all so much for being here. I was asked to speak on a topic that I found very fascinating recently. In fact, it is something I've devoted an entire book towards that'll hopefully be coming out sometime next year. I have a few other books that have come out as well. But the thesis is how do Protestants argue like atheists? And when I put these ideas online and Protestants immediately comment on them, you can admit some people are a bit perturbed or peeved. How can you compare me to an atheist?  This is some really retrograde kind of Catholicism if you think I'm the same as an atheist. What kind of, why would you do that? And no, when I say how do Protestants argue like atheists, I am not in any way diminishing the important similarities that we have, our affirmation of things like the Trinity, which the Catechism calls the central mystery of our faith, the deity of Christ, these central aspects, our understanding of the inspiration of Scripture. I'm not downplaying the similarities that we have, nor am I saying that Protestants are on some kind of moral par with atheists. Rather, something that I have noticed in my engagement because in the apologetics that I do, I engage all different kinds of people, be they Protestant or atheist. But in doing this, I've noticed a lot of similarities, especially when I can see both camps together. One way that I have wanted to reach out to our Protestant brothers and sisters, one way that I think is probably one of the most effective ways that we as Catholics can have to evangelize our Protestant brothers and sisters is to become the very best defenders of the fundamental elements of the Christian faith that we share. Too often, I've seen Catholics focus on apologetics, and it's a good thing that they do that. And they become experts at arguing that Peter is the rock or that we don't worship Mary, and this is important for us to learn. But then they skip over demonstrating the historical reality of Christ's resurrection from the dead, the reliability of Scripture, mastering proofs for the existence of God. Honestly, I feel like some Catholics, and I've had this attitude once, think, well, we'll let the Protestants bring him to Jesus and then we'll bring him to the church. Does anyone ever maybe succumb to that temptation? And they think, great, they get him to Jesus, we'll get him to church. But my friends, imagine if somebody led you to Jesus, wouldn't you follow them to their church? How much more effective would it be if we are the ones who take people from non-belief, from atheism to the knowledge of our Lord and then immediately to the church that Jesus Christ founded? So that's why one of the ways my explicit goals to help reach out to Protestants is in my work as an apologist to focus on the areas where we agree, such as putting forth pro-life apologetics that many Protestant organizations use. Engaging atheists, for example, I was recently asked my friend Cameron Bertuzzi to the Capturing Christianity YouTube channel. He was hosting a conference last August, so a year ago in Houston. And the big kickoff for the conference was a debate between an atheist. And actually an atheist that I had debated before, Alex O'Connor, the cosmic skeptic.  And our debate has got over a quarter of a million views on YouTube and that's been helpful in people who've said to me, I was an atheist and now I go to mass and it all started when I watched that debate. Because I had never seen anyone really counter Alex's arguments before. So I was excited to see that there was going to be this debate though I wasn't gonna be a part of it. I was just gonna go and watch popcorn and see Alex debate someone else. But the Protestant debater had to back out because of a conflict and Cameron called me up and said, you're really good at debating atheism. Do you wanna come down here? And most of the people there at the conference were actually Protestant, only a handful of Catholics. And yet many of these Protestants who had come for this event to watch me fill in to do this debate, they liked not just my arguments for the existence of God were very compelling to them and they fully agreed with them. And their basic attitude was, you make a good case for God, I'm really interested to hear your case for Catholicism. And so I think that before I talk about where Protestants and atheists argue in similar ways, I wanna really exhort us in our knowledge of the faith to learn not just Catholic fundamentals but Christian fundamentals. So that people can see, wow, you're, and it's not just on fundamental theology either. It's also, there are people who have followed my pro-life work who are Protestant and say, wow, I really like your arguments against abortion. So I'm really curious, why are you Catholic? And that can be the same for us. So in doing this debate, I was talking with Protestants there and with other Catholics, and I sat down for an interview with Cameron for his YouTube channel and Cameron himself is Protestant. And he was asking me different questions. And as a part of the interview, he said, well Trent, let me ask you this, what if there's a Protestant he really wants to be Catholic? You know, he really wants to be Catholic, but he's not sure. He's not, not all of his doubts are fully formed. You know, he's not overcome them yet. What should he do? And so I thought about it. I feel like the Holy Spirit moved me in the right direction. I said, well Cameron, what would you tell an atheist who said, I really wanna be Christian, but I'm just not there yet. I'm not past all these objections. What should I do? And I bet you would give an atheist probably a version of Pascal's wager. Hey, you've got nothing to lose in becoming Christian and you have everything to gain. Just try it out, go to church, pray, even if you don't feel like it. And then maybe the belief will settle a bit more. And so I said, then I would say the same thing for a Protestant, go to mass, go to adoration, give that a try, you have much to gain.  And so that started me on a journey to do an investigation to see, wait a minute, there's a lot of other similarities I've noticed in how Protestants argue and how atheists argue. And I think it ultimately boils down to that the debate between Catholicism and Protestantism, you could almost describe it in the same way you describe the debate between atheism and Christianity. How does the debate happen among atheists and Christians? Well, you have, atheists will say, I see the world around me, it's a great world, you and I agree the world exists, and we can understand the world without any of your God or religious revelation. It explains itself, we don't need any of that, this is just fine, we both agree on that, isn't that enough? And then the Christian gives the atheist reasons, and an atheist might sit there and say, well, those reasons aren't convincing to me, so atheism wins by default. If you can't convince me to be Christian, I'm fine remaining an atheist. So there's a bit of a shift of the burden of proof and a discussion about this shared reality that one person says is self-explanatory and another who says, wait, only God fully explains everything and makes the world make sense. Now where's the similarity? Well, what happens when Protestants and Catholics dialogue with one another? We both agree in this shared reality called the Bible. We all think it's really great, and Protestants will say it explains itself that it is the inspired word of God, we don't need the church to understand it. If you can't convince me Catholicism is true, then I'm happy remaining a Protestant. So once again, notice that there is an assumption that something one side is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty, the Protestant view that we just start with the Bible and with Christianity if Catholics can't make their case, too bad for them. But the other side doesn't have to explain, just like as I would say to an atheist, no, wait a minute, even if my proofs don't work, how do you explain why does the world exist? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why is there an objective moral law? If you can't explain these things, shouldn't that make you really question your worldview? And then I would say, well, wait a minute, how do you know that these 66 books make up the Bible? Could it be more than 66 books? It is. Where did that come from? How do you know that this interpretation you have of scripture is the correct one? How do you explain all this? And if you can't, shouldn't that make you very skeptical about your worldview? And so I've noticed these differences here and in pointing, sorry, I've noticed these similarities and in pointing out these similarities, I think it'll be very helpful for us in our dialogues with our Protestant brothers and sisters, not to have a kind of got you, you're being like an atheist moment, but rather to say what you're arguing and saying to me, I think you should really be careful. This is the same kind of argument atheists will make against Christianity. If you use this reasoning to reject Catholicism, you don't have any principled ground to stay on to reject this reasoning being used against Christianity itself. So let me offer you a few examples from my research. So first, number one would be this, Sola scriptura and Sola scienza, Sola science, if you will, that both groups, Protestants and atheists have a similar kind of argument when they both use a tool to restrict what counts as knowledge that ends up refuting itself. Both use a tool to restrict knowledge to support their conclusions, but the tool ends up refuting itself. So for example, as a Catholic apologist, try to see if you can guess, what do you think is the most common question I get asked? What is the most common thing searched for on our Catholic Answers website? It's a question. Where is that in the Bible? And in particular, it's where is purgatory in the Bible? That is the number, like every time you do the search analytics, it is the number one thing. It's the number one question that I get asked. Where is that in the Bible? And implicit within that question is the attitude that I am not going to believe something as Christian doctrine unless it is explicitly found in the Bible. That of course is the Protestant doctrine of Sola scriptura or by scripture alone. The 1647 Protestant Westminster Confession of Faith defines Sola scriptura, what we would call Sola scriptura, it defines it this way. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life is either expressly set down or necessarily contained in the holy scripture. Although it's interesting, holy scripture doesn't tell us what is and isn't scripture. It also doesn't tell us when people stopped writing scripture that divine revelation ended in the first century after the death of the last apostle or apostolic man. So that makes me very skeptical of this argument. But the idea is that I won't believe it unless you can prove it from scripture. But that's similar to when an atheist says I won't believe it unless you can prove it from science.  Where's the scientific evidence? Prove it with science. Well, I have this philosophical argument that sounds, no, no, I don't want word salad. I want scientific proof. All right, well, what's science? Science is a way of cataloging, describing and understanding the natural physical world, a way of understanding how matter and energy interact with one another in the space time universe. I can't use science to find God any more than I could use a flashlight to find its own batteries. Or it's like using a yardstick to weigh a chicken or trying to find a diamond on the beach using a metal detector. You're using the wrong tool, but it doesn't mean that the quest itself is futile. And so what's interesting here is when I see many Protestants have great arguments against sola ciencia. So Greg Cokal, who's a Protestant apologist, he talks about how by science alone doesn't work. He says this, imagine you wanted to collect all knowledge in a box. Let's call it the truth box. Before any alleged truth could go into the box, it must first pass the scientific truth test that something has to be proven with science. The problem is that your knowledge project can never get started because some truths need to be in the truth box first before science could begin its analysis. And Greg is right. In order to say that things have to be proven by science, I have to first know what science is. That science works. I have to know about metaphysical truths, that the laws of science are the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So if everything has to be proven by science, I can't prove anything because I can't prove the very thing I'm using for this test. It's self-refuting. But then you see where the problem arises here. Just replace a truth box that requires a scientific test with a doctrine box. Doctrine just means truth. That has to pass a scriptural test. That everything that goes in the doctrine, because what Greg Kokel would end up doing, is saying it can only be in the doctrine box if it passes the scriptural test. I find it explicitly in scripture. But as he says, the problem is, is that your knowledge project could never get started. Well, what is scripture? I'd have to answer that question first. And I have to run it through the filter, but I don't know what my scripture box is. It ends up being self-refuting in that respect. Now, here's what's interesting though. When Christians point out the error of scientism, atheists, instead of admitting the problem, sometimes will say, yeah, well, science is still better than religion. Think of all the things religion gets wrong, and science gets right. So we should prefer science over religion. Well, that's not a very fair comparison. You're judging religion based on how some religious people have applied it to scientific questions. But as Cardinal Cisabronius once said during the Galileo controversy, the Bible teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. And it teaches us important truths about reality. God made the world. He made it from nothing, which science has not refuted. He created human beings, and human beings are made in God's image. But as to how he did it, that's what science tells us. And so I've noticed that they'll just attack the other standard instead of showing that, no, science can't prove everything. And religion does tell us important things science can't prove. Science can't tell us human beings have intrinsic dignity.  Science can't tell us that. Something else must. Someone who created us and gave us dignity. And I noticed something similar happens with Protestants. That when I point out that Sola Scriptura is unworkable, unbiblical and self-refuting, their argument tends to shift to, well, we should practice Sola Scriptura because we have no good reason to trust Catholic sacred tradition. They'll say, why would you believe in the Catholic tradition? We have the Bible that's good enough. Tradition is this nebulous concept, this grab bag. We have no reason to trust Catholic tradition. And besides, in fact, here is what Norm Geisler says about Catholic tradition. He says in his book, the late Protestant apologist, Norm Geisler, writing in his book with Ralph McKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals, Agreements and Differences, he writes of Catholic tradition, oral traditions are notoriously unreliable. They are the stuff of which legends and myths are made. But now this gets really awkward for Dr. Geisler because what happens when an atheist says to him, well, why should I believe in the Gospels? Well, why wouldn't you? Well, how long after the time of Jesus were the Gospels written? Even at a conservative estimate, 30, 40 years? Well, how could I trust it? Well, the stories of Jesus existed by word of mouth. You mean an oral tradition. So when it's a Christian oral tradition, this is how Dr. Geisler describes it. First century, let's see, the New Testament writers were living in a culture where the vast majority of people were illiterate and there was no initial need or utility in writing their testimonies down. First century people in Palestine developed strong memories in order to remember and pass on information. In such an oral culture, facts about Jesus may have been put into a memorable form. So when it's a Christian tradition that ends up in the Bible, well, then it's reliable and illiterate people are great at passing on traditions. But when it's a Catholic tradition about how to interpret scripture according to the rule of faith, it's unreliable the stuff of which legends and myth are made.  Now he might say, well, no, we're talking some Catholic traditions go on much longer than just when the Gospels were written down. That's just a few decades. Some Catholic tradition goes on maybe for centuries, but he still has a problem because Dr. Geiser uses the same defense for the reliability of the Old Testament, which existed as oral tradition for centuries until it was written down. And he says of the Old Testament, oral tradition was very important in the Jewish culture and served as one of the main ways to transfer information among many other things. So once again, my concern is it's sort of like, what's that parable? I was reading ASOP to my kids. It's the parable, I believe, of the scorpion and the turtle. Please give me a ride across this stream. You'll sting me and we'll both die. No, I won't. He stings them and they both go down. In attacking Catholic tradition in order to build up soul scriptura, you're gonna undermine the very thing that made up the Bible in the first place since the biblical accounts existed as oral traditions before they were written down. In the words of the venerable Tony Stark, not a great plan. The next one is Parallelomania, all right? So Parallelomania was coined by a member of the Society of Biblical Literature, SBL, in 1961, Samuel Sandmell. And he talked about how there's people who are trying to argue that certain aspects of religions or Christianity are actually based on another religion or another culture. And to prove this borrowing took place, they try to find parallels. Any kind of parallel, anything, even the most trivial, they try to find parallels everywhere. And he called that Parallelomania. Now, sometimes there are parallels. Now, sometimes things are borrowed even intentionally in order to subvert them, for example. Some Protestants like to quote Cardinal Henry Newman, who said that many things that Catholics do were already done before among with the pagans, like lighting candles and votive offerings and incense. And they'll quote Newman. They'll say, see, even Newman says what they do is pagan. And look for that quote. If they're at least honest, there will be little ellipses, three periods, because they leave out the part where Cardinal Newman says, and the ring in marriage. Because where is this in the Bible? This is a pagan custom. It first probably has its roots in ancient Egypt. Yet its symbolism is compatible with Christianity, and so we baptize it and make it a part of our own rights. But the Parallelomania can get pretty absurd, especially when you have unscholarly anti-Catholic writers doing this. My favorite is probably Jack Chick. Jack Chick is probably, I hear the groans and the chuckles a little. How many people here have heard of Jack Chick? I hear someone boo. Jack Chick is probably the world's most famous cartoonist. At least the world's most published. He is a fundamentalist Baptist, I believe, and he has a very narrow theology. I think every other Christian, except the people at his church, he's a late, by the way, the late author, Jack Chick. He passed away a few years ago. He was very reclusive. There's no photographs of him. The only image we have of him is one that Jimmy Akin wrote down as a sketch when he met him once. You can find it at Catholic.com. But he would put forward these little comic books and usually there were all kinds of subjects, but the Catholic ones are usually about a Catholic who's not a very good person, who dies, ends up in heaven, the judgment seat of God, and Jesus is sitting before him.  He made these cartoons where people meet Jesus. But what does the first and second commandment, depending on how you enumerate for Protestants, there's probably a commandment that would come up here, right? Thou shalt not make any graven images. So what he does to get around this in the cartoons is Jesus is absolutely terrifying.  He just doesn't draw Jesus' face as if that gets around the rules somehow. Fine, I guess. And the guy says, I was a good person, I went to Mass.  And then you read in the comic later, how do we know Catholicism is pagan? Well, the Eucharist, that's not anything that Jesus gave us, despite what the Bible says. Rather, the Eucharist comes from ancient Egypt. It was a sacrifice that they would hold up the bread and it would turn into the God Osiris and people would eat it. And that's where the Eucharist came from. And so that's where it was borrowed. And even so, how do we know this? Because on the Eucharist, there's a monogram, IHS. What does that stand for? Isis Horus Sebb, the Egyptian Trinity. This is really in one of his comics. And this isn't just coming from him. He basically borrowed a lot of this stuff from Alexander Hyslop, who published in 18, he was a Scottish Presbyterian theologian and he published in 1853 a pamphlet called The Two Babylon's Romanism and its Origins. So Hyslop really started this idea that Catholicism is just reworked Babylonian mythology and paganism. And so Chick went on with that. You know, look at these similarities. It's just stolen from paganism. Why, you know, look at Catholicism is a pagan imitation. And I would say to my Protestant friends, thankfully my Protestant friends are scholarly that would not embrace this stuff. But there are many who do. They would realize you've got a big problem when you make this argument. The argument is this thing in Catholicism looks like this thing in paganism. Therefore Catholicism is pagan. Another example is look at the veneration of Mary. Oh, it looks just like this statue of a goddess in this pagan religion. Therefore Catholicism is pagan. Wait, if it looks pagan, it is pagan. So if that's true for Catholicism, didn't many pagans believe in dying and rising gods? Dionysus, Bacchus, Hercules, Horus, Osiris, many that they believed in dying and rising gods. There was a king of the gods. Their Christianity itself has similarities to paganism. There is a documentary film that's got millions of views online called Zeitgeist. It's a big conspiracy theory documentary. And one of the conspiracy theories in it is that Jesus never existed. His life was stolen from Egyptian mythology. And so they'll say, for example, that, ah, yes, well, Jesus is just like Horus. The Egyptian God Horus, he was crucified. And he rose from the dead three days later, baptized by Anna, had 12 disciples. It's all the same story. And in both cases, Christianity coming from Egyptian mythology and Catholicism coming from Egyptian mythology, you can refute it the same way. You go back to the primary sources and see that's not true. The primary sources are wrong. That these parallel arguments aren't using Egyptian primary sources. They're using bad secondary sources. A common one that comes up is Gerald Massey. Gerald Massey was a 19th century, early 20th century Egyptologist. But nobody uses his work anymore. And they knew that even back in the day they knew he was bad. And still, the work pops up among fundamentalist Protestants and fundamentalist atheists. In 1888, Archibald Sase, one of the renowned Egyptologists of the British Museum, said of Massey's work that no lunatic could possibly write more wild rubbish. I miss that in academia. Nowadays, he has to be more polite. But back in the day when you wrote a journal, you could call anybody a lunatic. Maybe one day, maybe one day we'll bring it back. The stuff about the Eucharist, that's just wrong. Massey is also, so he said, for example, Gerald Massey said that flesh and beer were trans-elemented or trans-substantiated by the scent of raw, the Holy Spirit. That he reads a hieroglyph, gets it wrong and imposes Christian terminology on it. The same is true for trying to say Horus was crucified. That never happened in Egyptian mythology. Atheistic fundamentalists reached that conclusion because they see a picture of Horus with his arms open. And then, oh, obviously he was crucified. People think this means crucifixion. I'm not gonna be liberal with hugs around them, but, all right. In fact, there was an individual Protestant author in 1966, Ralph Woodrow. He wrote a book on the subject called Babylon Mystery Religion. And so what Woodrow did is he took Alexander Hyslop's arguments from 1853, reworded them, because they're very difficult to follow, into the much more readable Babylon Mystery Religion. But he's an honest guy. And he looked at the scholarship more and said, wait a minute, wait a minute. There are parallels, but they don't prove anything. So then what he did was he went back to the work and repudiated it and wrote a follow-up book saying he was wrong in 1997 called the Babylon Connection. Here's one thing he writes in it. As Christians, we don't reject prayer just because pagans pray to their gods. We don't reject water baptism just because ancient tribes plunged into water as a religious ritual. If finding a pagan parallel provides proof of paganism, the Lord himself would be pagan.  And so it's one, our Protestant brothers and sisters should reject, even for their own sake, for their own theology. And C.S. Lewis predicted that these kinds of parallels would exist. He said that the human being is a religious person. They can naturally intuit these truths even if they don't fully understand them. This idea that there is a supreme creator and wouldn't it be beautiful if that creator entered into the world with us? So Lewis wrote this, we must not be nervous about parallels and pagan Christs. They ought to be there. It would be a stumbling block if they weren't. We must not in false spirituality withhold our imaginative welcome. It's true for Christian and pagan similarities and Catholic and pagan similarities. All right, here's the next one. Skepticism of Miracles. So in the summa contra gentiles, St. Thomas Aquinas talks about miracles. Why aren't there as many miracles now as there were in the time of Moses or the time of Jesus? And Aquinas says, well, miracles are primarily used to validate the giving of divine revelation. We would expect them at the inaugurations of covenants. And so we wouldn't expect them as much afterwards. However, he does say, yet it is also a fact that even in our own time, God does not cease to work miracles through his saints for the confirmation of the faith. And this became a major sticking point in the years after the Protestant Reformation. Because when Protestant said, well, no, the church is not the church of Christ, we are going to restore the true elements. People would naturally say, well, how can you say the Catholic church isn't Christ's church? Look at the miracles that the saints have done. How else could this be accomplished? And so there's different ways to try to argue against the miracles. I'll get to a common one later. But one is to say, well, maybe they didn't really happen. Maybe these miracles are stories that are just made up. We don't want to, if we start believing in miracles, next step we're going to end up being Catholic and we don't want that. It's true. Now that's not all Protestants, but I want to talk about how it proceeded for the few centuries after the Reformation. Thomas Kidd wrote an article about the healing of Mercy Wheeler at a Protestant revival in the 1740s. That she had a illness that kept her from walking and then she was healed at this Protestant revival. But he writes this when the news of her story began to spread. To 18th century Protestants, miracles were too closely associated with Catholicism. And anti-Catholicism served as an essential component of British Protestant identity. Opponents of the revivals attempted to associate them with Catholic superstition, whenever extraordinary claims surfaced. So as Protestantism grew and developed over the centuries, there has been a split among Protestants that falls basically into two camps, though there's a range in between them. One would be the cessationist view, the idea that miracles or at least certain kinds of miracles ended with the death of the apostles. There are no more genuine miracles after the apostolic age. The other side would be continuationists. This is common among Pentecostals, for example, who believe that spiritual gifts are still common in this day and age. So I'm not saying the parallels, by the way, don't necessarily apply to every single Protestant. The only thing Protestants all have in common is that they're not Catholic or Orthodox. After that, you get everything from soup to nuts. Although that's also true in Catholicism. We're well aware of it. We have the commendable to the questionable all within the same church. Universal, why it's called being Catholic. So there's a golf in between, where people are open, but skeptical, open, but cautious. So the cessationists argued, no, there are no more miracles, and so we don't have to worry about Catholic claims to miracles because they're not genuine. And one book that was written to argue against all miracles, especially Catholic miracles, was the book Counterfeit Miracles, written by B.B. Warfeld in 1918, one of the Princeton theologians, a Calvinist. And so, but what he writes about why, well, why shouldn't we believe there's so many testimonies of miracles through the saints, even going through all of church history. Here's something he writes. And as I read this, take out Catholic and put in Christian, and it will sound very much like Richard Dawkins, listen. The worldview of the Catholic, where Dawkins might say a Christian, is one all his own, and is very expressly a miraculous one. He reckons with the miraculous in every act. Miracles suggests itself to him as a natural explanation of every event, and nothing seems too strange to him to be true. Sounds like something a new atheists would say to Protestant Christians who believe that if you pray, someone can really be healed. That even supernaturally, not just through natural means. And so he says the healings at Lord's, for example, are the product of suggestion. And he says medieval miracle stories come from, quote, the thought of an age so little instructed in the true character of the forces of nature, and especially its deeply seated conception of the essentially magical nature of religion and its mode of working. So it comes from an age little instructed in the true character of the forces of nature. That's just like what atheists say, why Christians believe in miracles. You don't know the science enough, and then you wouldn't be so astounded by it. And other Protestants have noted this in Warfield's argument. So L. Philip Barnes, in his review of Warfield's book, this is what he writes. He says, look, Warfield needs to be careful that all his arguments to show, yep, there's no historical reason to believe in the miracles after the apostolic age. I mean, Augustine even says miracles were performed in his own time that he was aware of. And Warfield's responses, well, why didn't other people at that time write about it besides Augustine? John Remsburg, an atheist writing at the same time as Warfield, wrote a book saying Jesus didn't exist. Why? Why didn't other ancient historians write about these miracles at that time? The parallels are uncanny. But the arguments that you can debunk all the miracles after the apostles' suggestion, folklore, things that are not trustworthy, here's what Barnes writes, a fellow Protestant. The problem, however, is that a number of these negative points would be equally telling if applied to some of the biblical miracles. For example, as Colin Brown has pointed out in his discussion of Warfield's position, the raising of Lazarus as reported in John 11 is not well-attested, being recorded only in John's gospel. There's no corroborative evidence. Other naturalistic explanations could be given, and so on. So, there we go. The point here is not to dispute the veracity of the story, it is rather to note that if the same considerations produced by Warfield in his dismissal of post-apostolic miracles were applied to some biblical stories, then a similar negative verdict would be required in the latter cases as the former. Once again, in trying to get rid of the Catholic things that bother you, like miracle stories, which would make one wonder, why are the Catholics doing all these miracles? You're going to undercut the evidences we have for the miracles we jointly believe in, like in scripture. Cardinal Newman in the 19th century noted this problem as well. Here's what he writes. It may be taken as a general truth that where there is an admission of Catholic doctrines, there no prejudice will exist against ecclesiastical miracles, while those who disbelieve in the existence among us of the hidden power will eagerly avail themselves of every plea for explaining away its open manifestation. So if you're already predisposed to not believe in miracles in general, because you're an atheist, or you're predisposed to not believe in Catholic miracles because you're a particular brand of Protestantism, then you try to find any way you can to explain the evidence away instead of following the evidence where it leads. Here's another example. When I debate atheists, I've noticed on the resurrection of Jesus, when the resurrection of Jesus is being debated, why do you believe in the resurrection? Atheists will often ask Christians, well, why don't you believe in this other miracle if you believe that Jesus rose from the dead? And so I was in a debate once and someone asked me, all right, if you believe Jesus rose from the dead, are you gonna believe that Mary appeared to a bunch of people at Fatima? Yes. And I said in the debate, in some respects, in some respects, we have better evidence for the appearance of Mary at Fatima than we do for the resurrection. Not all the evidence, we have distinct evidence in the form of testimony under the threat of martyrdom, for example, and other elements with the resurrection. But with Mary at Fatima, unlike the resurrection, we have contemporary newspaper accounts of this event happening along with descriptions of things that appear supernatural and not just merely an optical illusion, like puddles drying up and people's clothes becoming dry quickly after this amazing event of the sun dancing in the sky. And so they kind of mocked me a bit, but I said, this makes my position stronger. But this, and they brought this up with me in this debate that I had with an atheist online because it's often, this often is used against Protestants. Because remember what I said at the beginning? When I looked, when I converted 20 years ago to become Catholic, what made me Christian were Protestant apologists. William Lane Craig, JP Moreland, Sean McDowell. It was, I hate to say it, it was a Protestant apologist that got me to Jesus. A little bit of Peter Crafe flow with the, Peter Craft and Father Ronald T'Chely's book, the Christian Handbook of Apologetics. And that also helped me along the way. But when, so they're used to, a lot of atheists are used to just Protestants defending something like the historicity of the resurrection. So when a Catholic does it, this argument, it doesn't work. Bart Ehrman, a well-known agnostic scholar of the New Testament, he recently debated my colleague Jimmy Akin actually on the reliability of the Gospels. Ehrman himself raises the apparitions of Mary and says, look, there's more evidence for the apparitions of Mary than for the appearances of Jesus after the resurrection. So Protestants are inconsistent if they believe in one but not the other. Here's what Ehrman writes. It is striking and worth noting that typically believers in one religious tradition often insist on the evidence for the miracles that support their views and completely discount the evidence for miracles attested in another religious tradition. Protestant apologist interested in proving that Jesus raised from the dead rarely show any interest in applying their finely honed historical talents to the exalted Blessed Virgin Mary. Now, he's being facetious when he says exalted Blessed Virgin Mary because he's an agnostic, but Ehrman makes a good point. If they're willing to believe that people saw Jesus after his death, well, why didn't, why wouldn't, if we had that same evidence for people seeing Mary after the end of her earthly life and better evidence in some cases, why wouldn't we follow that? Mike Lacona actually is one of the best defenders of the resurrection. He's a Protestant and he's an apologist for the resurrection. He wrote a 500 page book based on his dissertation, one of the best defenses of the resurrection out there. It's called the resurrection, a new historiographical approach.  And this is what he wrote. For myself, I'm not prepared to adjudicate on the matter of Mary and apparitions. Because I am Protestant, I carry a theological bias against an appearance of Mary. However, I am not predisposed to reject the reality of apparitions in general. And he's being honest. At least he's being honest. He says, look, there is evidence for this, but I have a theological worldview that's incompatible with it. Maybe the theological worldview needs to be tweaked. Just a tiny bit. And so I find that to be interesting to show that when atheists attack the resurrection, they go after the reliability of witnesses to say that this is a mistake, this is hallucination. Protestants are quick to rebut those counterarguments. Yet those same arguments are often made when people claim that they saw the Blessed Virgin Mary. So what other way can we get around that? Now, some Protestants who will say that it's demonic basically. They'll say, well, the reason is that the appearances of Mary, they're demonic actually. But you know what's great? I've got a great retort to this from a guy who had to deal with this a bunch in his own ministry. He's our Lord. And because they said about our Lord, well, how does he perform these miracles if he's not a prophet? And then the Pharisees thought they were very clever. Well, he drives out demons by the Prince of Demons, of course. To which Jesus said in Luke 11, 17 through 18, every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste. And house falls upon house. And if Satan also was divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? So why is the devil impersonating Mary to get people to join a church where during our baptismal vows, we promised to reject the devil and all of his empty promises? It does not make sense. It doesn't make sense. Now, what about the other miracles though? Some of you might say, yeah, but Trent, what about Mercy Wheeler? What about these miracles? If miracles prove Catholicism, what about other Protestant miracles? What about miracles in other religions? Do they all cancel each other out? No, I do believe that some miracles could be demonic in nature. Other miracles in a non-Christian religion could be God showing mercy and kindness to a non-Christian and healing them, even though the non-Christian doesn't know which God they're correctly praying to because God loves everyone. And it also may be the case, that's why we have to be careful when we make these arguments. In comparing the arguments between Protestants and atheists, I try very hard to be fair and I wanna root out bad Catholic arguments as well. For example, some people will say, well, I'm Catholic because we got all the miracles. Where are your miracles, Mr. Protestant? That's an arrogant response that will backfire. First, Calvin's answer was the same as Aquinas's. We're not inaugurating a new covenant, we're preserving one the apostles gave so we don't need miracles for preserving revelation that was given. Number two, they can say, well, we do have miracles. There are stories of evangelical pastors who've healed people, some who've claimed to have raised people from the dead and I believe that's quite possible. Craig Keener has a two volume book on miracles, Catholic and Protestant. So Christians are able with the gifts of the Holy Spirit to do wondrous deeds. However, the real problem I think for our Protestant brothers and sisters is if God allows a Protestant to perform a miracle, that can validate theology that we all share, like belief in the triune God who has revealed himself through the incarnation. But when God performs a specifically Catholic miracle, like a Eucharistic host becoming flesh and blood, that seems to be an endorsement not of just a fundamental Christian theology, but an endorsement of the truth of fundamental Catholic theology as well. So I had so much more here. Ah, but that's the key. Always leave them wanting more because eventually that was I think three examples and I have about 15 that I'll be sharing in the book when it will be released. If you're just dying for more, go to when Protestants argue like atheists, search for that on YouTube. I have a few videos where I explore the concept. I also dialogue with, there's a dialogue I have with two Protestants on this question. Cause I believe that we will become very bad evangelists and apologists if we only practice our skills on those who agree with us. One, we've hid the lantern under a bushel basket if we do that. And two, we've turned this into some kind of a sport or hobby rather than the important mission and fieldwork of spreading the kingdom. And so that's why when I come up with arguments like these, I wanna go and test them.  You know, cause it's, that's something that we must always watch out for. The venerable Fulton Sheen once said that you could win an argument but lose a soul and we don't wanna do that. But we don't also have to lose arguments and win souls. It happens sometimes. We can do both, but we can do so in a charitable way. So thank you very much for being here today. Enjoy the rest of the conference. Thank you.


Welcome to Dare to Dream. This is Debbie Dashinger, and today's show features Bob Young, an author, musician, and golfer who's been featured in media and press for impacting people through his music, words, and wisdom. He's all about mind golf and metaphysics. Bob is the brother to musician Neil Young. The Dare to Dream podcast won the COV Award for Best Radio and Podcast Show, WELP Magazine, Listed Dare to Dream is one of the top 20 best podcasts to listen to this year. It's high ranking self-improvement and Apple podcasts nominated for two People's Choice podcast awards and a webby award. The show is sponsored by Dr. Dane here in Access Consciousness. I thank them for the beautiful energy work they do out in the world. If you'd like to take one of their classes or become a facilitator, go to Dr. Dane here h-e-e-r.com or access consciousness.com. I'm Debbie Dashinger. I'm a media visibility specialist, and I help you to take your book from the inception of its idea to the completion and publish. I am a book writing coach. I also take authors books to a guaranteed international bestselling status, and I do all the heavy lifting for you. Finally, I show you how to be interviewed on radio and podcast and get massive results. I am about to do a free webinar to show you how to be your own publicist, and you can join me by signing up at Debbie-shinger.com slash gift. It's d-e-b-b-i-d-a-c-h-i-n-g-e-r.com slash gift. My guest today, Bob Young, was born in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. In 1942, he was a member of the Canadian Professional Golfers Association for nearly three decades and first met Mo Norman in the early 1960s. Like Norman, Robert Raglan Young has always been intrigued by metaphysics and has had access to the leading trans mediums. Young's brother is Neil Young, the internationally recognized singer-songwriter. Bob is the author of Mind Golf, the Trouble Genius of Mo Norman, published by Simon and Schuster. To learn more, go to his website, bobyounggolf.com. With that, I welcome the amazing Bob Young to the Dear to Dream show. It's so great to have you here today. Well, thank you for the invitation on the web. I'm very excited. And before we get into, there's so many pieces to who you are, which is amazing to me and deep and wonderful. And so there's golf, which we'll definitely get into, and there's music a little bit we'll get into, and definitely your foray into metaphysics. And let's just start growing up. So what an interesting family you had, and also for you being the brother of Neil Young. Did you and Neil grow up in a household that was filled with music and golf? There was a lot of music. We lived in a little village in Ontario called Omimi, O-M-E-M-E-E. And I think it's an Indian word that means wild pigeon. That's something to do with it. At any rate, we moved there in 1948. I was six, Neil was three and a half, and he's three and a half years younger than I am. And we went to school there and a little place, 425 or 30 people. My father wrote, he was writing fiction, selling articles to Sports Illustrated to Saturday Evening Post. He eventually wrote and had published 35 or 40 books and was out. Aggressive. Yeah, the sports columnist at the Toronto Globe and Mail, which is a national newspaper to this day. And also the editorial columnist for quite a while. And in some instances, he was their lead writer. At any rate, we lived in a little village and we grew up there. My mother played all sorts of kinds of music right back into the 20s when all those, when the blues first started showing up. So Neil and I both, we heard all that stuff. I was listening to some of it this afternoon, as a matter of fact, all those old black characters, you know, that somebody picks up an instrument and blasts something into it and everybody else picks up on it. And it's very spontaneous. So it's alive is what it actually is. It's good to listen to it. So we heard all that. My mother played at Billie Holiday. Everything that came along, we heard about it. And our family friends were writers who became nationally known in Canada as the years went by. So that was the atmosphere that Neil and I grew up in. And we could, I remember driving around in the car, we could get on the car radio wheeling West Virginia. So we heard all the country music way back there in the 50s when I was, you know, 10, 11, 12 years old. And Neil heard all that stuff too. But that was it. That was life in our household. But my mother played every kind of music that you could think of, including a lot of classical music. As a matter of fact, some of this stuff, the crazy horse does, and it has over the years, when they can, they get into a place playing live, especially, but they just, they rock out. Something happens, they just keep playing. Those, a lot of that are classical music lines. Not a lot of people hear it that way, but that's what it is. And I think that's where it comes from. I love that reference, by the way. And I really resonate with you. I grew up in an incredibly musical family, interestingly enough with a grandfather who was a great music teacher and inventor. And he went everywhere and he must have also written as many books as you're talking about your dad did, which is very impressive, right? You know, from writing a book, it's very impressive from beginning to what you're doing right now, being interviewed about it. Not an easy journey, but for those who are called to it, huge. But I think those through lines really influence your life. This idea of music and music almost being a filter through what you hear, experience things and being such a powerful reference point too. When we had, there was that other people in our family, my uncle, my father's brother was a brilliant musician. And I remember standing offstage at a show Neil did someplace, and I think it was in a place called Massey Hall in Toronto. My uncle Bob was standing there watching this and he was really good. And Neil always said to me, if he'd come along 15 or 20 years later, he would have been a superstar player. And his daughters could sing with anybody. One of them was actually could have done Major League Opera, but the three of them together were as good a vocal trio as any female vocalist that we ever heard. And there, my dad's mother was a musician also. And my aunt, her daughter, my aunt Dorsey, and it was there. I never thought about it much at the time, it's just because of that was in our family. And my mother's side, my mother played music, her family was different in that regard.  And it's probably still there. My sister, Astrid, is the same. She's got her records right now. I got an email from her the other day saying, let's make a record. That's so cool. She wants to play with your band or just with you? Well, what she's doing, she's doing her own deal. She did an album that was out in Europe years ago that did very well. But this one, Eddie Kramer, who worked with the Rolling Stones, is involved in this thing. They sent me one song a few days ago, I listened to it and I thought, wow. Good. There's a professional production that has everything that you would expect. Somebody who's done the kind of work that Eddie Kramer's done is it's there. The musicianship is there. The production of it is there. The whole thing is very professional and not forced. There's a lot of stuff on the radio that sounds to me like it's contrived. And I turn it off. Right, look for a different station. It's like a, I don't know what it is. I don't know what it is. I don't want to think about it. I like to hear a little more spontaneous. And so that's what I look for. So it's in your blood. It's in your family. I love this. And so you have this book, Mind Golf. Man, if it had been around, when did I start playing? Yeah, well, 13 to 16 years ago. But it's been a minute, but if it had been around, it probably would have made a huge difference. So I want to talk about that because let me start by saying this, Bob, and tell me your thoughts. I always felt like the game of golf is the most like life that anything is. And how me, I showed up on the course, how I dealt with when I had a bad blow and my ball did not go where I wanted or I got into trouble. Like every moment on the golf course, you're being present, how you play, how you are, are you resilient, how you reappropriate yourself to get where you rather go, your interaction with others, your manners, like, and how you can create something on the golf course, right? Which you call magic in your book. I've always felt it was the most like life. What are your thoughts about that? Well, the way you live has a lot to do with your state of mind and your state of mind when you're playing upper echelon competitive golf or any kind of higher high level golf. But upper echelon international competitive golf is a good example. And to do that and do it successfully, your state of mind has to be under control. Those guys that are out there now, they all know that. And how they go about establishing that state of mind is an interesting, I'll talk to some of them maybe as the months go by, as I get interested in what I've written. And since they're always interested in trying to figure out how Mo Norman made the golf ball go, where he wanted it to go, the way he wanted it to get there. There's information in this book that those kind of characters will pick up on and then they will try it. Doesn't change, you know, I'm not saying change your grip, do this, do that or anything else. Here's a mental concept. There's, this is mentioned in that book someplace, but it's worth mentioning it again. It was Jimmy Merck. Jimmy Merck shoots scores in the low 90s. I talked to him on the phone one day and he said something to me and I said, look at the next time you go out and play, put the ball in front of you exactly at the destination point you choose and then look up in the air until you sense where the apex of the flight is where the ball goes into free fall. It has to get there before it can wind up where you want it to get to. And you'll feel it in your solar plexus, that's where it'll register. Keep the feeling, keep that energy and it'll show you the flight, it'll show you the image of the shot to be and just do that and then, you know, try to hit the thing, don't stand there and think about it for very long. And he went out and he called me and what happened was he went out and the next time he played golf, he did that and he made four birdies and he shot 80 which was 12, 14 shots under the, you know, that's a huge difference. Now, I talked to him about a month and a half ago in Florida, I saw him and he said, I haven't done that well since, not that good. I said, well, don't think about it. It's pretty simple. You mentioned that in your book. So you say that Mo, when it's his turn to take a shot, it looks like he doesn't even think about it or strategize, he literally walks up, he hits the shot, but that ball does very well and accurately. But you say that actually Mo had a method for delivering this direct hit. So what was he doing when you're mentioning the apex but was he actually in the background, you know, watching while somebody else was taking a shot or what was he doing so that when he walked up, he was ready to go? All he did was he looked at wherever his ball was and where he wanted it to go. His process was your first impression is the right one. That's what gave him the feel for the shot and he hit the ball and that didn't take him long but that's what he was doing. What I did, somewhere in that book, I said, and I think it's at the beginning of a chapter, late in the last few chapters of the book. I said, one day on the practice when we were hitting balls, I said, Mo, what's right in your mind before you hit the shot? And he said, looked at me for a little few seconds and he finally said, you have to make the chosen line of aim, which meant that he had to create in his mind what he wanted the ball to do. That's what he was doing. So I listened to that and I thought about it and I thought, all right, you gotta make the chosen line of aim, fine. Most people say, well, you visualize the shot. How precisely do you do, how do you create a visualization? That's what I finally came to think about and I thought, okay, so I put the ball in my mind at the destination point. Then I looked up in the air to where it would have to begin as descent to go into free fall, because it occurred to me for it to get to where I wanted it to be, it's gonna fly through the air and then it's gonna descend. So the real target is the apex. The ball has to get to that point before it can wind up where you want it to be. You know, you're describing something called the law of reversibility. I don't know if you realize that, but there is a real law, you can look it up, of reversibility and that's actually how I learned how to create dreams. So it used to be very frustrating to me and then I learned exactly what you're saying to go to the creation of the dream and then what's the next step, the next step, the next step until it got me to where I am today. So I knew what I needed to execute to become that or have that. And so you're saying with this golf method that he knew you knew by virtue of working with him for so many decades that you would visualize where you wanted it to go and then bring it back in your mind to the apex before it was, you know, to make that arc. And so were you actually then aiming for the apex? I was, what I did was once I established the apex, this all happens very quickly in a few seconds, I could put the ball precisely where I wanted it to be in my mind. So I would take my perception of the energy of the ball sitting on the ground in front of me and in my mind I would put it where I wanted it to be next. Then I look up in the air and locate the apex and then my eyes would come back along the line from the apex to where I was standing. And I inhaled the shot mentally and what basically I eventually did was I would do that. And as my eyes came back to where I was standing, my head would turn slightly to the right of a straight line at the ground or at the ball. And as soon as my head was far enough to my right that I could turn without my neck muscles impeding the revolving action of my body motion, it was as simple. I just did that and I would see where the sweet spot in the club had to go in order to pick the ball up as it was going by and sling it into the flight line. I didn't hit the ball. One thing Mo Norman said to me from time to time was don't put no fears on it. In other words, don't attack the ball with your hands. What you're really doing is creating a controlled motion that uses the principles of centrifugal force. So it's not an attack. It's a revolving action constitutive wind up and release. And eventually what I did was this. I would see the whole shot and I knew where the sweet spot of the club was. When you bounce the ball on it, you can find it. It's not hard to locate it. I see the shot. I put the ball at the destination point, locate the apex. I'd see the whole thing in my mind, but I'd also sense the end of the orbit of the motion where the sweet spot finished in my finish. When I landed in front of the ball, I was balanced for the end of the swing. And I simply turned away from the end of the physical motion and let it happen. I didn't force anything. And when I started doing that, the contact with the ball became so precise that the sound of the shot thickened like the ball was wet or something. What it actually was I realized later was when I created the image of the shot to be, I had a feeling for it. And I kept it in my mind. I didn't release it. I set it up mentally so that in my mind, when the sweet spot picks up the ball, the energy of this image I've created is automatically released into the equation. So that led to something else that Mo and I talked about because I could see it. Once that was refined enough, I could see the air get hotter in the flight line. It would glow. It wasn't pure white, but it was definitely not the normal color of the air. And I showed it to him. I explained it to him and he could see it too because he was doing it without thinking of it the way I was. Once I explained what I just said to you to him, the whole thing got easier for him. And he told me that. He said, I've never, and I put it in that book. He said, it's never been easier and as loose as a goose. All my life wrong. He said, and I said, no, you're not wrong. You never thought of it this way, but neither did I. But the point I'm making here is that now what I just said to you, I have the mental process involved in this. I have it's more refined now than it was last summer. And my vision is slightly impaired, but it's a little blurry. However, I go out in the practice railway. I can, I know where I want to hit the ball to. So now that the weather is decent here in Ontario finally, I can go out there and I can do what I just described to you and I can, if I miss it, it goes in a straight line. I don't, even if I don't hit it flush, it still goes in the right direction only because of what I know. So what I'm interested in doing is increasing the flow of energy so that the physics of the situation changes. In other words, the mental energy that is involved in creating the concept of the shot to be. Can alter, it has an exterior influence. The flight of the ball is eased through the air. I noticed that playing in a wind when I could do this initially. I noticed that the ball, the wind didn't seem to affect the ball anywhere near as much as it had previously. And the only difference was what I hadn't figured out mentally. And most shots were the same. When he hit the ball, the wind very seldom even disturbed it. So what about, what if you get into a dirt bunker? I mean, maybe you never get into one, but what if you did?  But I love that you use the word magic through the book. How do you successfully get it back on the course? Well, out of a sand trap? Yeah. Getting the ball out of a sand trap by the green. You have to, you know, you get a sense of the texture of the sand because you're walking or standing in it. But also sometimes like the height, like, you know, you're depressed into something and the green is somewhere up here. Yeah, you have to look at it. I just, you can open the face of the club. You can hit the ball higher because of that. There's a lot of variables. The amount of sand you move is a constant variable and it can change from one shot to another. My thought on sand shots, frankly, is when I get anywhere in a sand trap, I'm trying to hold the ball out of the sand trap because that defines the objective absolutely. Where do I want this ball to go in the cup? Now there's a question. How does it, where does it have to go to get there? That will come into your mind the same way the apex shows you that the location of the ball has to get to before it starts to sin. This is the same. There's no difference. You must have a really good look before you descend into the dirt.  You look at it, well, there's a pin over there. Here's the sand trap.  You got to pop it up in the air and have it come down in a certain place in order to accommodate whatever the geography of the green is so that the ball winds up where you want it to go. I mean, sometimes it's very difficult and sometimes it isn't.  They hit the thing. From the spectator's point of view, it is magic. They're not magicians on a stage, but if nobody had ever heard of the game of golf and a magician walked out on a stage with a golf club and said, this is a golf club. That's the golf ball. I'm going to hit it from there onto that little carpet 200 yards away and then do it. The people would look at that and say, that's magical. So the energy that's involved in getting the ball to go from wherever it is to where you want it to be next is it is magical. Yes, 100%. There's that. And then what you said a few minutes ago about creating a dream intrigues me. What I do, and I'm not sure this is what you were talking about but it went through my mind as I was listening to you. If I want something to manifest, I take this energy that I can tune to and I hold it as the energy of intention. The intention is that energy engenders the design of the manifestation that I want to see. Now that could be anything. If I'm a painter, it could be an image I want to put on a canvas. If I'm on a golf course, it's the flight of the ball. If I'm playing the piano, it's where is this music going next? I see where I want it to go, I feel it. Then you feel these things too. So it's, have you ever read any of the St. Germain's books from the St. Germain Foundation? No. Are you familiar with it? No, I mean, I'm aware of St. Germain but I haven't read the books, no. Well, he has a series of 18 books and one of them is called The Magic, The I Am Discourses. And The Magic Presence and the discussion within those books has to do with energy. It has to do with the kind of thing we're talking about here and but it's very concise. St. Germain, according to those writings was incarnate for several hundred years and became an ascended being who is involved in all sorts of things that apparently are transpiring here and there in this planet. We'll see where it goes. But it's, the books are full of the kind of information you would probably find interesting and informative. You'd learn something from it. But when you say dare to dream, when I form something and hold this energy in my mind it's the energy of intent. In a sense, that could be a dream, something that I want to have manifest. And for instance, I mean, we're talking about golf. I could say, I'm 81 years old, fortunately for me. I'm still agile. I'm not dying of anything weird.  I will be interested to see what I can do just out of academic curiosity. But because of what I'm discussing with you that has to do with energy, I will be very interested to see how what I know now affects the parameters of what I could accomplish before. I was- What do you mean by that? How what you know now would affect the parameters explain that? What I know now about the acquisition and direction of energy. What I do, I think it's mentioned somewhere in this book briefly. I imagine another being within my skin that occupies the same feet, legs, torso, neck, head, brain structure, senses of touch, taste, smell, hearing and eyesight and consciousness. And that body, the etheric body, it's referred to I think in Eastern philosophies, is to recall the body that moves with ease. Now I encountered that decades ago, so I learned how to do that. Then I gradually learned how to use it. I thought it was interesting, so for some reason I just followed my nose through that. But then I realized, I remember talking to Mo Norman about this. When I did that, I felt later on my feet and the colors around me got brighter and I noticed an alteration in my vision. And because of the energy that I had tapped into. And then when I gradually assimilated that and started using it when I was playing golf and it just made it easier to do what I was trying to do. Now I know a lot more about that flow of energy. So when the physical body that I just described that is the etheric body is what I called it, when that body breathes in and then out, when your physical body breathes in and then exhales, the etheric body breathes in. Its world is a very big place. It has more to do with universality than anything else because that's what it is. The etheric body is the body that moves with ease and you feel it. So it's a very artist sink into this. When they're playing a lot.  I was five or six inches above the stage. And as soon as I noticed it, then I was back on the stage again. But we were talking about what I'm talking with you about more or less. And that's what he said. And I can see that because my body felt lighter. It was lighter. There was no question in my mind. It was just a different, you know, it's accessible. Get into the easy. How beautiful. Have you been into metaphysics since you were a kid or did something happen that opened you up to trans mediums and energy and metaphysics? What was that? I always knew there was more. What happened to me to go right back to the root cause was when I was in my early twenties, I had a gran mal epileptic seizure. And then the medication was prescribed to me.  Dylantin sodium. It deadened me. And I mean, it stopped any seizures from happening, but it stopped a lot of other things from happening. My view of it was it sort of moved me about a step away from direct participation in life is what I thought. I came to that conclusion later. But I was about 25 years old and we were in Carmel, California. And I was a member of the Canadian PGA then. I went out to Pebble Beach Golf Club, which was very quiet in those days. And the golf course, there was a nice guy and I used their practice fairway. They let me play the golf course. I remember being on the practice fairway hitting balls. After I, this is after this epileptic seizure and I was taking that medication. And it didn't matter what I did, I couldn't get connected to the shot that I wanted to hit. I knew that whatever was going on with my timing and my physical motion was out of filter someplace. And I was standing there thinking about it. I thought, what is going on here?  And they were very simple.  So I did that. And within two weeks, my mental physical agility returned and it got stronger as time went by. And I've never forgotten that. I thought that's a very interesting situation. That was when I was about 25. So I stopped taking the medication and I never told anybody that I did it. My brother did the same thing as a matter of fact. He had an epileptic seizure when he was with Buffalo Springfield. And he took the medication, then he stopped taking it. Neither of us take any of the medication now. And the reason, my reason is I gradually understood that energy accumulates in your psyche, in your mind, in your life for whatever reason and anything that creates stress. And I gradually came to the understanding that the accumulation of things that had grown in my existence needed eventually would manifest an expression of some kind. In my case, it was an epileptic seizure. When I figured out where that energy, how it assembled and how it manifested, then I could control it. And one day when I was 30 years old, I had, and I was reading all of Carlos Castaneda's books. I was in a little coach house in Toronto in Ontario and I had a piano. I went and bought one, I'd never had one before. But within three weeks I could play all over the keyboard. I had no idea why I knew how to do it, but it just happened. And I was thinking about these things that are reflected in Carlos Castaneda's writings and also what I was thinking anyhow. And I hit a chord on the piano and a bolt of energy went through the top of my head to the base of my spine and it altered me. Sounds like a Kundalini experience. What it was described to me, I thought I'd stayed conscious during an epileptic seizure because what I was thinking about was what I was just talking about. And I thought when that happened, I thought, I wonder if I just, the thought that went through my mind when I hit this chord in the piano was, I wonder if that's why I had epilepsy. And I hit this chord and then bang, there was this huge bolt of energy went through the top of my head, my crown chakra, to the base of my spine and knocked me off the piano bench onto the floor. And I could feel this ball of energy revolving around in my body and eventually it went into my mind. It's impossible to describe what I was shown however, I can say one thing, the mind is a very big place. That I have no problem saying it's large. And the human race is wandering around thinking or recognizing the idea that God or the one power, the one presence, whatever you want to call it, created man in its own image. Fine, but what is that? What is its image? That's a good question. And a duplicate of itself apparently. It's an interesting, the whole conversation can get in some respects very deep. On the other hand, it's not all that deep, it's in something that can be discussed. But Bob, what happened when, so you hit this chord and you feel something from the crown chakra all the way to your root chakra, like a bolt of lightning go through you, you feel like you're thrown off the piano bench and what, did anything change? Did you have sudden insights, gifts? What occurred? Well, one thing that I was able to do was control lucid dreaming exactly. And I could do that, it was easy for me. And I used it. It was also, I could tap into that energy that those individuals described in Custon as books were talking about. I could feel it. Now I get, I understand where it comes from. I understand a lot more about it than I did when that first happened. This is amazing because this is, you're becoming obvious to me anyway, this is your gift in this life. And what an amazing gift to be able to understand energy, be intimate with energy. I don't like to use the word manipulate because you're not doing that. It's not in a negative way, but in extremely creator way, you are using energy to create, to intend, whether it's through how you are playing the game of golf, how you are a musician, how you are living your life. I'm sure if we went down this path, you would start to name all the ways in your life you access harness energy to become what it is you want it to become. I mean, and this is so powerful, right? This is actually for me the conversation. And I think it's so beautiful that you've had these experiences that kept revealing in different ways to you through different things you do in life, how you can use this. What, why do you think that is? Do you have any sense of why you, why this gift or what this relationship is that you have with energy? I think it was, have you ever heard the expression twin ray? Yes. I think that, I mean, is that what that means for anybody listening to this who doesn't, has never heard that expression before? When a human, when a soul is created, they're two, two twin, they're in their twin rays. They're created in the same moment. And that energy is, it stays there. Eventually the twin rays will find each other in an incarnation someplace. That power that created me, I think, planted at the same time, whatever it is that we're talking about here because I have access and it is unusual. I know that. And then it doesn't get any less unusual as the days go by. So I'm not, you know, I'm watching, I'm a spectator and a participant at the same time. And it's, you know, my, what I'm focused on right now, maybe a little more than I was, is the creation in my world of what I wish to have manifest. I'm very cautious, I'm careful with it. I set up the intent in my mind. I know that that generates the manifestation of what I wish to have manifest, but I don't push at it. I'm watching how it occurs on its own. And as that transpires, then I'll refine the way I use that power. But that is what it is, that power, you feel it. Everybody feels energy in their body, but do they know where it comes from? Not really. What I did, I mean, I mentioned that I connected the etheric body within my physical body. When I do that, I then tune with the heart, flame and center of the planet Earth, its world and what's called its electronic body, which is the energy that is what it is. I'm sorry, do you mean the Earth's electronic body? Yes. So what you're referring to, okay. So in that sense, I see the Earth as a living entity. Absolutely. And then also I do the same thing with the heart, flame and center of the physical sun, its world and its electronic body and thus its source. Now the source of the sun or any sun in any solar system is the one power, the one presence also known as God. It is also referred to as a great central sun or the universal substance. In my vision of what is going on at the center, there is the God presence the divine being whose heart, flame is the primal power, the love star from which everything that exists was conceived of, made manifest and is sustained. And the energy that radiates out of that center, that God center is irradiated 360 degrees in phase perpetually. And that's what sustains the existence of the universe. I see that and I see it in my mind but the way I started to see it was simply by, what I just described, I can tune with the heart, flame and center of this planet through the uteric body and do the same thing with the physical sun. And because I'm doing it mentally, you start to see what comes into your mind. So with regard to the sun, it's pretty obvious you can tune to the power of the sun. What created that? What's its source? Well, the source is obviously more powerful than the sun because it created the sun, but that power is the same power that created me and you and everybody else. It has to be. This is called quantum leap thinking. Yes, I think it is and being quantum leap being. I mean, this is an amazing way to be. Like we learn aspects of this, you know and I know the tribe out there watching and listening understands. But I like it because it sounds to me like you're living. I mean this in a different way. So I wanna say living in a matrix but I don't mean like the movie where you have to go, get unplugged and all this. I mean, you have created or you're able to see the matrix of what is and ascertain this is what I want but this is what's here but this is if I put the energy there this is what will manifest I mean, there's a lot of beauty and artistry in that and creativity but also how to potency. I think that's really what we're all after at some level if we are all creators.   So this is pretty incredible stuff. You have more songs, more songs. It's interesting, it is. I mean, I find it interesting also but it's effortless. There's no effort involved in it. It's like the association with my twin Ray is effortless love. I have actually met that individual. Really? Yeah, she passed into spirit about two or three years ago but there's still a connection I can still communicate but we never knew that when we actually met each other except we both knew that there was something special about it. And that's what it is. I have discovered from some of these other individuals with whom I can communicate have explained it to me. And that's fine. That's, there'll be more to that frankly, coming. But what I'm really doing is following what I just explained to you. When I said, you know, you tune into the electronic body the heart flamin' center of the physical sun and thus its source. By recognizing that obviously you're connected to whatever created it. That's, it's not far removed. In fact, it's not removed as part of it. So I see that. I see the flow of, in my mind I see the flow of energy that I can feel. I know that this energy that I feel emanates from the source that created the sun in the solar system and this planet and the other planets and the rest of what you see out there. The vastness of the universe. So have you had experiences? So we, I know you mentioned Lucid dreaming. I know you mentioned remote viewing or automatic writing. And I know you mentioned that you've been to trans channels, trans mediums. So do you have any gifts along these lines? Well, I'm able to as a result of following Paramahansa Yogananda's suggestion, I can, and I do this in the morning before anything interrupts my peace of mind. And I can tune into that state of mind that I was talking about and deepen it. And because of the association through that state of mind with the spirit world that associate in the ascended world with Paramahansa Yogananda as an ascended being who created the self realization fellowship which is right there where you live. That's a fact. That's where it is at any rate. It's beautiful. Yeah. Well, that flow of energy is you feel it. When I go through my perception of the sun energy, back to its source, I know that the energy that's in my body that I feel emanates from that source. That's the same source. And what it emanates, I mean to put a description on it is an eternal radiation of pure white crystalline liquid electronic light substance that cannot be requalified by human feeling and is invincible to human creation. So I recognize that. I know that that is the energy that flows through my crown chakra, through my brain structure and is the energy that and into my nervous system and simultaneously through the physical universe, the sun, the planet, my spine, and it joins. There's a junction point where that energy which comes from the same source joins within me and you and everybody else where the brain structure in the spine actually are joined. I mean, you can acknowledge that that is what happens. The energy that flows through your spine, you just start watching it, you'll start to feel it. But very few people, even if they feel an electrical charge in their body, they don't have the faintest idea where it came from because they don't and some do. Now, I one way or another stumbled across all this stuff, but I've been doing it for so long that what I'm doing right now is increasing the flow. My dream is great. I create the intent in my mind. My intent right now is union with the ascended master's octave of perfection. That energy, once you do what I'm doing, it has to be delivered. It can never be denied, but you have to get there somehow. Now, most people feel something, but they don't know where it came from. They don't know what to do about it. They don't know how to understand it. And the books like the ones in the Saint Germain Foundation's library will assist people in understanding that. Carlos Castaneda's books are headed in that direction. They're not as deep as the ones in the Saint Germain Foundation, but it's just in some respects, it's the two things. Very adventurous. Hopefully they'll see it. Yeah, you're right. I mean, it's an adventure. I look at all of that stuff and I look at what's going on in the affairs of the human race of this planet. I have all sorts of thoughts about where this is going, because it's not a pretty picture. And there are other, I mean, historically, look around. What happened in Atlantis to cause it to go under the ocean? I don't... Look at you. I love that I have a professional golfer who wrote this amazing book that are gonna help so many people about golf.  And I'm really moved by who you are. And yes, exactly. Well, it is said that we are the reincarnation of Lemuria. We are the reincarnation of Atlantis because we effed up. And our soul said, give me another chance to get this right.  It's an interesting time. I think there's tremendous good right now. I certainly live in that world where I think there's so much good and so many amazing gifted people coming forward, the abilities and the possibilities. And when I see younger people and I'm so blessed to be able to spend time with people in their 20s and 30s, their mindset, I think they're built for this and the way they interpret life and relationship and the things they reject that we built, and that our forebearers built too that our paradigms don't work anymore, businesses that don't work anymore that are not sustainable and not kind to the planet or other people. There's a lot of crazy, but there's also a lot of good, I believe this to my core. I'm a pioneer for the good. Well, it's a good objective as to further things that are positive. There is a huge amount of contrary energy floating around these days. Duality, yeah. One of my questions, frankly, to the ascended world, the spirit world has given their involvement in what goes on here. How did it come about that the concept of money and time was allowed to do what it has done? And I stumbled across that one month ago in one of these sessions through my medium friend, Diane Marshall. I said, something like, is there a planet somewhere where the society is using money and time that runs the right way as opposed to what's going on here? The response to that was, there is no other place that uses the concept of money and time except this planet. And that as the decades roll by, the things there will be very serious alterations. And one of those alterations will cause the concept of money and time to become a memory. Now, the businesses don't work, but they're essentially based on, ultimately on greed and power. When you take a good look at it, that doesn't mean everybody involved in them is greedy and trying to get controlling power over other people. However, the driving force of, for instance, the military industrial complex is an interesting thing to look at. I mean, there's oil, banking, transportation and pharmaceutical interests involved in that. And the oil is the energy, the banking thing allows pretty well everything to move along on the bankers' dime. And transportation interests can build everything from automobiles, trucks to ships and aeroplanes, war equipment. And then there is the intelligence community. And there are people who foment war as a method of creating business. This is not 12 upon by very many. And I mean, I'm supposed, if I were to walk out in a big station, start saying this and attracting a lot of attention, some of those people would be looking for a way to get rid of me. Yeah, but I know a lot of stages where you would be welcome. Probably, yeah, I understand that, but I'm looking at this thing. And I think personally, the planet Earth is a very powerful place. Look at it. There isn't anything that people need that isn't here.  It doesn't work. That is, it only disagrees with it. Nobody, everything people need is here. We have the technology now. We have everything you need. Everything people need can be developed and distributed equitably. And the human race on this planet could be looking at the kind of things that interest you. How do you raise humanity up so that it ascends into a state of mind that has something to do with what the creative power that created this planet had in mind when the place was created? Look at this planet. Look at the other planets in our solar system. There's nothing like this place. Nobody that we know of has ever found a planet anywhere that's like this one. I've been told there is the odd one, but nevertheless, where? I can't see them and I don't know anybody who's been there. However, here we are. This place is unique. It is unique. You're unique. Bob, I want to ask you this. I just want to try to get a few things in right at the end and I hate that it's ending. First of all, out of left field, but do you have a favorite golf course? And if so, what is it? Why? Well, there's some good ones. Pebble Beach in California and the Monterey Peninsula is one of them. There is the course in Los Angeles, Riviera Country Club, which I played years ago. I thought it was wonderful. Ben Hogan loved the place at any rate. That and Pebble Beach, there's a course in Toronto, which may be a little out of, I'd have to go and play it again now, called St. George's. That's excellent. And there's one that I have, there are others. I mean, I've never played St. Andrews in England. That's in Scotland. But there's one in Ireland called Royal Port Rush that I've heard about since I was 16 or 17 from people who came from Port Rush. Roy McElroy, who's a famous player there on the international stage, that's where he played. And so did David Farrity, that's where he came from. I'd like to say to my brother one day, I said the next time you tour that part of the world, I'm going with you and we're going to Port Rush and play that golf course because I've heard about it. I want to see it. That's it. I mean, Pebble Beach is, it's Pebble Beach. It's right there in the ocean. I played it a lot. What a beautiful place. What a beautiful place. What a great golf course. And Riviera is different, but it's great. Yeah, I've seen tournaments at Riviera. Pretty awesome. You can get very close to the golfers. So wonderful experience. By the way, my brother David is a musician and composer and his music has been and still is played on TV for the masters and also for PGA broadcasts. Really? That's good. That's good. So when you watch, you're hearing David Dashinger's music. All right. I met a guy in Florida whose job with the PGA Tour broadcast was to create sound effects. I've forgotten his name, but I thought, where do you do this from? He said, I just do it from home on my computer. And I said, you know something? I was listening. I know something about wildlife from playing a lot of different golf courses. While I hear a bird out there that doesn't come from that part of the world. He says, yeah, I'd stick them in there just to see if anybody will notice everyone. Oh my God, hilarious. I never knew. I had no idea they added sound effects. Well, I guess so. Let's hear a few birds tweeting here. Okay. Well, Bob Young, this is Dare to Dream. What are you next, Dare to Dream? What are your future dreams and goals? Well, I'm going to, I have another book in mind. And the marketing of this book is basically it is doing interviews like this one with you. I'll just keep doing all of those. There's a little bit of business stuff I have to pay attention to with regard to that. But I have another book in mind that'll be a vast meals management company to protect the title. I think once I start writing it, that does it, but it'll be called Cosmic Golf. Cosmic Golf and the Golden Stroke. Beautiful, great title. Oh my goodness. Yeah, I like it too. And tell me, so mind golf, your book about life golf and the metaphysical connection.  Where can people get your book? Where can people find out more about you? BobYoungGolf.com. My suggestion is you go to that website, BobYoungGolf.com. And you can buy the printed book from that site. They'll send it to you. My suggestion, frankly, is you like to read, sit by the fireplace and read a book, get the printed book, but get the audio book. And the reason I say that, and it's better, in my view, and since I wrote the book, I can say this. The audio book is alive in a way that a printed book can't be. The printed book word has a lot of power. So does the spoken word. In this audio book, I listened to the whole thing once from one end to the other. And I thought, all right, this actually is good. And I'm not gonna dwell on it, but it's clear. And it's the people in the recording business that I know have told me that because of the quality of my voice, it carries a certain compelling tone and that that's very useful in this audio book. And the audio book, when you buy it, you get online, I think it's $12.99 is the price.  Well, the audio book is, the audio book business is... Amazing, isn't it? I love it. I'm huge on that. I still read, I still read books, but I also am huge in the audibles. I just buy a year subscription. I get a ton of credits and I work my way voraciously through books. And I agree with you. There is something about hearing a narrator, read the words and like your mind becomes a movie and you're just so deeply in there, it comes to life. Here's a thought, I know you've got to wind this thing up. You look in my book, I think it's in the third chapter. I, you'll find it in there. It says notabene, which is a Latin phrase, it means note well. Then there is four or five pages in the printed book and whatever it takes me to speak in the audio book or I'm describing a legal situation that I was in. And that is going to be exposed. And when you read it, you'll get the idea. The exposure of it, in my mind, I have the energy of intent to cause something to come about over the exposure of what transpired that is mentioned in those few pages. And that is, in your terminal, a dream, but it is an intended manifestation that will happen. It isn't, it's very large. I like the mystery, that's beautiful. Take a look at those few pages. What it's saying essentially is that the legal proceeding I was involved in was totally corrupt and it is all in the public record. And it was ignored by the deans of the administration of justice in the jurisdiction within which it occurred, but it is all going to come back out into the public view. And the way it'll do it is simply from what you're talking about, you dare to set something up in your mind and let it come to be. And that is what that will do. It's the same thing I'm doing when I want to get a golf ball to go from one place to another, except in this instance it's something else that I want to go from one place to another with. But there's no difference in the mechanics of it. The intention is the objective. The intention in the golf, in hitting the golf balls to have it arrive where you want it to be. Mo and I talked about this. One day we're playing and I hit a shot at Spruce Creek Golf Club. And I saw the shot lit up in my mind and I said, Mo, that could go in the hole. That was maybe 140, 145 very shot and it in fact landed in the cup. But I was, in my mind, that's where I was trying to hit it to and then it happened. I always figured you can do it with a putter. The target's right there and the ball's not flying through the air. Oh man, that must have been amazing to watch. When you go to the golf course the next time, look from slightly beyond the hole back to where you are standing and then hit the ball. Don't stand there and stare at it for two minutes or something. Look from beyond the hole back to where you are and then you'll see what has to happen to get it from where it is to where you want it to be next. Give that a shot. I will, thank you so much. Thank you for coming on the show today.  No, it was great to talk to you too. Maybe we can. Thank you. Robert Raglin. Young. Amazing, amazing. And I end today's show with this quote from Bruce Crampton. Golf is a compromise between what your ego wants you to do, what experience tells you to do and what your nerves let you do. Subscribe to this number one transformation conversation. The Weekly Dare to Dream with Debbie Daschinger. Leave a comment and share. I read them all. Next week on the show, I am so excited. The Amazing Joy Baker is here. This woman, I don't know what planet she's from. She's an extraordinary healer and here's what's amazing. She's gonna be working in real time with Dare to Dream listeners offering you healing. She's an intuitive energy healer, specializing in energetic emotional release plus healing generational trauma and pain. This is gonna be off the hook and amazing. Thank you so much for joining us today. Remember to create all your dreams into your reality and truly golf is so much like life, how you approach it and much like what Bob said, what your intention is and where you see the energy and allow it to become just that. So you create what it is you prefer. Thank you for an amazing experience. This was great. I enjoyed it too. So we can communicate in the future. You can find me easily enough. And I will check into my brother's operation and see what the ticket situation is for those third and fourth of July at the Ford Theater. I better do it.