first, which wasn't. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So there are lots of theological interpretations here, because interestingly, God doesn't say at the beginning,

you must not eat the tree of life. He just says you must not eat the tree of knowledge of good and evil. So arguably like... If they'd Gantt charted this correctly and they'd worked out tree of life, live forever. Yeah. It's actually a really interesting part. Like what would happen if...

Adam and Eve eat from the tree of life first. Well, arguably- See, this is the sort of insight that you need a productivity bro to bring to the theological discussion. Seriously though, it's a great question. I think that the tree of life gives you eternal life. And the idea is that Adam and Eve have eternal life in the Garden of Eden. When they're created, they're just going to live forever at the Garden of Eden. Hmm.

They've already got eternal life. So eating from the tree of life does nothing. And that's been subtracted from them now that they know good and evil. Exactly. You're not allowed to know good and evil and also- And also have eternal life. So then they're banished and then they're mortal. So the Christian interpretation of the story is like, well, they didn't die literally, but they died in the sense that mortality entered into the world. They died a sort of spiritual death.

But their immortality was taken from them. The fact that you're not going to die now doesn't matter. You are at some point. Yeah, it's like there's something about knowing good and evil as a human that means that you are going to die. Probably because if you sin, the price of sin is death and death.

If you don't know good and evil, then you can't sin because you can't knowingly do evil. But if you know good and evil, then because we're humans and we're naturally flawed, we're always going to sin and therefore we need death. So death enters the world. But here's the thing, right? That's one interpretation. But it is a bit of a weird story. Like, who is the serpent? Why is the serpent even in the garden in the first place?

Like, what's the serpent doing there in this perfect Eden? Who created this serpent? Why can't they just eat from the tree of life afterwards? It's not like they literally just can't eat from the tree of life. God banishes them from the garden and then guards the gates of Eden with a cherubim, with a flaming sword. These stories are extraordinary, man. It's worth revisiting them. So this ancient gospel, testimony of truth, identifies the serpent.

It tells you who it thinks the serpent is. It doesn't identify it with the devil. It identifies it with Jesus Christ. What does that mean? Jesus is the serpent. Because a great deal of the Gnostic tradition believes that the creator of the material world is an either evil or incompetent or lesser kind of God-figure, the demiurge. So the material world is created by this evil or incompetent God,

There are lots of different reasons to explain why that happened, but it's not the Father that Jesus refers to. Jesus being the true God comes down. When Jesus says, "My Father in heaven," he's not talking about the creator of the material universe, because that's an evil demiurge. He's talking about the real spiritual God. So the material stuff is bad and the spiritual stuff is good. There's so much to it, man. There's so much to it. The idea is that the God of the Garden of Eden

This Gnostic gospel, the testimony of truth says like, what God is this? What God is this that sort of lies to Adam and Eve, says that they're going to die, is a jealous God, a self-admittedly jealous God, doesn't want them to become like him. Now, why not become like gods? You know, he doesn't want it. He's jealous. And then the serpent comes in and tells him the truth. Says like, look, you're these like material creatures created by this God, but there's this like spiritual wisdom. There's this knowledge of good and evil that he doesn't want you to have because he's this evil God. Like, but I'm going to give it to you. I'm telling you the truth here.

And so this gospel thinks that Jesus is bringing wisdom there. Interestingly, that word arun, the Hebrew word that means shrewd or crafty or subtle, also is translated the same word throughout the whole of Proverbs as sensible or prudent.

So there is a reading of Genesis that says, now the serpent was more sensible than any of the other beasts that God has created. And he's the one that comes to Eve and says, oh, like God said you were going to die? No, no, you're not going to die. You're just going to be like him. And he's right. So this ancient Gnostic gospel condemns this creator God of Genesis, identifies the serpent with Jesus,

and says that Adam and Eve did the right thing by eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. So there's one way that the Gnostic Gospels totally upend the traditional understanding of Christianity, and you can see why it's therefore condemned. That's fascinating. Also, this whole belief in the demiurge and the different… Also, to be clear, the word 'gnostic', a lot of scholars reject it because Gnostics didn't call themselves Gnostics. What is 'gnostic'? Gnostic comes from the Greek word gnosis for knowledge, because a lot of these texts are unified by the fact that you're saved through knowledge.

You're not saved through the things that you do, the way you behave. You've got to have the right kind of knowledge. The Gospel of Thomas says, whoever discovers the correct interpretation of these words shall enter the kingdom of God. If you made them more fucking literal. But you can't. In fact, in the canonical Gospels, in the Gospel of Mark, you can read, there's this report that when Jesus was with the big crowds, he spoke in parables.

that they wouldn't understand properly. But when he got back to the disciples, he explained everything properly. There's this idea, even in the canonical gospels, that there's a public teaching of Jesus and a secret knowledge of Jesus. And so the Gospel of Thomas opens, "These are the secret teachings of the living God." So this is the stuff that he said backstage. Which Didymus Thomas Judas wrote down, the apostle Thomas wrote down. Whether Thomas actually wrote them, probably not. But

Given the fact that the Bible was an editorial decision, it goes in, it stays in, there's interpolations that edits are made, there's contradiction in terms of this says this thing here and doesn't say that thing there. And also, well, there's sort of play in the system that kind of probably didn't say that, so we can probably kind of get rid of that. Where does the authority come from?

of that corpus? And why has the Gnostic Gospels not completely upended the entire world of Christianity, given that the editorial decision is now so plainly evident that it was just laid at the feet of flawed humans like the rest of us? Well, because... I mean, so the way that these texts are determined are through a mixture of things. So like,

apostolic succession is important, as in the message needs to be legitimately attributed. A bit like how the Hadiths of Islam are attributed. If you read a Hadith, it will have this entire second bit which tells you the line of succession from Muhammad to the person who heard it. And this person heard it from this person, and this person heard it from this person. Because the important thing is knowing that it comes from the right source.

And so the four gospels that we have are believed to be written by either eyewitnesses, traditionally eyewitnesses or like traveling companions to eyewitnesses to the life and ministry of Jesus.

So like Matthew, the apostle, Luke, the traveling companion of the apostle Paul, John, traditionally associated with the beloved disciple of Jesus. So these are believed to be written as close to eyewitness as you can get. Also, the theological content is important. I tweeted out

a thread about the Gospel of Thomas, a couple of quotes, and people misunderstood what I was doing. They thought I was somehow trying to endorse it or something. I was just like, "Wow, look at this really weird gospel," because I just sent a podcast episode on it. So I quoted some of the more bizarre elements of the Gospel of Thomas, and Michael Knowles retweeted it and said, "Reading this just makes it so obvious why these texts were condemned in the first place."

He's kind of right. The stuff about turning women into men and the son of a prostitute and all this kind of stuff, it's just kind of weird and doesn't seem to fit in with what people would have remembered and known about Jesus at the time. So they're condemned on theological grounds as well. I don't think that these texts, I couldn't say that they more closely approximate Jesus' message. It's so clear that they just completely contradict what the understanding of Jesus was.

at the time of the formation of the canon. And so they're sort of expelled for that reason too. But now that we can read them, shouldn't that just totally upend everything? For a lot of Christians, it's actually done the exact opposite. Like I say, like the Michael Knowles thing, a lot of Christians are now reading these texts and going, oh yeah, I can totally, yeah, oh, thank goodness. I can totally, because if we discovered the gospel of Thomas and it was like this really close text

text that had a sort of plausible, close ethic that was a bit different or something that just denied the virgin birth but sort of nothing else. It'd be really troublesome. Like, oh goodness. But because it's so wacky and so out there, Christians are like, oh, thank goodness. You can get rid of it all. Because now it's totally obvious why it was condemned in the first place. Obvious. Yeah. The Gospel of Judas is a fascinating one. People can read this, right? The Gospel of Thomas, you can read it in like 20 minutes.

The Gospel of Judas is much harder to read because it's just like really, really strange. But the beginning, it's kind of like eerie. It's got that Da Vinci Code interest. The disciples are praying. Jesus sort of comes upon them praying and laughs at them. And they say, Lord, why are you laughing at me? And he says, well, I'm not laughing at you. But by doing that, you praise your God, your God, as if it's a different God. And then he pulls Judas aside and

and says, "Do you know where I've come from?" And Judas goes, "Yeah, I know where you've come from. You've come from the realm of Barbelo, and I'm not fit to utter the name of the one who sent you." It's some Dungeons and Dragons type stuff. It's this fascinating act. And this is because the Gospel of Judas is very Gnostic. The realm of Barbelo is this higher realm that Jesus has been sent from to save us from the material creation. And when Jesus says, "You're worshiping your God," he's talking about the evil demiurge, because they're accidentally worshiping the wrong god.

I thought Christianity just had one God. Yeah, well, it does, but it seems like it kind of didn't always. But the Gnostics wouldn't have referred to this. And again, Gnostics, too broad of a term. People who believed in the Demiurgic Creator wouldn't call that Demiurgic Creator God.

They call it the material creator of the universe or something. God is still very much- Why didn't God create the universe? Huh? If that was the case, why didn't God, actual God, create the universe? Again, there are lots of different ideas and it sort of depends which text you read, but some people believe that there are these sort of lower deities who-

sort of try to recreate the spiritual realm to govern over, and it's sort of a subpar version. That's what the material world is. Some people think that the demiurge is evil and so creates the material world to trap people, make them suffer or whatever. Some people think that it's the result of incompetence. The simulation hypothesis for theology. Yeah, basically. And by the way, I've

I'm probably botching a lot of what I'm saying here. I've been learning a lot about this recently by speaking to people on my podcast.

reading these texts and reading some of the literature around them. Hopefully if I have botched anything too badly, people in the comments will be quick to correct me. I hope that's the case. But I want to emphasize that this is very difficult to pin down and I'm no expert, but at least what I hope is getting across is that this is fascinating. It is just incredible because even if it is all obviously just stupid and ridiculous and the Gospel of Judas is written way later and obviously is false,

It's all just fascinating that this text exists and was circulating, and was circulating with enough prominence that it was taken seriously by early church authorities enough to officially condemn them because they were having enough influence. It's fascinating. One of the things that we haven't spoken about with this Christian revival has been a dearth of meaning in the modern world. I think so far, the way that you've spoken about it is sort of functionally. What does it do? What can it give people? Yeah.

as legitimacy and their pushback against encroaching secular liberalism and authoritarianism and the East and woke and all the rest of it. How much is this revival a response to a dearth of meaning in the modern world? Yeah. So that's the other thing which I should have mentioned earlier, because take Ayaan Hirsi Ali,

Yeah, in her unheard articles, she talks about China and Russia and Islamism and whatnot. She does also mention nihilism, but if you... It's because you rang me four or five years ago while I was in the gym, and one of the first things that you said was, try nihilism. What do you mean? I'm trying nihilism. As a life philosophy? Yeah, yeah, yeah. Could try it on for size, man. How's that going? See if it fits.

It's all right, I guess. Yeah, very nihilist. Nihilism sort of is like, you don't really try on nihilism so much as you take off all the clothes and you're not wearing anything for a while. It's quite a strange phenomenon. And yeah, I don't know.

I don't remember saying that to you. I don't remember where I was in my life or how tongue-in-cheek I was being. But, you know, it's worth really... You were very vegan at the time, which may have been going hand-in-hand. It's worth really taking it seriously, though. What does it mean to live these philosophies? It's not something to just mess around with. It's not like, oh, I like this Christianity stuff. Like, yeah, sure. What does it mean to actually be a Christian? It's not something that you can just sort of... If you really want to be a Christian, you can't just be like, oh, yeah, cool. I'm sort of on that team. Yeah, yeah, whatever. No, it's like you have to...

It's sort of radically changed the way you look at the world. You have to turn the other cheek. Do you have to do that? Why can't I just do it the same way as I do with James Clear's Atomic Habits? James Clear's Atomic Habits has got four steps to embedding a habit. I often miss the fourth one. Oh, sure. Yeah, it's okay if you miss it. Like, you don't... Okay, maybe I misspoke. You don't have to do it, but you have to sort of try to do it. You have to be motivated to do it. You have to give up so much of...

of the way you approach the world you have to adopt a radical forgiveness you have to like you you sacrifice your ability to you know if somebody mistreats you at a bar or whatever to be like that guy's a dick no you can't think that it's not a very christian thought you know you've got to you've got to be forgiving unless they're trying to teach gender ideology in schools yeah but but this is the thing like what's the christian response to that well jesus had sort of

There were times where Jesus was angry, famously flips the tables at the temple because they've turned the temple into a market and they're selling things and he thinks this is inappropriate. So he displays anger. But generally speaking, when it comes to theological disputes, he'll know what's correct, he'll tell you what's correct, but he won't do it in a particularly vicious way. The one thing he really hated was religious hypocrites. So a lot of his

most stinging critiques were for the Pharisees who sort of claimed to be these religious authorities but were like acting pretty poorly. How prophetic. Yeah, well, yeah, this is like, you know, everybody, yeah, that seems to be the idea that sort of everyone hates a hypocrite. That's the thing that Jesus, and Jesus did have

you know, seeming like vitriol for a lot of these people, called them like a brood of vipers and this kind of stuff. So, you know, Jesus does do that every now and again. But if you've got like, you know, teachers teaching gender ideology, even if the Christian thinks this isn't very Christ-like, this isn't true, I think the sort of approach of anger and, I don't know, condemnation, let's say, of the person, uh,

may or may not be Christian depending on how it's done. But when you said a second ago, I know you were sort of joking, like unless it's this, but that's part of it. You point out that like, oh, well, here's a place where everyone makes an exception. Well, part of the struggle of being a Christian is trying to retain that element of that essence of forgiveness and compassion and charity, even at the times that are most trying. I think C.S. Lewis said, you know, I forgive the unforgivable in others because God has forgiven the unforgivable in me, you know? Yeah.

Does this show how unrational and illogical humans are? That we've tried to make arguments and reasoning neat and tidy and mathematical.

But becoming wise appears to be so hard on your own, even with the assistance of the scientific enlightenment and computers, that you still need to personify these lessons, that you need to couch wisdom and living a wise life inside of a broader narrative, which has religion and has a guy from 2000 years ago.

Is it a case that people are saying, we've tried it the modern way. We've tried to live a life that is determined by, I know the weather tomorrow in Venezuela. I can Uber Eats things to my house and look at how fucking miserable I am. Yeah.

we need to find something that's older, something that's more tried and tested and is working on a different pathway. I don't think it's necessarily older, especially because there was a time when this message was new and it was still just as radical for people. But yes, the fact that it's narrative, the fact that it's storytelling and moral principle rather than scientific truth claims. The Gospels don't make scientific truth claims.

They tell a story. They give an account of a man's life and his moral teachings. I think it's often condemned as this retreat of rationality, but I think it's just to do the brain thing again. It's just the reemergence of the right brain. This way of looking at the world that legitimizes poetry and art and music that is irreducible to argument and syllogism.

that in other contexts people think it would be inappropriate to try to understand music just by looking at music theory. I mean, music theory is very useful and important, but the way to understand music is to actually listen to the song. And for a lot of religious people, they're beginning to realize that this microscope approach of trying to sort of analyze the religion for its truth claims misses something of stepping back and then living the life.

Of course, if it does make truth claims and the truth claims are wrong, that's a problem. Obviously, it's a problem. But I think people are beginning to become more forgiving of that because they're beginning to recognize the value of narrative. Well, we spoke about this the last time we talked. I'm really fascinated with this idea of things which are literally true but functionally false and functionally true but literally false or just useful instead of functionally true. And it seems that this is...

continuing to ramp up. Look, I feel better when I have faith. I feel better when I'm a Christian. Like religion is the ultimate split test. Split tested and split tested and split tested into oblivion, working on an existing pathway that every human civilization has had in one form or another. And we have come up with a way that is pretty good at dealing with the uncertainty of the future and the fact that you're flawed and the fact that you're going to die and difficult things are going to happen. And unfortunately,

Netflix and a bit of like some Ryan Holiday books whose don't cut the mustard. Yeah. And insofar as they do, so Jordan Peterson has described God as the ultimate fictional character. And he does so kind of tongue in cheek. And I think what he's kind of getting at there is the idea that like good fiction is

approximates truth in a roundabout way. A good work of fiction tells you something true, it just does it through the use of fiction. Like the Grinch steal Christmas. No, not really, but there's sort of an important message. Symbolic truth. The so-called moral of the story, right? And the archetypal example of this is

the Christian scriptural canon. These are the stories that have best approximated whatever truth is trying to be gotten at and done it in the most effective and surviving manner. So yeah, I mean, it's obviously doing something, but yeah, people want their stories to be true. The difficulty is that the specific truth claims of Christianity, like Jesus rising from the dead, for example,

We can't say that didn't happen in the scientific sense. We're doing historic science. You can just say, "Well, it breaks the laws of physics and they never break." But you don't know that. It could have happened logically speaking. It doesn't break any laws of logic for a man to rise from the dead.

If we discovered the bones of Jesus, that would be another matter. You'd be able to say, "Well, the truth claims aren't really important to me. I care about the narrative." But you'd be like, "Yeah, but we have the bones of Jesus. We know that he remains dead. He did not rise from the dead, didn't ascend into heaven." Christianity has got to be undermined there. Whereas if it's a case of there's this extraordinary claim, which we can't prove is false, that Jesus rose from the dead. I understand why you probably don't think it's true, but you can't prove that it's false.

It leaves that room for people to be attracted to the narrative and the poetry and the meaning and say, "Well, this is a really unbelievable claim to me, but I'm just happy to just say, 'Yeah, sure. Why not? Jesus rose from the dead. Okay. I choose to believe it as Ayaan Hirsi Ali did.'" What I was going to say about her with the nihilism question is that when she approaches the discussion with Richard Dawkins, we're not talking about Russia and wokeism anymore. A little bit. It comes up

But she's talking about her own depression. She's talking about her own feelings of nihilism and despair and suicidality, and that's what Christianity afforded a way to get out of for her. So for her, it was very much seemingly, from what I understand of her position, a response to this personal nihilism as well.

I wonder if I kind of had it in my head about that debate and the applause that people had for her when she said, and I found faith and faith dragged me out of my problems. I wonder whether the reason, and even to me, I can, I can feel it inside of myself when you

hear a story like that from somebody who has been at a very low place and has been brought out by a thing that they believe in. And then this guy sat opposite them, starts wagging his finger about this sort of weird pernickety. But do you actually think that Jesus was born from a virgin? And I wonder whether the...

I presume that that didn't get applause. I'm going to guess that Richard Dawkins trying to come in litigiously. Well, it was sort of a split audience in that Dawkins, and I might be misremembering, I need to watch this back, but at points he would just sort of say, he said like, I am...

I'm sorry, but this is bigger than comfort and your personal feelings of what brings you comfort. It's quite harsh, but then you're there to have that conversation. And there were a few points where he basically goes, look, I care about what's true. I don't care about the narrative and the beauty and the media. I care about what's true. And people, yeah. Okay. I just wonder whether the ambient...

meaningless, depressive, anxiety-induced cultural milieu that many people feel in the modern world. I wonder whether that makes them predisposed to see Ayaan as, well, good for you. Look at how great this is for you. I'm so happy for you that this thing has happened. And who's this white guy? Who's this old...

footy doddering guy coming in shaking his finger at you and pooing on your parade it's a bit like the sort of the father-in-law at the wedding coming along and being and like a beautiful day if you found the person the love of your life and he goes yeah well you know he doesn't make that much does he you know he could have a better job yeah it's not I'm not saying you're wrong yeah okay you're fine yeah you're alright mate alright fine you're true yeah correct well done you've sort of scored your point on the truth value but you've like totally ruined the whole the whole day you know yeah

And that's how I think a lot of people would feel about that conversation. But look, I totally, obviously I understand. I mean, the way that I'm speaking now, I understand why people make this criticism. You can probably understand too why people are like, I'm soft on Christianity because it seems like I'm like morally endorsing this approach. I'm not endorsing it. I'm just, I'm trying to explain what I see going on. And what I see going on is an abandonment of care for like propositional truth claims and an embracing of unifying narrative that sort of

gives direction to people's lives and people are more attracted to that. I'm still, like, the reason why I wouldn't be able to just call myself a Christian is because I don't believe that it's true. Like, I think I'd have to believe in the truth claims. Ah,

Ah, but that's because you are holding yourself to a particular standard due to the fact that you've spent the last decade immersed in it. You are also friends with people who do have a very high bar that they hold their own faith to. I think if I was to somehow be able to get in and twiddle with the barometer or the thermostat with which you would have to pass in order for you to say, well, I'm a cultural Christian. I believe in forgiveness. You go to church? You've been to church? Like you...

hymns, they're cool. Rock bands, they're awesome. Pyrotechnics, love that. Corvettes, great. All of those things, I think you would quite easily be able to... I'm sure that there's tons and tons of Christian values that you think, yeah, this is great. And maybe if I had a way to identify that during times when my life is difficult, I would be able to think, huh, rather than having to axiomatically... Why is it that people come up with, you need to have your values? Do you know your values?

big personal development thing you have values and then you have principles like what is it that i believe in and then operationally how do i actually act within each of these if that's not someone just recreating their own religion on the back end of some personal development book i don't know what is you wouldn't need to do that you don't need to come up come up with it from first principles because you have your operating manual that's there it doesn't matter about believing in the thing the problem that you have as far as i can see is that your criteria your uh

level of certainty and the depth of certainty as well, that level of conviction is greater than it is for some people who are able to bifurcate out their belief in the tree versus the tastiness and usefulness of the fruit. Yeah, and there's going to be a lot more hurdles in the way of like

to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, I don't just have to suddenly become convinced that there's a strong historical case for it, because I know that there is. I just know that there are a lot of objections to that as well. So now I've got to overcome those objections, whereas for somebody else, it might not need to go that deep for them to have that conviction develop within them. I think they say, God meets you where you're at. So many people spend so much time trying to

to do theology or philosophy, and they study intricate arguments of God's existence, some of them extraordinarily complicated with like 50 different premises. There's part of you which wants to say, "Well, if that's what leads you to God, that itself seems like an argument against God's existence." Like, "Oh yeah, so you can come to know God, but only if you're smart enough and have enough time to read through this 50-premise argument that finally can clear." Yeah, that'll do it for you. That doesn't seem like the way that things would be designed.

But maybe it's the case that for those who want to go digging in that depth, they'll find God there. But for those who don't, they'll find God somewhere else, such as in the pretty waterfall or in the escape from nihilism. So yeah, there's that idea that wherever you look, you'll end up finding God. How much do you think this Christian revival is downstream from Jordan Peterson? Is there a first mover of the Christian revival? Mm-hmm.

hard to say. I don't know about, because Peterson's religious convictions, they're so vague and so non-committal that I think it would be difficult to attribute a lot of it to him. Although his friendliness to Christianity and the sort of biblical seriousness that he does, he must have inspired so many people to revisit the biblical stories, especially

Exodus and Genesis, Cain and Abel. Everybody's heard of Cain and Abel now. I wonder if that was the case five, 10 years ago before Jordan Peterson started talking about it in every single podcast he ever does. So that's cool, but I don't know if he inspired this movement. I think in the UK, Tom Holland has a lot to do with it. Even if a lot of people haven't read Tom Holland, the people who

they listen to have. You know what I mean? So like the actual sort of genesis of the thought might be in that Dominion thesis that

seeps its way into a lot of other things. How many times have we heard the term "Judeo-Christian values"? It's a strange phenomenon. What are Judeo-Christian values? Flip open the Old Testament to almost any page and tell me what you find. And tell me if you think that accords with what people would proudly assert as Judeo-Christian values of today. They seem to contradict each other. Who else is perpetuating this wave of Christian revival?

It depends what you mean. The people I mentioned earlier, the Constantine Kissens, Douglas Murrays, they're perpetuating it in the sense that they'll - I don't know if Douglas Murray would use the term 'cultural Christian', but say Richard Dawkins and Constantine Kissens, two guys who will both say, "I don't believe it's true, but I'm a cultural Christian." So they're just asserting the value of Christian architecture, ethic, whatever it is, aesthetic, which for me is of course the same thing as ethic really.

But then on the sort of like belief front, someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a big player because she's a huge conversion story of someone who actually now believes in God. Russell Brand, I'm sure even if you don't listen to him, he's famous enough that the fact that he's converted is like news. I don't know, have there been any other sort of famous conversions recently that I'm missing out and I must've?

Also, you can dispute whether this Christian revival thing is happening at all. Maybe it's just a bunch of wishful thinking. Maybe it's just a bunch of people getting excited because one or two people have converted to Christianity again. Who knows? It would be interesting. I wonder when the next census comes out or whatever GSS data, if we're going to see some mild Christian light thing coming about. Maybe you would be able to see this in a

Maybe people won't even identify as Christian, but fewer will identify as atheist or agnostic or of no belief. The last census showed for the first time less than 50% of the population called themselves Christian. Where? In England. So the big sort of every 10-year census. What was this? Do you know? This was, no, I can't remember. I think it was 2021 maybe. Right, recently. Yeah, so like recently. Like 2015 or something. Yeah, they do it, yeah.

something like that and so we'll have to wait for the next one but but it's been steadily declining you know christianity has been going down down down down down and so the project if you look at any of the statistics the projections are like what the hell are you talking about christian revival literally the church is being absolutely decimated no one is showing up for church tenants you know people are calling themselves christians it's on the it's on the down low you know islam is growing atheism is growing you know all of this kind of stuff christianity is completely depleted and yet there's sort of people are just like yeah but i can like

feel it in the air. Like there's just something happening. And so like maybe at the next census, we'll see that the, the rate of, uh, the rate of decline slows down. Maybe it reverses a bit, maybe it holds still. And that itself would actually be quite significant. Um,

I always think about that, how much is just internet degen edgelord, like terminally online people, thinking that their particular corner, their reality sphere is happening everywhere. I remember before the, what was the last general election, 2019? Where it was the conservative landslide. Oh, yeah, sure, maybe. I don't know, I can't remember. Anyway, I remember Stormzy tweeted out,

in support of Jeremy Corbyn. Yeah, that's right. And I remember thinking, fucking hell, Stormzy. I mean, look at how many retweets it's got. That's Stormzy. And then Amber that won Love Island tweeted out as well. And I thought, oh my God, all of the polls are wrong. This is not going to happen. And then you realize that the internet is not the real world. It's the same thing with Brexit and the election of Donald Trump.

I remember when Donald Trump got elected, I must have been, what, 16 or something, and I just remember waking up and just being like, surely not. Surely not. Because you just, because everybody is, and it's the same thing with Brexit, it was like,

That's why people are kind of suspicious of polls now because everybody was predicting that this wasn't going to happen. And again, you felt it in the air. Everyone you speak to, literally everyone you spoke to was like, oh, Brexit is just nonsense, so ridiculous, racist. And then it actually went and you're like, oh, right, okay. Because yeah, people have their little bubbles. And I wonder how much of this Christian revival thing is that, I mean, Christian revival, like seriously to the extent that like, you know, okay, it's different in America, but in the UK, it's

if you just pulled someone off on the street, if you went to a pub and say, hey man, have you been feeling this Christian revival? What the hell are you talking about? I mean, if you ask them, hey, you know, like the right-wing revival that's happening in the UK, they'd be like, yeah, man, it's crazy. You've seen how Reform UK has come out of nowhere and just like started dominating the polls. If you ask them about Christian revival, no. The fact that it doesn't have the cultural force, it might be exemplified in the fact that the sort of new right-wing up-and-comer, Reform UK, who are doing everything they can to try to

take the traditional right from, you know, who are now disaffected with the Conservative Party and bring them over to them. They haven't tried to use Christianity as a tool to do that. They haven't mentioned it. Again, what's... Even though something close to 50% of the...

of England is. Claims to be Christian, you would think, and presumably the 50% who claim to be Christian are probably more right-leaning. I don't know that for sure, but it's possible if that's the case. Why wouldn't Nigel Farage be like, yeah, we're a Christian party. We believe in Christian principles and Christian values. There you go. Immediately got 48% of England. Yeah, because it doesn't work like that because there isn't actually this upsurge in Christian conviction that's happening in the country. Maybe we're beginning to see the

I think Justin Briley's idea is that we're beginning to see it in the intellectual space. Some of the important thought leaders are beginning to consider Christianity and it's in its infancy. And what's going to happen is those guys, a bit like the Tom Holland thing where somebody changes their mind and then enough people listen to them and it sort of seeps down. And then eventually we might see something like the general population becoming more Christian, but it's not happening yet in my view. A good example of this I think would be Mary Eberstadt, Louise Perry,

Mary Harrington, Freya India, Nina Power, Helen Lewis in some parts too, pushing back against the sexual revolution.

And that was kind of, I mean, if you'd said that 10 years ago, you'd have been like, what the fuck do you mean? Yeah. The sexual revolution was bad for women. Yeah. What are you talking about? Whereas now you start to see this more and more in normal press. There is literally a thing called being peripilled. Right. You know, I understand the case against the sexual revolution and I broadly agree with it.

That was precisely the same thing. Terminally online, degen, edgelord internet people shitposting their way through Twitter and Substack to slowly actually get to, huh. And it would not surprise me if in 10 years' time that's the sort of thing that our parents would bring up. Where it's like, oh yeah, yes, I've been reading a little bit, there's an article in the Times about whatever, whatever. You go like, that's the same as birthright decline. George,

that we've been hanging out with all week has got this great question where he says, "What is currently ignored by the media but will be studied by historians?" Brilliant. Yeah. And I suppose you would say birth rates. Birth rate decline. I think impact of hormonal birth control would be another one. I think embryo selection and the onslaught, the coming... I would have said AI 2018, 2017, but media's got a hold of it.

What would you say to that question? I was just trying to think about that. Ignored by the media, but will be studied by historians. I don't know. I think birth rates is not a bad option, especially with how quickly that will presumably change demographics. I mean, yeah, like in the UK, for example, a lot of people sort of celebrate the...

the growth of Islam. There's a big debate where the debate usually goes, "Abba, look how successful we are." And then it's like, "Abba, that's not because you're converting people, that's because you're having more kids." They are also converting people, but they're also just having more kids. People

I would imagine that that will be something that will be of sort of fascination as to why that happened. So would you say the changing demographics of the UK would be one? Yeah, sure. But then that isn't the media. I mean, yeah, well, yeah, I mean, maybe not like a ton, but people talk about it. It comes up. Usually in the sense of like alarmism, usually in the sense of like, I mean, I saw a thing today on Twitter of somebody sort of going around interviewing like Reform UK people.

candidates and them just sort of saying, you know, we need to take our country back. And the sort of the clever journalists being like, from who? Well, you know, it's that typical street interview style thing where they don't know what they're saying and they sort of say, you know, because we'll be in the minority, you know, soon, you know, whatever. And the journalist doesn't like

deny it or whatever just sort of it's like there like people are talking about it but there's sort of gonzo style journalism that side eyes at the thing yeah but usually it's in the sense of sort of like you know get a load of these guys but you know it's there like the presence of the fact that people think about that is like in the media whereas like the birthright thing like I think if I didn't know you I wouldn't even like think of it as a

I wouldn't even be aware of it as a concept, right? Even as something to then condemn as alarmism or whatever. You wouldn't even know it's a thing. Stephen Jay Shaw, the guy, the original dude that I brought on a year ago, as far as I'm aware, the best demographer in the world at this, just redid his numbers for South Korea, which went from 0.6 to 0.4 now. And he messaged me from Korea. Yeah, yeah, yeah, sure. The message was...

kind of short when he sends long messages. When it's a long message, it's interesting. When it's a short message, it's sad. And it was basically, I think the final sentence was, they're done. Like career is completely done. Game over. Within the next hundred years, for every hundred Koreans, there will be four great-grandchildren. Wow. Yeah, that's...

It's amazing, isn't it? I mean, it's just fascinating. And the fact that if we sort of have... I mean, the thing about this kind of stuff is it's like maths, isn't it? You can literally... Demography is destined. This is how many kids are being had. You can't make any more than one-year-olds. This is how many people there will be, right? We know it for a fact. And you're right, it sort of doesn't really get a mention. And I think it's because the media...

the news is is daily the news talks about what's happening now today right and this stuff isn't happening now today it will one day people wouldn't it's the most unique until it does it's not going to be talked about it's the most unique type of risk it's not an existential risk yeah it's not in the true permanent unrecoverable collapse bostromian sense of the word but uh

It is one of the most unique kinds because it does not galvanize people to look up and see smog in the sky or...

forests burning or fish dead in the ocean. It doesn't galvanize people in the same way. It is a lagging measure of a lead indicator and it's just maths, man. And it's revert whatever the opposite of an exponential, like, I don't know. Yeah. I guess it's super exponential. But down. That one. Yeah. It goes down. It goes down, but it goes down increasingly. No, there's gotta be, what's the opposite of like X? Not logarithmic. Introvert. Yeah.

People are screaming it into their AirPods. A couple of mathematics people. Dude, I want to say before we finish up. Imponential. It's an imponential, yeah. Like an innie rather than an outie. I think that you're perfectly positioned at the moment, regardless of how large the breakout of the Christian revival thing is, regardless of how much a threat of rising...

Islamic population is in the UK and the US. I think that you're really interestingly positioned. I've said this year before, but I think that you're really interestingly positioned to blend a few different areas that I don't think many people can. So I'm like genuinely, genuinely excited to see what happens next few years. I think that there's like just so much cool stuff and I love your stuff. I love watching your videos. So I'm really, really excited to see what you do. Thanks, man. I'm a fan too, as you know. Yeah, it's exciting to see that

potentially at least the discussion of Christianity is going to be back on the table again. I love looking at Christianity, studying Christianity, looking at the Bible and biblical scholarship and all that kind of stuff. It's really fascinating, but it's not very employable. I'm lucky I'm in a YouTube niche where people are interested in those kinds of debates and stuff, but it doesn't have a lot of political relevance. So if this does become a more talked about

you know, thing or a movement or people are right that there is some kind of Christian revival around the corner, then yeah, there'll be lots of talk about it. Wow, are you going to be the theology consultant for Nigel Farage's new reform party? Is that what you're suggesting? I am definitely not suggesting that. But I think there'll be a lot of interesting commentary to make from the perspective of like, well, how much of this is political and how much of this is theological? I don't know. Is Nigel Farage a Christian?

Does he claim to be a Christian? Wouldn't surprise me if he does. But like we said earlier, the fact that we don't even know tells us everything we need to know about the UK right. Americans spitting their Gatorade out. Alex O'Connor, ladies and gentlemen, where should people go? Keep up to date with all of the things that you're doing. They should go, well, they should go

to church they should go to the gym you know they should go to the library they'll find you in the gym all the time yeah they'll probably find me in church every now and again as well i'm one of those um sort of philip larkin-esque church you're like a cultural fitness enthusiast yeah i'm a cultural gym bro yeah i don't actually believe in any of it but i you know i sort of

I drink a protein shake every now and then. Oh, you're Jim and Jason. Yeah, I'm Jim and Jason. I'm going to start saying that. Again, it's the Twitter bio. Every single time, it just grows and grows and grows. If they want to find my content, then Within Reason is the name of my podcast. I've just done a couple of episodes on the Gnostic Gospels and more are coming with some fascinating, awesome, interesting people. But yeah, I'm just Alex O'Connor everywhere else. AlexOConnor.com. Hell yeah. Appreciate you, man. Cool. You too.

Yeah.