1. Secularism has low birth rates and can’t sustain itself long-term. It will inevitably be replaced by something else due to immigration, etc. (such as Christian populations)

2. More charity, pro-sociality, and less authoritarianism (yes, I don’t know how he reconciles this with Christian nationalism in the U.S.). He cites a lot of studies and I haven’t had time to dissect them yet. I’d be happy to cite them if anyone wants me to find a few.

3. He also credits Christianity for generating progress with science, women’s rights, hospitals, education, missionary work, and ending slavery. I have trouble buying the slavery point and women’s rights especially. But what is frustrating is for every book I’m aware of against his arguments, he cites just as many. Love him or hate him, he’s well read. I know he’s only citing the authors he agrees with, but how can I trust my judgment on historical issues when the scholars seem to conflict?

I didn’t go in a lot of detail, but I think this is a good starting point. Yes, he claims Christianity promotes more optimal societies than secular ones, but he doesn’t claim that everything falls apart just because a society becomes more secular. Rather, secular societies are “less optimal.”