The Cold-Case Christianity Podcast · J. Warner Wallace

Are Christians Too Biased to be Trusted?

·1 hr 8 min·5 clips

Why Mormonism's recent claims face a higher evidential burden than ancient Christian artifacts.

This episode of the Please Convince Me podcast, hosted by former atheist Jim Wallace, addresses whether Christian beliefs are inherently biased and unverifiable. Wallace, a cold-case homicide detective, applies investigative principles to questions of faith and skepticism. The episode centers on a listener's email comparing the evidence for the Ten Commandments and Joseph Smith's Golden Tablets. Wallace argues the comparison is flawed due to the vastly different timeframes of the claims. He states the Ten Commandments' original tablets are ancient artifacts whose trail is lost to history, making direct physical evidence unavailable. In contrast, he notes Joseph Smith's claimed golden plates existed in the 19th century, a period rich with verifiable historical records and artifacts. Wallace cites Smith's early fraud conviction in New York as part of this documented history. He presents the Book of Abraham papyrus as a key piece of direct physical evidence against Mormonism, asserting its actual text does not match Smith's translation. Wallace concludes Mormonism bears a higher burden of proof because its claims are recent enough for forensic examination. He transitions to discussing the laws of logic as evidence for God, summarizing a three-point argument that absolute, transcendent laws require a divine lawgiver. Wallace then critiques an evolutionary explanation for logic, suggesting it fails because logical laws are discovered, not created by the human mind. A surprising claim is that all religious claims are not equally unverifiable, as some can be falsified with direct physical evidence due to their historical proximity. Wallace asserts that forensic science, not repeatable empirical science, is the proper tool for investigating singular historical events like the origin of life. He draws a direct analogy between his cold-case detective work and investigating origins, stating both deal with unique, non-repeatable events. The episode frames the common cultural separation of "scientific truth" and "personal belief" as a false dichotomy that sidelines religious claims. Wallace suggests that if religious beliefs are merely personal preferences, Christian apologetics itself is a pointless endeavor. The tone is conversational and instructional, blending personal anecdote with structured argumentation. Wallace's style is that of a teacher and detective, methodically walking through evidence and counter-arguments. This episode would appeal to listeners interested in comparative religion, apologetics, and applying forensic or logical reasoning to faith questions. Those seeking a purely narrative or devotional religious podcast might find its analytical approach less engaging.

As heard by us

A steady apologetics argument for logic as something people recognize, not invent.

The episode begins with a familiar apologetics question and settles into a measured defense of logic as something discovered rather than invented.

Read the full review in PlayNext →

Why you'd press play

Press play if you want a calm defense of truth that does not flinch.

Read the full recommendation in PlayNext →

Listen to the show on

Apple Podcasts Spotify

Play clips from this episode More from The Cold-Case Christianity Podcast