In this installment, Dan and Jordan dig into an interview that Tucker did recently about how you can rationally argue for the existence of angels and demons, which descends into irrationality almost immediately.
And it turns out that it was sabotage by the head scientist because he had created a way to get rid of the ozone layer accidentally and he didn't want it to fall into the wrong hands.
I worry about how much I'm going to uncover about things from my cantankerous young boy phases eras of life that I'm like, oh, wait, that was all just MacIver.
You were secretly experimented on by the government to teach you about MacGyver, like in the Matrix, but instead of learning kung fu, you just know MacGyver storylines.
So thank you so much to I've got a small coffee company, outdoor coffee cult in Oregon called Hush Hush Coffee, and I wanted to send you guys some coffee and officially offer you a sponsorship for your roast segment in honor of Owen leaving.
So laying in bed for a few days, I had the thought.
You know, I was sick.
Enough.
Let's get wacky.
So as soon as I got to feeling better, I got straight to this task, and I wasn't going to accept anything short of succeeding.
And it didn't take me long to strike gold.
On September 1st, Tucker Carlson released an interview with a former journalist named Lee Strobel entitled, quote, Possessions, Miracles, Visions, and Encounters with Angels and Demons.
You know, traditionally against them, but maybe they're misunderstood.
You know, I feel like perhaps we've gotten trapped in a dogmatic idea of good versus evil, and maybe that has kept us from evolving as a species, and demons are a fundamental aspect of something that we need to address as something part of our insights.
So we're told there's no state religion in the West, certainly not in the United States, but in fact, there is.
It's scientism.
It's the worship of science.
It's the belief, and all of us learn this at a young age, that everything around us, everything we experience, can be measured by people in white coats.
That's science.
If it can't be measured, it's not real.
The problem with this religion is that our life, our daily experience, contradicts it.
It's a process that takes ideas and tests them to see if they reach valid conclusions.
What I mean is that science doesn't just say that antibiotics kill infections and therefore this must be so.
Rigorous trials and repeated studies that tested antibiotics against infections arrived at that conclusion that they were effective in fighting them.
So that's become science's position.
If new, repeatable, credible information were to come to light that indicated that they didn't work that way, science would change with that new information.
Science isn't a religion.
And this formulation is actually Tucker hiding the ball about what his actual argument is, which we'll get to as we go along.
Sure.
As for the unexplained things that we experience in our day-to-day life, some of that can probably be explained by science you just don't understand.
Other parts of it might be stuff that can't be explained by our current body of scientific knowledge, but will be explained by a new discovery that's just waiting to happen.
It is possible that we could all be, in some sense, particles given mass by Higgsfield, and that in a certain sense, we are just moving through jello up and down like a wave.
Tucker is saying that we're seeing, hearing, tasting, and feeling things that cannot be measured by science, which is strange because that's all of our senses except smell.
Tucker isn't talking about tasting a ghost or something here.
This is actually just a reference to an idea in Lee Strobel's book where someone he's interviewing blows his mind by telling him that science can't describe the smell of coffee.
Sensory experiences are tough to capture in words, largely because there's a disconnect between an experience and the awareness of the experience.
Every person's reaction to a description of coffee relies on their subjective take on it.
So putting that subjective description into more objective terms is difficult.
But that doesn't mean that science can't explain why something smell the way they do.
This is fairly basic stuff.
It's something that we use so effectively that most people probably don't even realize it.
For instance, natural gas is odorless, but it's also super dangerous.
Well, when companies produce it, they add an odorizer to the gas so people can detect a leak more easily.
They can do that because the scientific method has uncovered various compounds that have certain smells.
Your experience of smelling one of these odorizers may be different from mine, but the arrangement of atoms that create the stimulus that we describe differently is science.
Anyway, the point is that we aren't constantly running around having supernatural experiences.
If you want to add some importance to the unique experience of tasting a peach and that importance improves your life, then I wish you the best with it.
But that does not invalidate science and you sound like an idiot.
I mean, I suppose you don't, you know, if you write a book about how angels and demons are better than science, I don't think I can let you off the hook, even if you're a polite guy.
So this is already what he's what Tucker is saying is already a huge problem for him because he's trying to prove that Lee Strobel likes to live in the world of proven facts by saying that he worked for a major newspaper.
I guess the media is only the enemy of the people when you need it to be.
So Lee did work in journalism, but he hasn't since 1987.
At that point, he became involved with megachurches and writing Christian apologetics texts designed to argue why it's not irrational to believe in various tenets of the religion.
I have no problem with him writing these kinds of texts, but it's deeply disingenuous to call him someone who's interested in empiricism.
In a religious sense, Lee is an evangelist.
And when religion and politics intersect, as they do with Tucker, he's acting as a propagandist.
I don't care about a person working at a newspaper almost 40 years ago.
So the presentation of Lee as a rational actor based on that piece of his resume, it's not going to sway me.
We'll see how he makes his arguments and presents his information.
And from there, we can see if this is an honest empiricist who just has to admit that magic is real, or if he's a charlatan parading around in an empiricist costume, feeding into a religious hysteria that's going to be used to persecute a ton of people for no reason.
So the elephant in the room here is that Tucker has recently revealed that he was attacked by a demon in his sleep.
He did an interview with an Orthodox documentarian about it.
So it's not just a poorly kept secret or something that Alex has gossiped about without permission.
Tucker's trying to insinuate that we all know that there are unseen things in the world that science can't explain, but doesn't seem to want to tell Lee about his own very real and very serious experience.
Lee has written a book about encounters with angels and demons.
So Tucker could, he could be a very useful resource when he was writing this book or now he's promoting it.
Law is another, it's a system of rules, which we like to imagine is based on empiricism, but it's actually more influenced by rhetoric.
Lawyers make arguments and courts decide cases, which isn't the same as consistently reproducible reactions caused by introducing two chemicals into the same space.
Journalism is also not a science.
All of these things, law, journalism, and science, deal with the concept of truth differently.
So Lee boosting his credentials in law and journalism doesn't mean he has any connection to the scientific method at all.
But Lee does have a master's in law from Yale, which makes sense because his career is about arguing.
It's not about proving, but instead about pretending that arguing is the same as proving.
How can we be sure through corroborated evidence that indeed there are such things as miracles, as near-death experiences, as deathbed encounters, and mystical dreams and things like that?
I think that in life, it's important to respect what is knowable and what is not, and to respect people's right to experience the stuff that's not, however, works best for them.
As it stands now, there's not a reliable, reproducible, meaningful way to prove the existence of a personified God.
So I think it's fair to count that as part of life that's unknowable for now.
Maybe one day we'll create some kind of Geiger counter that can sense angel particles, and then we can talk a bit more about the empirical case for religion.
But for now, that's dumb.
That said, it's not necessarily dumb, in my opinion, to have faith and choose to believe what you want about unknowable things.
In the absence of demonstrable proof that God exists, it makes total sense to choose to believe in an all-loving figure who created us for a reason.
If it helps someone get through the day and find meaning, then it's probably a good thing, generally.
The only way that we can live in a balanced society is if we accept what is knowable, what is currently unknowable, and treat those things differently.
And I think we've lost track of that a little bit.
Well, I think that there's a subjective and objective mix.
And enjoy.
Tucker feels the need to deride atheists because he needs to obscure from the fact that he and hardcore atheists suffer from the same fallacy, which is pretending that they can prove something that's impossible to prove.
One side says they can prove God does exist.
The other side says they can prove God doesn't.
And neither can really accept that they're fundamentally operating from an arbitrary answer that they've come up to for an unanswerable question.
It was, it's a little bit like, you know, if you think about what Jesus was saying about the hot or cold concept, if you're all the way in, right, you're going to treat people nice because you got to get into heaven.
That's the most important thing that you could possibly do, right?
But if you're all the way out, you got to treat people nice.
This is all you've got.
This is all you've got left.
You're going to die.
You're going to fucking die and then there'll be nothing.
And that's essentially the only way to deal with unanswerable questions other than just being like, oh, yeah, there's an owl or believe in some dumb shit.
Because we got the good ones with the wings upstairs, but then we got the bad ones with the wings downstairs because they were upstairs, but then they got into a big fight and then they went downstairs.
If you want to say that you believe that angels exist because of some incident where someone is saved by an angel and there's no explanation that you can come up with for it, then I can accept that you're applying a critical mind to the situation.
Sure.
You're going off the rails and applying critical thinking poorly, but you're seeking an explanation for something that you feel cannot be explained any other way.
So you're left to assume, well, maybe it was an angel.
Sure.
Conversely, if you're telling me that angels were created before humans and you want to tell me about their biology and dating habits, then I'm no longer convinced that what you're saying is the product of critical thinking.
As we go along, this is one of the crucial things to keep in mind because it reveals the lie that all of this is based on.
Lee is pretending that he's a good faith researcher who has seen stuff that just can't be explained by natural means.
So he's left with no choice but to consider the possibility that maybe the supernatural stuff is going on.
What's interesting about the Christian interpretation of angels is in the book of Hebrews in the Bible that we should anticipate the possibility that we would encounter an angel.
In other words, it says sometimes when you're providing hospitality to someone, unbeknownst to you, it's an angel.
And so there's an anticipation that perhaps there could be angelic encounters.
And so what I try to look at in the book are cases in which we have angelic encounters.
People actually encounter an angel.
I'll give you an example.
There was a missionary named John G. Payton, P-A-T-O-N, from Scotland.
And he went to an island in the South Pacific to be a Christian missionary.
And he and his wife are living in a cottage there, and he's talking about Jesus.
Well, the local tribespeople didn't quite like that.
And so one day, a mob of them came to burn down their house and kill them.
So Lee uses this anecdote in his book to argue for the existence of angels, but he doesn't use the testimony of the guy who saw the angels or even the missionary, John Gilbert Patton.
He cites Billy Graham discussing Patton's story, which is another layer of interpretation which is being added to this whole thing.
Billy Graham used this story in his 1975 book, Angels, God's Secret Agents.
Lee is just taking Graham's version of the whole thing, which isn't very inquisitive of him and makes me think that he doesn't care for empiricism.
This is because John Gilbert Patton wrote an autobiography that was published in 1889.
And this story is in there.
You are going to get the account of the random mob leader who supposedly saw angels, but Patton's story is closer to the event than Graham's retelling of it.
So Lee should have consulted that for his book as opposed to Billy Graham's version of the story.
So to set the scene, Patton and his associates were setting up a mission in the New Hebrides.
There's some islands in the vicinity of Australia.
For the most part, the native population accepted merchants and missionaries, but there had been a flare-up recently due to a quarrel between sandalwood merchants and some locals.
Some people, quote, hearing of his death, ascribed it to me and the worship and resolved to burn our house and property and either murder the whole mission party or compel us to leave the island.
So at this point, Patton had some allies among the native population, like a chief named Nawat, who spoke in Patton's defense and tried to get them, hey, don't burn down his house.
Hey, come on, this guy's just one of the quote: the inhabitants from miles around united in seeking our destruction, but God put to it even savage hearts to save us.
A meeting of all our enemies on the island was summoned, and it was publicly resolved that a band of men be selected and enjoined to kill the whole of those friendly to the mission.
Frenzy and excitement prevailed, and the blood fiend seemed to override the whole assembly.
When, under the impulse that surely came from the Lord of Pity, one great warrior chief who had hitherto kept silent rose, swung aloft a mighty club and smashed it earthwards, cried aloud, The man who kills Misi must kill me first.
The men that kill the mission teachers must kill me first and my people, for we shall stand by them and defend them till death.
Sure.
So the guy who stands up for them ends up getting like a slow clap of the chiefs who are all like, we got his back.
So then, notoriously, white supremacist Christian Billy Graham gets a hold of this story, and those men are no longer native, but in fact, white-robed white people holding swords.
So in his story, Patton says, quote, clearly did our Lord Jesus Christ interpose directly on our behalf that day.
I and my defenseless company had spent it in anxious prayers and tears, and our hearts overflowed with gratitude to the Savior who rescued us from the lion's jaws.
So when Lee tells the story and asks, what's the explanation?
I find his disposition to be dishonest.
The explanation is obvious.
A missionary who died in 1907 wrote an autobiography that at times reads like a Tin Tin.
And then a craven evangelist came along and embellished the story for his own book about angels being secret agents for God.
I'm sorry, but I don't care about this dream at all.
And I have to insist that it doesn't prove anything.
If Lee wants to take some personal meaning from it, and if that's important to him, then I don't want to insult that or take that away from him.
But pretending it's anything more than that is idiotic.
The fact that this is the second example he has when trying to argue for the existence of angels is a bad sign and should be a strong indication that his argument is some weak shit.
But I could nitpick around and say that he could have been more aware of Christianity as a child than he's letting on, or that he probably rewrote this memory of the dream in his head a thousand times.
But I don't want to do that because I don't care.
I will not argue against the meaning that Lee personally has for this dream because that's for him to decide.
I will just flatly say that dream-based evidence is not evidence.
So no matter how convincing this story is or isn't, it means nothing in our search for angels.
If you're accepting angels visiting you in a dream and telling you riddles as a form of evidence, you're not interested in evidence.
But the other thing I learned in my investigation of angels, I thought, you know what?
I don't think it's appropriate to pray to angels.
I don't believe we're taught to do that.
I think there's a slippery slope if you pray to angels that it might slip into worship of angels, which would be blasphemous.
But there's nothing wrong with praying to God about angels.
Martin Luther in the small catechism has a prayer, an evening prayer that says, Lord, send your holy angels to protect me from the evil one.
And so I never used to do this, but I now make part of my prayer that God would send angels to protect me and my family, my ministry, my grandchildren, and so.
That is a ridiculous thing to say, especially because we all know that there is a society that lives beneath the ground that worships an unexploded nuclear bomb.
And that movie was in the past, so it was in the past, right?
Now, I know it was said in the future, but it was in the past.
When people say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, they just mean that if you're making a claim that flies in the face of existing evidence, your evidence needs to be more compelling than the existing evidence that says you're wrong.
The burden of proof falls upon a person who makes an affirmative claim because trying to do things the other way is impossible.
For example, in this case, I can't satisfactorily prove to you that demons don't exist in the same way that I can't prove that any fake thing doesn't exist.
You can't prove a negative, which is why you can't put the burden of proof onto a position that requires you to do that in order to establish their position.
When people argue against vaccines, it's not fair to demand that they prove that vaccines don't work because that would be impossible for them to do.
What's expected of them is to critically attack the existing evidence that argues that vaccines do work.
Vaccines do work as an affirmative position that people can prove by providing supporting evidence.
And then people who want to be contrarian try to poke holes in that evidence.
This is how this works.
Lee is telling me that demons exist, so he's on the fucking clock.
I'm not interested in disproving the existence of demons.
So the only thing that's going to happen here is he can present information that I'll respond to or we can go home.
He can just pretend that his belief in demons is the default position and I'm somehow out of step with history because I don't share it.
Instead of dealing with the causes of that anger and letting go of his bullshit, I guess he's just decided to pretend that he's plagued by demons who control his impulses and behavior.
Because I don't relate to that.
I don't relate to the desire to destroy just for the sake of destruction.
I would say that in general, this type of thinking comes from people who are terrified of taking responsibility for their own behavior generally because their father's period.
You know, what I've experienced with that specific, that kind of like destruction for destruction's sake, is that is somebody who thinks it is better morally or philosophically to destroy something for destruction's sake than for the reason that they are actually doing it.
That is usually like, oh, it's just destruction for destruction's sake, as opposed to I want to obtain something and I am going to destroy this to get it.
In the book of Hebrews, it says that we will do it unbeknownst to ourselves.
So in other words, the implication is that we will have angelic encounters, but we won't realize they're angels.
And I think that does happen.
Now, I have a couple of cases in my book.
One is a pastor who is driving his car in Ohio.
He loses control of the car.
He hits a telephone or an electric transformer kind of a pole type of thing.
The wires fall down on his car.
The doors are jammed shut.
The electricity is coursing through the car so much so that the windshield starts to melt and he's trapped in this car.
He doesn't know what to do.
And he begins to pray.
God, I'm stuck.
I don't know what to do.
And a man, scrufty kind of guy, comes walking up to the car and he opens the car whose doors were jammed.
He opens the door.
He reaches in.
He lifts out this pastor and takes him about 50 yards away from the car, which then explodes.
And he says to the pastor, he says, you're going to be okay.
You're okay now.
But the police are on their way, and I can't be here when they get here.
So just know that you're okay.
And he walked away and disappeared.
Now, the people, the medics who came, the emergency technicians and so forth that came as a result of the accident, and they look at the car and say, they can't explain how this is possible that somebody could have opened that car door and not been electrocuted and rescued this pastor.
Just because you don't have a ready, natural explanation for how something happened, that doesn't mean that you have to give credibility to a supernatural explanation.
I just read this book, Ghosts of Hiroshima, which is another, I think it's pretty new.
But it tells a bunch of these stories of the survivors of people who were in Hiroshima when the nuclear bomb landed and exploded.
And there's just these blast zones.
And it's a reproducible phenomenon in all of these types of things.
They're just these random spots where this person will be telling you a story about how they were having a day and then the entire universe around them was gone and they were fine.
Right now, if that person genuinely wanted to be like, there's an angel, I'd be like, man, if anybody was ever getting an angel and I was going to take it, that'd be fine.
While it is true and confirmed by emergency responders that an electric transformer did fall on this guy, John Boston's car, and that electricity was surging through the car when they arrived on the scene.
We don't know if the door was actually jammed.
It might have seemed like the door was jammed initially after the crash, but then he was able to get it open on a second or third try.
Who knows?
There's a lot of possibilities that aren't even involving malice or lying.
So Boston claims that his seatbelt was stuck and that this scruffy guy named Johnny cut him, got him out of the car, but he doesn't know if he cut the seatbelt.
The car ended up pretty badly burned, so I'm not sure there's any way anyone would be able to tell that one way or the other.
So Boston's family was doing a vlog on YouTube around the time of this accident.
So they ended up recording a fair amount of him in the hospital right afterwards.
It's notable that in that video, he doesn't seem to know what year it is.
He thinks that it's July when it's actually April, and he appears to be on some painkillers.
At one point later in the vlog, his wife says, quote, okay, he's coming to.
He knows I'm recording now.
Basically, everything about this story that makes it seem like maybe an angel was involved comes from one single person.
So it's pretty easy for me to reject this as a solid piece of evidence of angelic intervention.
Looking at the verifiable information about this incident, you can definitely say that this dude is lucky.
But jumping to it was an angel is something you would only do if you were desperate to back up your belief in angels.
But when the supernatural host when all these supernatural beings are referred to in the Bible, there's almost a sense in which the writer is assuming the reader already knows all this.
So I think a lot of the people who have committed genocides historically have been people who have religious convictions and have probably affirmed the existence of a soul.
I don't think I believe in souls, but that ambivalence doesn't affect my belief that murder is wrong.
You can justify that position a lot of ways that don't involve souls, like that it's just wrong to take away another person's subjective experience of life or that taking life is a transgression against the community that can't be tolerated.
On the flip side, if you need the idea of a soul to create a functioning morality, you're a baby and you should not be taken seriously in public discourse.
In the Bible, in Revelation 5, it says, quote, that I looked and heard the voice of many angels numbering thousands upon thousands and 10,000 times 10,000.
In other words, the guy was telling me said, there's probably never a time when you and Satan have both been in the same zip code because he's only in one place at a time.
And so he's got things he's doing.
He's probably never been in the same zip code you have.
His demons probably have been.
And they carry out his will, which is to pull people away from God, to discourage people in finding God, and to drag as many people to hell with him as they can.
Now, his existence, he's sort of on a leash by God at this point.
His ultimate destination in the lake of fire is already predicted.
So he has no future, really, but he has influence and he has certain powers.
And he and the demons are very intuitive.
You'll think they know more than they know, and they go after people.
I tell the story in my book about a very prominent psychiatrist named Richard Gallagher, educated at Ivy League University.
I have a quote from the former president of the American Psychiatric Association calling him highest integrity, totally trained and prominent in his field of psychiatry.
Of course, he's a medical doctor because he's a psychiatrist.
Just extolling him as an individual and as a scientist, as a psychiatrist.
And about 25 years ago, he had two cats and they got along great.
They slept together.
They played together.
Everything was fine.
Until one night, the cats started to attack each other viciously.
I mean, they're trying to kill each other.
They're clawing each other.
They're snarling each other.
They're biting each other.
It was unbelievable.
And they pulled them apart and put them into separate rooms.
I thought, what in the world was that all about?
At 9 a.m. the next day, the doorbell rings.
And it was a preset appointment.
A Catholic priest was bringing by a woman to be examined by Dr. Gallagher.
She claimed that she was a high priestess of a satanic cult.
And Dr. Gallagher opens the door and hears this woman who claims to be a high priestess of a satanic cult, who kind of looks up at him and sneers at him.
He says, So, how'd you like those cats last night?
According to his story, he was a doctor minding his own business when he got called on to consult about a woman who he refers to as Julia, who claims that she was the queen of a satanic cult.
She'd reported herself to a priest who wanted to talk to Gallagher about whether she was mentally ill or maybe if this was a real possession situation.
In the context of their sessions, Gallagher claims that he witnessed magical things that Julia did, like levitating for half an hour and seeming to do telekinesis.
He was interviewed in Esquire in 2020, and he had the best explanation for why there's no proof of anything he claims.
Quote, you're dealing with creatures who know you're studying them, observing them, and trying to tape them.
A lot of people think they're going to capture evidence on camera and prove the existence of demons to the world, but these creatures know when they're being filmed.
They're not about to cooperate when a large part of their efforts have been to hide themselves.
They're not about to make their existence obvious to people.
For me, as I investigate another area I investigate in the book are miracles.
And for me, if you have solid documentation, medical documentation, if you have multiple eyewitnesses with no motive to deceive, if you have no natural explanation that seems logical that it can account for the phenomenon, and if it takes place in the context of prayer, then I think it's logical to conclude that a miracle has taken place.
So this is from a 2021 article published in the journal Explore.
To put it as politely as possible, Explore is a bullshit journal that publishes a ton of pseudo-scientific stuff and it is not taken seriously in an academic setting.
But just saying that would be shooting the messenger.
So I decided to give this article a little one single.
So the woman in this case study was born in 1940 and went blind for unknown reasons in 1958 when she was 18.
This timing is a small issue because as the paper points out, quote, this case predates the availability of much of the ophthalmologic testing now used for diagnoses.
That means that the information about her condition that led to the experience of sudden blindness is murky and we don't really know all that much.
She was married to a pastor and then in 1972 he prayed for her to regain her sight and she did that night.
Apparently this was not something he had prayed about prior in their years of marriage, which I find to be an incredibly dubious claim.
Quote, their only prior experience with prayer for healing seems to be when the patient and her husband had briefly visited the meeting of a well-known healing evangelist, but they left before the time in the meeting when the healing practices began.
That gives me the same kind of energy as Bill Clinton saying he didn't inhale.
You know what I mean?
Like, I don't believe you.
Wow.
You went to this faith healer.
Come on.
Of course.
Calm down.
Get the hell out of here.
So he says that she had instantly perfect vision, but in fact, the next documentation of her vision is from 1974, two years after she regained her sight, and she was 20 over 100.
I don't know if science has a specific explanation for why this woman regained her sight, but I also don't think that the details of this case are that compelling.
For one, I don't believe that they never prayed for her to be healed before.
But even leaving that stuff aside, this case is being published in a shady journal.
And if you go to the funding section, you'll see that it was paid for by the very suspiciously named Global Medical Research Institute.
The GMRI is an outlet that funds papers and promotes the medical benefits of proximal intercessory prayer or laying on hands, like as opposed to prayer over distance.
This is a critically biased source, as evidenced by a blog post on their website titled, quote, Should I Support GMRI?
Quote, the answer is that you can't afford not to support GMRI.
Without strong scientific evidence that in-person prayer has positive effects on health, authorities have prevented Christians from offering prayer and claiming that they even believe God can heal.
This is a faith healing advocacy group, so it's hard to imagine that they would publish a study of someone miraculously getting their vision back and then work all that hard to poke holes in the idea that faith healing did it.
If he were actually interested in sorting out the truth from bullshit in the area of the supernatural, then he wouldn't be so excited to embellish and misrepresent information like this that comes from obviously biased sources.
These are more fun stories to tell than the like, like if you're choosing this side of things, you've got the, we're all going to die, everything's going to explode by gold.
And if you look at the actual study, there's a bunch of people who have like false positives who claimed that they were better, but the numbers didn't show that.
The author of this paper went to Mozambique because there was already a woman there claiming that she was healing everyone with prayer.
This was Heidi Baker, one of the founders of Iris Ministries, who, in collaboration with another missionary outlet called Global Awakening, was running charismatic Protestant services in rural Mozambique.
The researchers were at church services between June 4th and 12th, 2009, where people in attendance were told, Hey, if you're deaf or blind, you should come up to this designated area where people will pray for you to be healed.
This is already shit based on the design of how they're carrying this out, but it gets worse.
Quote: Western and Mozambican Iris and Global Awakening leaders and affiliates who administered prayer all used similar protocol.
They typically spent one to 15 minutes, sometimes an hour or more, circumstances permitting, administering prayer.
They place their hands on the recipient's head and sometimes embrace the person in a hug, keeping their eyes open to observe results.
In soft tones, they petitioned God to heal, invited the Holy Spirit's anointing, and commanded healing and the departure of any evil spirits in Jesus' name.
Those who prayed then asked recipients whether they were healed.
If the recipient responded negatively or stated that the healing was partial, prayer was continued.
unidentified
If they answered in the affirmative, this is making a murderer in Mozambique.
If they answered in the affirmative, informal tests were conducted, such as taking recipients to repeat words or sounds like hand claps intoned from behind or to count fingers from roughly 30 centimeters away.
If the recipients were unable or partially able to perform tasks, prayer was continued for as long as circumstances permitted.
And none of this should be surprising because the funding for this study came from the John Templeton Foundation, an outlet run by a weirdo Christian billionaire who believes in faith healing.
The researcher who wrote the paper is named Candy Gunther Brown, who strangely was a member of the board of directors of the Global Medical Research Institute, the faith healing promotional outlet that paid for the blindness case.
You mean to tell me that this super independent and bold researcher at secular Indiana University is a board member of a faith healing promotional outlet.
If we're going to assume that 99% of these folks are wrong about the thing they can't explain being a God-based miracle, why can't we assume it's possible that 100% are wrong?
There's no proof of anything here.
And yet, Lee is reporting on his self-directed opinion poll as if it's evidence of a million miracles.
So that poll that Lee did was part of a book he released in 2020 called The Case for Miracles, which is part of his The Case for series, where he pretends to present empirical evidence for religious things.
Right.
Weirdly, one of the things he argues is a miracle in that book is the study about faith healings in Mozambique, authored by Candy Gunther Brown.
And I think that a lot of the political preferences that Tucker has in specific are ones that are definitely not, they lead to World War I-ish type things.
If Satan were smart, which he is, would he go around the country and around the world trying to possess or bother average everyday people?
Well, you know what?
Money travel.
He's efficient to go to Hollywood and to influence a bunch of people there who are very influential in, let's say, the entertainment industry.
And let's say he encourages them to create films and television shows that are fun and that are creative and are fun, but there's an underlying message to them.
I feel like that's something a normalization of immoral activity that makes it normal.
Because, you know, when we laugh, it opens us up to various possibilities.
When we laugh, our defenses come down.
So I'm thinking of a wonderful, funny TV show like Friends.
Remember Friends, the TV show was on TV for years.
That it appears, it appeals to these classical narratives about Jewish people taking over Hollywood in order to erode the culture of the United States.
But I think it's more important to point out that Lee is a fucking dork.
So this is all in service of making the argument that the devil is efficient and he wants to use mass media in order to sway people as opposed to going and like whispering in your ear at your house.
So I'm sure some of the teachers that Tucker had at the various boarding schools his parents paid for him to go to were annoying.
But man, when I hear someone go off like that, it just feels like them venting their insecurity and their need to be better than any perceived authority figure.
I don't believe that anyone can go through a full education without encountering at least one example of an amazing teacher.
There are a lot of duds out there, but there are enough people who care and who are into what they do that I'm certain that any adult that says, I hated all my teachers, is a liar who's trying to look cool because emotionally they're still at that school.
Yeah, no, it's ironic, but the reason that they can be treated so poorly is because they care so much about the students, they're willing to endure trash.
So Tucker should probably just come out with it and say that he doesn't believe that mental illness is real and that people who don't conform to the sorts of behaviors he wants to see from them are probably possessed and should be beaten until the demon leaves their body.
This weird middle ground where he's very clearly expressing that he doesn't believe in mental illness but also refuses to commit to that position feels dishonest and kind of cowardly.
What Tucker is doing is saying that he doesn't believe that psychiatry and psychology have the answers for what society calls mental illness.
So instead, you should accept his even less grounded conclusions about demons.
It's fine to think that mental health as a field, it doesn't have all the answers and can't provide magic solutions to people's problems, but that doesn't validate the conclusion Tucker is trying to get to and replace it with.
It's like they're forgetting to do the part where they have to actually prove there are demons.
They're just kind of waving their hands around, whining about how we don't know everything about the world, and then demanding that I take demons seriously.
I have not experienced that personally, but I have credible people who do and have experienced that.
There are other Christians, though, who say, no, no, no, that ended with the apostles.
So that's one of those side issues theologically that when we get to heaven, we can raise our hands and ask God, hey, what about that speaking in tongues thing?
I guess just as a factual matter, it's true that there are people who, seized by some unseen force, begin speaking in languages they have never learned.
If the only people who can interpret this language are also people who have a special gift, it seems to me that this is basically a short-form improv game.
Also, Lee is supposed to be the guy who studied this and really tried to prove that these miracles are real and he hasn't seen anyone speak in tongues.
Like you said, you've seen it.
And if you give me a week, I probably could find somebody.
It's one of my favorite things that's ever been invented.
I think it's one of my favorite things to be able to pull this off, right?
This is the simplest two-man game in the history of religion.
It goes way back because obviously, if you can convince a bunch of rubes that you can speak in a language that only this other person could understand, you can fleece them for everything.
So maybe right there, if we just pause, like maybe right there, we have further evidence that science, while useful, of course, and life-improving in some ways, does not have the tools to measure the totality of the experience.
Because if death is what you're saying it is, then that is when the soul has left you or the anima or the breath or the whatever it is you want to call it.
Also, wasn't there the guy who was like, I'm going to put some stuff on top of high places in case people have the near-death experience where they can see outside their body?
You know, like, hey, take a look.
See if you can see this picture of my grandson on the top drawer.
But while I was poking around, I did find that when doctors are doing these surgeries, they have asked people afterwards if they had a near-death experience when they had to turn off their heart.
Yeah.
And all of them said no.
So like the ability to recreate a near-death experience has been unsuccessful.
And so I don't, I'm not familiar specifically with what you're talking about, but I would believe that some asshole would do that and then be like, what's that?
So maybe that should be two rocks don't make a right.
For leadership, if you don't believe human beings have souls, if that's not the basis of the way you understand other people, is a separate person with a distinct and unique soul.
Right.
If you don't believe that, you can have no power in our society.
If you don't believe anyone to have souls, then, you know, but I still like, if I'm that person, but I want to get into power, there's no reason for me not to lie and say I believe in souls.
But the arguments are so fucking stupid, especially because, again, if you think it's over when it's over, then you won't care so much about saving people's souls by letting them die in a bunch of different ways or killing them in a bunch of different ways.
I saw an interview in my book with a PhD from Cambridge University in Neuroscience who says the evidence is so persuasive that yes, indeed, we do have a soul.
In the interview, he asks her if there's good evidence for a soul in an afterlife, to which she replies, quote, there have been various studies conducted in the United States, the Netherlands, and elsewhere.
Of course, some stories could have been fabricated, but with others, there's very intriguing evidence.
Her answer is basically, people are looking into this and there's people making shit up, but some other stuff might be true.
And she goes on to say, quote, I suspect we'll see more data as research continues, but think about it this way.
All we really need is one documented case.
That statement says a lot because what it says most is that there are no documented cases of souls or the afterlife.
The Cambridge neuroscientist is saying there's no evidence, but maybe one day.
For what it's worth, Deerex has a degree from Cambridge in Brain Imaging, but she doesn't work for the school.
She's a lecturer for the Oxford Center for Christian Apologetics, and almost all of her career has been writing religious books, like her most recent release, Broken Planet, an exploration of how it's possible for God to exist when we have all these natural disasters happening.
If you have one of these experiences before you die, you think they're going to think I'm, I've got dementia.
They're going to think I'm nuts.
They're gonna, they're gonna think, you know, so a lot of people don't like to talk about it.
So, there's a researcher.
He went to a huge hospice facility in New York State, and they went to all the dying people, and they said, Please, as a favor, if you have a vision, a dream unlike any you've ever had, tell us, would you tell us?
And so, 88% of those dying people had a pre-death vision that they reported on before they died.
88%.
I think the other 12% probably had one, but they died before they were able to say anything.
So even if we just assume that everything that Tucker is saying isn't insane, then 88% of people who report having visions near death, that includes a lot of people on morphine.
He's just making up a rule that morphine blocks God's visions so he can complain about end-of-life care in a way that seems designed around wanting old people to suffer for their own good.
This was a study that was put out by the Palliative Care Institute.
And as far as I can tell, it's not full of shit, but it also really doesn't seem to tell much.
Basically, 88% of patients in end-of-life care reported having visions, but the range of what that means was wide.
Some of them were comforting dreams.
Some were horrible and disturbing.
And the report says, quote, religious content was minimal.
The study specifically excluded people who had dementia.
So all those people who they were aware they were in hospice care and that death was probably pretty close.
It stands to reason that in that community, you'd see a higher incidence of people subconsciously trying to make peace with the process of dying.
And having these dreams seems like exactly what you would expect.
It's interesting.
And it's good to have data like this to help normalize the grieving process and make death easier for everyone, but it doesn't say anything about an afterlife.
Also, if you're in the hospital, you can refuse any medication they give you.
If you're dying and you don't want morphine, doctors aren't going to force it on you.
But a lot of people at that point are in so much pain.
I would so much rather live in a world where that's an option than one where no one's given painkillers in the last months of their life because Tucker thinks that they should have pain visions.
It's one of the problems with these people specifically, right, is that they're competing in this space where it feels like to them it makes sense as part of their argument that it would be like, isn't 88% enough to convince you?
Maybe demons are trying to trick you by impersonating your dead loved ones.
This is a guy who applies rigor and critical thought to his beliefs and doesn't just shoot off, you know, from the hip.
This is the stupidest shit.
But Lee accidentally revealed something about his psychology in that clip that I think is pretty damning.
Pardon the pun.
He's saying that a lot of these returning relatives were ungodly people, and they're coming back and saying that it's all good.
You don't have to be godly to have peace after death.
This is a crafty trick that demons are playing on you to get you to not be godly.
Buried in that statement is the understood but unspoken premise that no one wants to be religious.
It kind of sucks.
And if a ghost came back and told you that you didn't have to follow all these weird rules and you'd still be fine after you died, there's no reason why someone like Lee would continue doing it.
This is either Lee's perspective of himself or how he views the general religious people who are his audience.
The reason this is a problem for Lee is that God is love.
And even if a deadbeat relative came back as a ghost and told you that you didn't need to worship God, you should want to anyway because it's good.
It's what powers you.
It's what gives you connection to others and the world.
And no dime store, blinky, pinky, inky, or Clyde is going to change that shit.
It's unfortunately a very revealing thing for Lee to express here because it's kind of the underpinning of this whole school of Christian apologetics.
This school of Christianity is built on arguing why people should be okay with being religious because they know that their version of Christianity sucks.
And a lot of their audience are just a couple bad days away from losing faith.
And then who's going to buy these dumb books about demons?
The struggle for me here is that sincerely, I don't hate Christians and I don't hate religious people, but this shit makes the position hard to defend.
Is that it doesn't mean the same thing to everybody.
Right?
So if you put your same name under something that you believe completely different things about, then people are going to use that to exploit the differences, you know?
When I was growing up in the faith, as is the phrase, right?
These were the type of people that fucking drove me insane because it was so obvious how stupid and awful this stuff is.
And it was so obvious that the other people that I was with in the church were fine.
Totally fine.
They were fine people, right?
They were just, they were just everybody.
But whenever they hear this in that same intonation and they're like, and they prayed all night, you can see their hearts like bubble up with the truth.
And like someone like Lee Strobel and like the Christian apologetics, like there is this tendency to be like, hey, people might think you're a dork because you believe in God, but here's why you should, why God is cool.
You know, like that's the God's Not Dead, that kind of vein of Christianity, that's meant to appeal to people who don't know that you're fucking with them.
And I think that that's a part of why I wanted to do this episode and why this stuck out to me was that I feel like that distinction is really important.
And I don't think that we need to, or the impulse to be like super anti-religion is healthy, but I get it.
I understand.
When people like this are ascendant and Tucker is doing an interview like this bullshit.
Yeah.
Like I get why people would be like, fuck this, fuck Christianity and all this.
I understand where people are coming from, but I look at it as more like Dan Snyder owned the Washington Commanders now, I think is what they're called, when they used to be called what they used to be called.
And he's a gigantic piece of shit.
Everybody hates this fucking guy.
The name is awful.
The way he behaves is awful.
The fans need to rise up and get rid of the leadership because the Washington football team is fine.
Right?
The football team just plays football, man.
You're a fan of the football team.
Don't let the owner, like this fucker, tell you what to do.
A miracle is an event brought about by the power of God that is a temporary exception to the ordinary course of nature for the purpose of showing that God has acted in history.
So, in other words, a lot of people got a nice definition.
There's a point that Lee makes a couple of times, and I think it's a valid point.
And that is that a lot of this stuff, like demons, angels, all this bullshit, a lot of normal mainstream Christians don't want to get involved with it because they know it's crazy.
So I think that that clip, I think that's a really good summation of this because it is expressing a belief that you also hold in many ways about religion.
And in some ways, denominations of Christianity have achieved that goal, but you still use the same text.
Sure.
Whatever.
The reason that this is, you know, a good parting is that, like, this is Tucker and to a more jovial extent, Lee, expressing, we are not going to tolerate other Christianity within our Christianity.
I mean, you know, for the longest time, they kind of tolerated these people because they were an almost, they were like a remnant to the more magical times, you know, whenever men of faith walked the earth and moved mountains and all that kind of stuff.
But now, you know, if you let them in and give them power, they're going to take over and they're not going to tolerate you.
I don't know, like, outside of this being kind of, you know, I mean, he's doing an interview on Tucker's show, but like, I don't know how much this is wildly out of sync with what Lee Strobel was doing 10 years ago.
I like it whenever if you've got a mythology that involves massive battles between heaven and hell, give me a little bit more than like, well, they don't have bodies.
But I mean, so like, essentially what happened then is if you've already admitted that they have no bodies, no corporeal form, no aspect other than some sort of will.