Trent sits down with Cy Kellett on The Counsel of Trent to discuss some of the problematic elements of a capitalist economic system as well as how to defend the Church’s teaching on “creation from nothing.”
Welcome to The Counsel of Trent podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn:
Welcome back to another episode of The Counsel of Trent podcast. I am your host, Catholic Answers apologist and speaker Trent Horn. I do want to let you guys know I got a listener email a while ago and it offered a correction to an answer that I gave in an open mailbag. And I really appreciate the feedback that I get. Sometimes I get random emails through my website at trenthorn.com. The easiest way to get in touch with me is, if you are a subscriber at trenthornpodcast.com, you can directly interact with me by commenting under the episodes whenever we post one, directly messaging me. It’s always a treat to interact with our patrons there. So if you want that immediate access, consider becoming a patron for as little as $5 a month at trentonpodcast.com. You make the podcast possible.
But this one came through via an email. It was open mailbag a while ago on the sacrament… It wasn’t the sacraments. It was talking about the pandemic and the idea that because the sacred blood is the blood of Christ, that if you drink it in the chalice, you cannot become sick from COVID-19. As I showed in that episode, yes, upon consecration, the wine becomes the blood of Jesus Christ, but it still retains the form of wine. Since it retains that form, that means if you drink too much of it, you can become inebriated. If someone drinks it before you on the chalice, they could deposit a germ or a pathogen there. Now, normally, chalices are kept very clean. They are wiped, and they’re turned. I think there’s actually been some studies done showing there’s not that much of a risk of transmission of pathogens, but it is possible. It’s not impossible just because you’re dealing with the sacred blood.
I pointed back to St. Thomas Aquinas, who said that, look, even if, after consecration, if the wine was poisoned and then consecrated, it’s still poisoned wine; don’t drink it. He said, put it into the sacristy. I stumbled over my words and I said, put it in the sacristy, or we would do today, we would mix it with holy water or pour it down the sacrarium. I meant to say and rather than or, and that was a big thing. It was a misspeak. That happens to everybody.
The point I want to make is this. In that case, if you had poisoned wine that was consecrated, that could not be consumed, ideally you would consume the precious blood after Mass. But if you couldn’t consume it, then what you would do is you would mix it together with holy water until it is diluted enough so that it no longer appears under the form of wine. Eventually, once the dilution is diluted enough, it’s not wine anymore, so it’s not the precious blood.
Even still, you have something that’s blessed, and so you would pour it in the sacrarium, which drains under the church’s property and doesn’t go down into the sewer. You would mix it with holy water, dilute it, and then put it into the sacrarium, where you also wash the other sacred vessels and elements like that, because it does not drain in the sewer. It drains under the holy ground on the church’s property.
Big thanks to our supporter who let us know that. If you have other comments and feedback, the easiest way to get a hold of me, like I said before, is to leave a comment or message me at trenthornpodcast.com. Check it out. Your support is greatly appreciated.
Today’s episode, I want to share with you excerpts from two recent conversations I sat down with for the Catholic Answers Focus podcast with Mr. Cy Kellett. I love sitting with Cy Kellett and chatting with him. He is just a wonderful teddy bear of a host of Catholic Answers Live. I really dig having him there and the witty repartee and banter we have with one another.
I feel bad for Cy, actually. He routinely gets these emails on Catholic Answers Live with people saying to him, “Why are you so mean to Trent Horn? I think it’s hard because people, you listen to the show, and then you don’t have the benefit of hearing my interactions with Cy throughout the day here at the Catholic Answers office. Then on the show, we’re doing a little bit of a routine. Maybe I’m the straight man, I’m not sure how that goes, but it’s all in good-natured fun.
One thing you could do is send an email, radio@catholic.com, and let Cy know he’s doing a good job and that you enjoy the witty repartee and the banter and the playfulness he has with Trent Horn. Let him know that. We’ll have me on Catholic Answers Live more with him. It’s always a treat.
We had two topics we sat down for. One were questions about capitalism. Cy gave me some good things to think about and concerns he has in a free market system, and that’s fine. As I pointed out in my book Can a Catholic Be a Socialist?, you can be a staunch critic, even, of elements of the free market economy. Pope Saint John Paul II was. He made it very clear that true laissez-faire capitalism without juridical frameworks that do not value people as human beings, that’s something Catholics can’t support. But while the Church has declared socialism is intrinsically evil, it has not done the same thing with capitalism or free market economies. They can be rehabilitated or they can be reformed to serve the common good. Socialism, as long as it remains true socialism, cannot. So we talk about that.
Then we get into a discussion on my new course for the Catholic Answers School of Apologetics coming very soon. Check in at schoolofapologetics.com. Creation From Nothing? I’ll show you how to defend the Church’s teachings on the fact that God made the world from nothing using scientific, philosophical, theological evidence.
Let’s listen to those two conversations right here on The Counsel of Trent podcast, guest starring on the Catholic Answers Focus podcast.
Cy Kellett:
Let me ask you about the spirit of competition then, because we in the United States celebrate the spirit of competition, but it tends to dehumanize a society, this hypercompetition for jobs, for resources. There are many people for whom the competition is really not something that they’re capable of. There’s many, many people who can do a job, but they can’t function in a society where everyone is constantly competing against them. This meritocracy, I suppose, that we are so in love with, this idea that competition breeds excellence, and that every country is in competition constantly with every other country, and every person is in competition with every other person, this seems to me that there’s an element that is profoundly un-Christian in this and does not account for the varieties of types of persons and personalities and talents. It means extreme gain for some, and it means a lifetime of real bitter struggle for many others.
Trent Horn:
Well, I think it would depend, Cy, what you mean by competition. The idea that people will work towards finite goods, and some people will be able to merit more goods than others, I don’t think that competition in and of itself is anything that’s inhuman. In fact, the fact that we have rational abilities that we can apply towards various gains, that in itself is very human, because the alternative is if people are simply given equal proportions of things, regardless of how they apply their talents and abilities, I would actually say that that is inhuman. And people revolt against that. In my book, I talk about how the Pilgrims did communal farming, and so no matter how hard you farmed, you always got the same rations. So people just stopped. They stopped trying very hard because no matter how hard they worked, they always had the same place in life.
Now, I do think that this element of competition, it relates to this principle of equality and inequality that Leo speaks about in Rerum Novarum. Leo does talk about this. He says, “Such inequality is far from being disadvantageous, either to individuals or to the community. Social and public life can only be maintained by means of various kinds of capacity for business and the playing of many parts. And each man as a rule chooses the part which suits his own peculiar domestic condition.”
What happens, it is always sad if someone starts a business and then the business fails because other businesses do better and are able to meet people’s needs. But at the same time, we have to look, I think, at a larger picture. How do we as a society meet people’s needs and promote that common good? It is sad that the milkman lost his job or the horse and buggy driver doesn’t have a job anymore, but it is quite nice for the common good that we have refrigerators and we have taxis that don’t poop all over the streets.
I think that there are elements where we allow people to freely interact, and some will succeed and others will not succeed. We just have to make sure that those who don’t succeed, that they don’t fall into destitution. That’s why people who believe in free markets, even people like Friedrich Hayek, for example, who was a very staunch critic of socialism, thought it was perfectly acceptable, in fact, necessary, for the state to provide a social safety net to make sure that people who, like you said, are not able to meet the needs of the market in certain ways, that they’re not destitute because of it. Does that make sense?
Cy Kellett:
It does make sense, but it strikes me that there’s something about, even in the decades, since Hayek, there’s a way in which the economy has become so hyperspecialized that a person who has skills at a keyboard has access to almost unlimited wealth in many ways, whereas the person who has skills that were perfectly adequate to make a good living 100 years ago is pressed against and pushed against, the wage decreasing because of the hyperspecialization in the economy, that just simply saying, “Well, some people make it, some people don’t,” this kind of Darwinian attitude about economics is un-Christian.
Trent Horn:
I would agree with you if the idea is that you look at people who are able to freely offer their talents and gifts to others in economic exchanges, if you have the mindset of, well, if nobody wants to buy what you’re selling, then tough, that’s just what you’re going to have to deal with. That’s why I think that the role for the community as a whole… That’s what Leo says in Rerum Novarum. He talks about how man precedes the state, and so the state is not necessary when it comes to the first principle of the family. The family should be able to support itself. But he does recognize that there will be cases of individuals and families who are not able to support themselves. Even in his time, everybody maybe had similar skills. Everybody was a farmer. Some farms would flourish; other farms would be hit with a blight. Sometimes things are just out of your control, and some farms grow because of that and others would have failed. He recognized the role of the state to come in in the community to provide for those in extreme need and destitution.
I would disagree, though, about where we as an economy in specialization, I think that has been good for human well-being, as an economy, to grow and change so that there is a wider variety of jobs and businesses people can take part in. If you look at employment statistics 100 years ago, I think it’s something like service industry or information technology made up something like 3% of all occupations. If you wanted to get a job, it was usually mining, agriculture, or construction or manufacturing. It was one of those four, which could often be very back-breaking, dangerous, and not necessarily conducive for human well-being.
But now that one sector, 100 years later, that one sector that only made up 3% or 4%, what you would call service, back then it might’ve been you had some doctors and lawyers basically, that would be nurses, things like that, government officials, but that was a very small sector of the economy. Now it’s the largest sector, service industry, hospitality. People can set up all kinds of niche shops and industry. Like you said, you have a keyboard and people want to hear from you, they can hear a lot. I think that the benefit of widening the scope is better overall.
I think you’re right, Cy, that in any kind of economic decision we make or model we make, there are going to be trade-offs. I think that’s something we can’t lose sight of, in that any model we choose, whether it’s the Nordic model, whether it’s more of… Well, the Nordic model is actually quite free market. The Nordic model with a large welfare state. Other models with a more reduced welfare state that are more efficient that may allow for more economic mobility. There’s certain models, let’s take socialism, that’s just one that’s off the table because it violates Catholic principles. But then there are these other models. What we choose to do with the economy, there’s always going to be trade-offs. We just have to make sure that the decision we make is not an intrinsic evil and it’s not one that’s detrimental to the common good overall.
But at the same time, yeah, it is hard when, one, we see these jobs lost over here and we consider that bad or sometimes even an injustice, but then we don’t think about all the other jobs that were made in other places. This comes up in the globalization debate that happens a lot in economics and with Catholics. Should we be supporting globalization? People will say, “This is depressing wages for laborers in America,” and that’s debatable. One argument is it lowers wages for laborers. The other argument is that it allows goods to be purchased with less money, so your wages have more purchasing power.
The trade-off there is you look at the domestic workers whose wages may be depressed or jobs are lost. What about the other workers on the other side of the world who were previously laboring in a sugar cane field, or were engaged in prostitution or in smuggling or in other occupations that are extremely dangerous, providing them with jobs that are less than ideal but far better than what they have now? We have to look at all of the trade-offs, and always remember the principle we should not make the perfect the enemy of the good. There’s no system we’re going to implement that makes things perfect, but we have to always look at a trajectory to improve well-being and to promote the Gospel.
Cy Kellett:
So what would be the distinctive marks of the Christian person doing business or just living their economic life today? If I’m going to say, yeah… That’s not so much a systematic question but a personal question. What are the marks of the person who is living at least closer to the Gospel than the one who’s living without concern for the Gospel?
Trent Horn:
Right. I think that’ll go back to the mark of that concern will be what Jesus said. He said, “You can’t serve God and mammon.” The mark there will be the Christian, when it comes to economics, is the person who serves God; they don’t serve mammon or money. They are not obsessed with just simply creating wealth for the sake of having wealth or for spending wealth on their own preferences. The Christian is someone who will serve God first, not money first. However, that does not follow that the Christian is someone who won’t acquire wealth.
For example, you look in Scripture, there are many wealthy people who faithfully served God. Abraham had many flocks of sheep. You look at Job. He was a very wealthy man. It was taken away from him, then God gave it back to him twofold at the end of his life, after his sufferings. Joseph of Arimathea was so wealthy he could afford a rock tomb. Normally, Jesus would not…. Jesus, as a commoner, would not have been buried in a specialized tomb like that. It’s only because Joseph of Arimathea was a rich man that he was able to acquire such a tomb for Jesus to be buried in.
I think that’s the principle there to follow. We love God more than money. We love God. We don’t love money in and of itself, but we love what we can use money to do for us. In Deuteronomy 6:5, we have the command the Shema, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might,” or strength. The word might in Hebrew is me’odekha. We’re like, “Love the Lord with all your strength. What does that mean?” One of its primary meanings is material wealth. Love the Lord with all your material wealth. Because we think, “Love the Lord with all your strength,” we think of it as like, “Yeah, I’m going to do it. I’m going to love God.”
Cy Kellett:
I’m going to make a muscle for Jesus.
Trent Horn:
Well, yeah. It’s not like we’re going to love him with all our bench pressing ability. We think of all your strength as just this 21st-century idea of “You can do it!” We almost think of “Love the Lord with all your strength” as if it means love the Lord with all your attitude, which would be a 21st-century anachronistic way of looking at it. Rather, with your heart and soul. Heart and soul are constitutive parts of your being. The heart is the center of the person. The soul is the life-giving principle that keeps you alive. And your strength, your me’odekha, is that which you have to be strong in the world.
What made a Jew in ancient Israel strong was if he had lots of money. If you have flocks, you have servants, love the Lord with all of that. If you own a large, productive business, love the Lord with that, and treat your laborers not merely as commodities but as persons, and always try to do right by them. There’s many ways that employers can do that. There are employee profit-sharing programs that employees can be brought into into companies.
When you look at Chick-fil-A, for example, Chick-fil-A makes sure their employees always have Sunday off. They don’t even work. Business is not even open on Sunday, even though to be open on Sunday would increase their profits for their shareholders. I have no doubt about that. On Sundays, I’m sure that would increase their sales by 20% since most people like to go out to eat on weekends. I always think with Chick-fil-A, I always want Chick-fil-A on a Sunday. I’m driving; I’m like, “Oh, I should get some Chick-fil-A. Ah, it’s Sunday.” I feel like that would increase their profits, but they have chosen not to do that in order to provide a particular good for their employees, and for the community as a whole too.
I think that that is the principle, to look upon others as people made in the image and likeness of God, and to love the Lord with all your strength and to serve Him, and to just not serve money as an end in and of itself.
Be sure to subscribe to Catholic Answers Focus if you want to hear that complete episode and if you want to hear the next complete episodes. That was my discussion with Cy on free market economics from a Catholic perspective, and now Creation From Nothing? To continue our discussion in this other episode, once again, if you want both episodes and other great content, subscribed to the Catholic Answers Focus podcast, available at iTunes, Google Play, other podcasts outlets. Let’s take a listen.
We say it in the Creed. That’s why we say God made all things visible and invisible, and that’s important. In the older translation, we would say all things seen and unseen, right? Was that-
Cy Kellett:
Yeah, right. Yeah, before they went back to the English translation that matches the Latin.
Trent Horn:
Right? Seen and unseen would make it seem like God just made… I see you, and then He made the bacteria and the viruses and the things we can’t see because they’re very small, but unseen is not the same as invisible. There are many things that exist that do not have a visible construct to them, because they’re not made of matter at all. God made everything matter and energy, as well as things that exist that are not composed of matter and energy but still have existence because God has given them existence. That would include incorporeal persons like angels, both the good angels and the fallen angels. He gives them their pure spiritual existence, but they don’t have an unlimited existence like God, but they have a purely spiritual existence.
He also creates things that… Many philosophers believe there are immaterial things that are universal that exist. Many mathematicians believe that numbers exist. Catholics and Christians would hold that numbers, if they have an existence, they exist in the mind of God, and so their existence ultimately depends on Him. They’re not outside of God. Of course, it’s a bit controversial. Not that controversial. There’s a lot of mathematicians who are Platonists.
I find it to be fascinating, because when we say a statement like two plus two equals four, what does that mean? We say it’s true, and it’s always true, but what does that mean that it’s true? You might say, “Well, because I have two rocks and two rocks, and now there are four rocks.” But that would still be true even if there were no particles in the universe, even if there were no material objects to instantiate mathematical truths, because we can do mathematical operations with infinite sets.
Georg Cantor developed what is called set theory, and that allows us to do what is called transfinite arithmetic, how you can add infinite sets together. You can say there are infinite sets that are larger than other sets. We say that those transfinite arithmetical operations are true, but it’s not like we can say, “Well, we know it’s true because here’s that infinite set over there and you add it with that infinite set over here.” The infinite does not exist in reality. There’s two mathematicians, Kasner, and I forget the other gentleman, in their textbook they said, “The infinite does not exist in the same way that fish exist in the sea,” is what they said. But it exists. But it exists, like infinite mathematical operations. These things really do exist, and God made them, even if they don’t have material elements to them. Because God is all knowing and all powerful, all these things, all these infinite things, ultimately have their existence rooted in Him as the infinite act of being itself.
Cy Kellett:
Okay. You said this is a short course on creation ex nihilo. What do you cover in there? Do you cover this?
Trent Horn:
I talk about the doctrine of creation ex nihilo, what it means, and then I go into, like I said, three different kinds of evidence for God. Mostly, I talk about the Kalam… I talk about the Kalam cosmological argument as being a prime example of proving from reason that the universe came to be from nothing.
Basically, the first half of the course is, well, proving from reason the universe came from nothing, probably the first three-quarters actually, proving from reason the universe came from nothing, and then proving from revelation it came from nothing. In the first part, I talk about the Kalam argument, which is whatever begins to exist must have a cause for its existence. The universe began to exist; therefore, the universe has a cause for its existence. We can use reason to say that cause has divine attributes. I show science points us towards the universe having a finite beginning, big-bang cosmology.
I get into that a little bit more, of the cosmological details involved, the philosophical problems with the past being infinite and the nature of time itself, and then the scientific evidence that our universe didn’t just come from nothing accidentally, but that it has finely tuned laws of physics. We talk about the ex nihilo part at the beginning, but then I also talk about the creatio part, that the universe didn’t come accidentally from nothing; it’s designed to be life permitting. Then I talk about what Scripture and the Church Fathers say about the universe coming to be from nothing.
Cy Kellett:
The main objection, I would say, from the person who will follow your logic on the universe, it being provable by reason that the universe is created from nothing. There’s going to be tremendous objections. You mentioned Dr. Krauss. I think his philosophy is, well, we wouldn’t say it’s strong in this one. He’s weak at presenting philosophy.
Trent Horn:
No, it’s bad. It’s bad. David Albert, I think is his name, he is another theoretical physicist and philosopher who wrote a review of Krauss’s book and talks about how Krauss just doesn’t understand the terms that he’s using. He does a bait and switch with his audience when he says, “I can prove the universe came from nothing,” but by nothing, he means a preexisting quantum vacuum, which is just a low-level energy state.
Cy Kellett:
But there are those who will make a reasoned argument, Krauss being one of them, and I’m just saying he’s not very good at it, who will say, “Look, Trent, this all rests on the idea that there is necessary being and that the universe itself is not necessary being. So why can’t I just say, ‘Yeah, everything I see is a process of something coming from something else, but the universe just exists as a raw fact; it itself is the necessary being?’ I’m willing to say, yeah, there’s such a thing as necessary being, but it’s the universe. It’s not a God outside the universe.”
Trent Horn:
Well, there are two problems with that. I noticed you used the phrase raw fact. Also, the terminology that’s used is brute fact. These are two different terms. To say the universe is a brute fact is different than saying the universe is necessary. To say the universe is a brute fact would mean the universe could have failed to exist, it could have been the case it didn’t exist, but it just happens to exist, and it does exist for no reason at all. It just exists. As Bertrand Russell said, the universe just exists, and that’s all.
Trent Horn:
The counter to that is, well, if you’re going to rely on that brute fact definition, things can just exist for no reason at all, then that would run afoul of the principle of sufficient reason that seems to govern modern science, the way that we navigate the world, that things don’t exist for no reason. They exist for some reason. The search for scientific explanations, we couldn’t even go on that search if it was viable that things could exist for no reason at all.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. You wouldn’t ever say, “Why does a quasar exist?” Look, they just exist. We would find that a completely unsatisfactory answer.
Trent Horn:
We predicate that there are explanations, even if we cannot discover them. If you say the principle of sufficient reason is not true, and the universe is an exception to that, it seems highly suspect that we don’t find more examples of things coming into existence or going out of existence for no reason whatsoever. I think the principle of sufficient reason is a well-founded principle. That goes against the brute fact argument.
The necessary argument is saying, yes, the universe exists because it has to exist. The universe must exist. That is a claim that requires evidence to support it. Why believe the universe is necessary? Most things that are necessary, we can see they’re necessary by the nature of the thing itself.
Let’s take a blue triangle. We ask the question, “Why is that triangle blue?” Because it could have been red, it could have been green. We don’t ask, “Why is it three-sided?” Well, because that’s just what triangles are. They have to be that way.
The question “Why does the universe exist?” it’s more like the question “Why is the triangle blue?” rather than “Why is the triangle three-sided?” It’s not a dumb question to ask. It’s a perfectly sensible one.
Other arguments that the universe is not necessary is that normally things that are necessary, we can’t imagine them otherwise. I can’t imagine a four-sided triangle. I can imagine the universe not existing. I can at least imagine, by subtraction, parts of the universe going away. There could have not been our solar system. There could have not been a Milky Way galaxy. There could have not been my breakfast burrito this morning. If we start saying that certain parts can be taken away, there doesn’t seem to be any logical reason why that doesn’t apply to everything you can eventually subtract.
Then, finally, if we have evidence that the universe came to be from nothing, if we have evidence that there was a state of nothingness from science or philosophy or divine revelation, that there was nothingness and then there was somethingness, then the universe can’t be necessary, because necessary things always exist. That’s where the creation ex nihilo argument comes in. You can use this Kalam argument or the ex nihilo argument to buttress a contingency argument for God to say, “Look, we know the universe is contingent because it didn’t always exist. It is dependent for its existence on whatever brought it into existence.” Then you would move from there with the argument.
Cy Kellett:
It seems to me, generally speaking, we’ll see a trend, if people can keep asking questions long enough, for answers that are illogical or impossible to kind of evaporate. Do you have any hope that these atheist arguments that are at their core illogical, they just don’t meet the basic test of reason, that they will evaporate, or do they have a power that goes beyond mere reason, for other reasons people just want to believe that there is no God.
Trent Horn:
Well, I think there are a lot of people who come to belief in atheism, whether it’s the strong claim there is no God or the weaker claim there’s no good reasons to believe in God, they do so without rigorously looking at the arguments. They just make assumptions that there’s no good reason to believe in God, the laziest one being, if there were, everybody would agree. Well, that’s not the case. There’s lots of things that people disagree about. That’s not proof of that. Rather, I think that people will look at that, and then, yeah, they won’t rigorously look at the arguments.
I do think that a lot of other atheists will embrace atheism, not necessarily because it’s logically bankrupt, but they will just be extremely skeptical. They’ll just say, “Well, I just deny the principle of sufficient reason. I deny the principle of causation. I deny there are universal moral truths.” They’re just extremely skeptical about reality and won’t follow those first principles back to God. If we have first principles of philosophy that lead to a necessary being, if they say, “Well, I just don’t accept those first principles,” then, yeah, you can’t get the path back to God. You’ve purchased your atheism, though, at a high-priced skepticism. I think if people really sat down and thought about it, that’s not a price they’d be willing to pay in other domains.
Cy Kellett:
Yeah. Right. You don’t really want to give up the fact that some things are right and some things are wrong universally. That’s a really high price to pay to be an atheist.
Trent Horn:
And some will. Some atheists will try to say, “No, I can have moral objectivity and not root it in theism,” but I don’t think they can. It ends up being very selective or arbitrary in order to do that. I think that the principles start to fall apart when you put them under closer examination.
Cy Kellett:
There’s always the Nietzsche option, just really, truly believe it, and then go insane.
Trent Horn:
Yes. You could be a nihilist. You could say there are no moral absolutes, life doesn’t really have a purpose, life is meaningless, and you just try to make your way through it as best you can and just try to give your life meaning and try to just play the game as well as you can. That works for some people for a while, but ultimately you either fall apart in this life and see the game is not worth playing, or in the next life you will see it was a game not worth playing, and that you have an everlasting existence, and that that’s been squandered and will be squandered.
It’s easy to try, Cy, to just say, “Well, I’ll just try to live out the next 30 years. I’ll make it work, and I’ll die a happy person. Fine.” With the technology we have now, that’s not outside of people’s grasp necessarily, to amuse themselves to death, as Neil Postman said in that wonderful book he wrote many years ago. But if you have an everlasting existence, you’re not going to be able to outrun that, and you’ll either find that out now or you’ll find that out later.
Cy Kellett:
Amen, brother. Well, a good place to start then if you want to at least begin to look at the logical proofs for God’s existence and the creation out of nothing, ex nihilo. You can go to Trent’s new course at the Catholic Answers School of Apologetics. If you just go to schoolofapologetics.com, you will find it. Thank you again, Trent Horn. It’s always good to talk with you.
Trent Horn:
Thank you, Cy.
Cy Kellett:
You’re a fine person. I’m glad we have no banter anymore. I’m glad we’ve given up the banter.
Trent Horn:
Oh, the banter must remain. We will always have a witty reply that comes from nothing.
If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member-only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.