May I ask you to pray for me Bishop? I am a young man being drawn to the priesthood and I am trying to evangelize my agnostic friends. Thank you and God bless you in your online ministry!
BEST_NIP fan_SO_FAR From its birth, Christianity has always faced threats. Yet for more than 2,000 years, it has survived. I pray that now, in an age of terrorism, spreading atheism, and even hatred of Christian teaching, Jesus will never abandon His faithful. He calmed a storm, walked on water, and breathed life into the dead. Our Lord can do all things. We shall not be afraid of the threats of men so long as we hold onto the promises of God.
By using the word "only" in this quote, I think Underwood is a cynic and is being carried along by the culture as we all tend to be. The spoken language fails us as definitions are changed. But God does not change, and it is in losing sight of Him we meander in the desert. Until America is declared Christian as in its founding moral ethos, we will suffer endless confusion. Declaring "for" Christ does not promote Christ, it promotes America and better relationships among its citizens. This also clearly calls out any belief system that denies Christ as The Second Person.
His character represents the soul of modernity. Unshackled by the limits of right and wrong, he feels freed to pursue his ambitions, but in the end is only a slave to the desire for power itself. House of Cards is in many ways the story of the modern man.
Yes, everyone should have the right to say whatever they want without fearing legal action or such, but they shouldn't expect everyone to be silent. I was taught at a very young age that while I have the right to say whatever I want, I need to be very careful how I say it. If someone insulted you in the worst possible way and then proceeded to call your mother names, even saying that it would be fun if she died (best case scenario, that was pretty much Kathy's joke) would you simply stay silent and say nothing because "It's their right to free speech"? True, it's their right to free speech to say whatever they want, but it's also YOUR right to respond in kind. All the criticism she recieved was fair. (not talking about the bullies) Again, yes, she had the right to do so, but she should have expected criticism.
Well, no one took away her right to say it, so that means even those who found it distasteful and boorish( like myself) didn't try to stop her. I was a stand up comic for 15 years on the road and I learned that I had to be willing to live with the consequences of a joke even if I thought it was fairly benign. Ms Griffin just thought this would be funny to her leftist Hollywood friends and catch the eye of producers to keep her at the top. I get that, but you still have to know that just because something is lawful, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Let's not be naive; Kathy had an agenda with this joke and that was to prove she still had edge. It wasn't "just a joke". She knows that more of her Trump hating friends will love her for this faux martyrdom and put her back on top. I don't doubt she didn't mean for everything to go down like this, but a comic knows this kinda stuff can happen.
Bishop Barron you are Very wise . I watch your commentary every day since I found you when looking for a Move review on "The case for Christ" I am a Baptist and have been sending your Word on Fire to my brother as his son lost his faith in University from the atheist Prof. He and other's are now following Word on Fire I love what you are doing ...
@@BishopBarron I have just discovered you on RUclips, Bishop. Wonderful videos. As a Catholic in England, I wish you were better known over here. We can't even get your "Catholicism" series on Region 2 dvd.
Well said Reverend Bishop. The dialogue is so volatile that it has become the religion of our day, setting brother against sister and father against son. How do we turn the tide such that we can have an actual discussion? We are so quickly dismissive. It seems finding the voice of reason is impossible.
You know, for years, I have also used a professional organized sport as a metaphor for objective truth, but goodness, you sure put forward the same argument with greater eloquence, and with stronger backing. I had never heard of the philosophical approach of "Volunteerism" before, and have been made better with this new knowledge. Thank you!
Oh my goodness! See! Spelling is important! Sorry about that Bishop Barron. I'd edit and correct my original post, but then your comment would make no sense. We'll let this be a lesson learned :)
This was excellently done. The problems we're in today are simply the outworking of the philosophy, "Everyone has their own truth", that has been shoved down our throats for most of my life. (And I am in my 40s!)
hello father, you have talked alot about Protestantism, but I was wondering if you can talk about eastern orthodoxy or orthodox thinkers like leo tolstoy and fyodor dostoyevsky.
It's interesting to note that the Nazis who adored Nietzche's concepts titled the documentary Leni Riefenstahl shot of the Nuremberg Rallies "Triumph of the Will"
Hi Bishop Barron, Thank you so much for all of your videos, I'm such a big fan. Could you please do a video explaining all the contradictions in the bible (especially those in the New Testament regarding the life of Jesus). I'm a Catholic however this is something I am struggling with rationalising and is something with which I need guidance.
Bishop Baron, did you just quote The Big Lebowski? I listened to your podcast and commentary on the film and I have to say I really enjoyed your thoughts on it.
We see this exact same thing play out in today's political discourse. Everyone appeals to their own set of facts in order to justify their worldview. What matters to people is not truth, but what feels true. That's why each political faction now lives in its own universe. It has led to having a president who casually makes things up as he speaks so as to justify his ideas and his dominance. There is no regard for truth, the facts, or honestly seeking out the truth. Bishop Barron's critique of the culture in academia can just as well be applied to the political culture of the party that is now in power.
This is the BEST video Bishop Barron has EVER done. Every other video he has ever done, whether social, cultural, or theological, pivots on this one. That said, and without disagreeing with his premise, he shows his biases too transparently--biases that I wish he would acknowledge, if not strive to overcome. The bias I speak of is NOT his insistence that segments of our country is too centered on moral or epistemological relativism. That is obvious the heart of his argument, and while I disagree to some degree with whether that is really the issue on campuses, or whether it is the urgent moral flaw that he describes, I do not challenge his contention in that regard. What I wish the good Bishop would do is to speak to the fact that discourse is a two-way street, and much of the stridency that he describes is not merely pro-active. Many of the campus agitators have developed believes as a consequence of the disintegration of our discourse in this country, and conservatives are equally responsible for that. I teach at a politically moderate university. I am also a member of the Heterodox Academy (a group of university professors and instructors dedicated to giving equal voice to all. Look it up online.) I see the quality of the cultural discourse, and it is poor on both sides. Bishop Barron doesn't suggest cultural viable solutions. I wish he would. He needs to take the conservative elements in our society to task a bit. He needs to read the posting that Catholic Vote posts to see the extent of conservative tribalism in our culture.
Very interesting, thank you. This is a subject many youtuber are now facing. Jordan Peterson, as a theist and psychology professor talks a lot about these subjects. He particularly talks about the need to find the truth in a spiritual quest and the nature of the post-modernist philosophy in our times. Thank you again for your deeper explanations.
He's Christian, but I believe he's evangelical. He once gave a terrible response when an interviewer asked how he reconciles faith and science in his own career - he said he struggles with it. No Catholic scientist struggles to reconcile faith with science.
i'm kinda not sure about he's christianity because he's answers are not really correct i mean it's hard to understand what he exactly says can you guys give me a some source, where he says "i'm a christian" or something like this pls :D
Your excellency, I can't help but point out that what I have been reading in the comments here proves the exact point you were exploring in the video! I realized one day that we now live in a world where contemporary sensebilities have managed to reduce sex to sport while simultaneously becoming the driving force behind all we do. Winning a fight has become more important than accepting truth, and condoms have replaced Christ as savior of the world. With the fullness of existence having been reduced to the most base of human motivations within the common conscience, it's no wonder folks are so sensitive these days. We seem to collectively behave like children who have been told they can't have candy for dinner whenever moral issues arise. I do not envy the burden you carry as bishop. As a father of nine, I understand how much is at stake with every word you speak and everything you do. Peace be with you father.
Bishop, it will be great if you could unable translate contribuition so we can reply all your powerful messagges in our native languages. Greetings from México!
hey Bishop Barron this is unrelated but could you do a video on panentheism? I know this is probably borderline heritical but in find it very interesting and apparently it was accepted by the early church? or the orthodox church. i do think there might be something to it. thanks and God bless.
Bishop Barron, I was initially taken aback when you cited "the left" as being guilty of denying objective truths but I had an ah-ha moment. I guess I would be considered a member of the political left (albeit with some reservations) but it occurred to me that it is exactly this "us vs. them" mentality that is the problem. Why bother going into a debate at all if one is not open to hearing and fairly evaluating the other side? And to prove my point, as I read some of the comments, people were most certainly allying themselves into the two camps: liberal/left and conservative/right. Isn't this just a sort of arrogance on all our parts? Whether we are "right" or "wrong" seems to take precedence in our puny little minds over engaging in a combined effort to find Truth. Thank you for the wonderful videos. God bless you.
Bishop Barron: I think this video echoes a number of themes you touched upon in an earlier video on Gay Marriage and Moral Argument. Along those lines, I really enjoyed the video of your conversation with Dave Ruben, who is himself a man married to another man. While I know very little about Mr. Ruben, he seems to be a sincere person of good faith (to use that phrase to describe his approach to argument and truth) who would likely acknowledge the existence of some objective truth and the importance of cultural norms in discourse and argument. (In fact, I think he has recently come under fire from the Left for, among other things, having a civil discussion with Milo Yiannopoulos and other rhetorical "bomb throwers.") I would enjoy watching an extended conversation on these subjects between you and Mr. Ruben. Any plans to continue your dialogue with him? Many thanks for this video!
I don't know about that. I think they would disagree radically on epistemology. I also don't think Peterson has the same fear of the will as Barron does. Peterson is a huge fan of Nietzsche, partially because he pointed out that the will to truth is not man's primary will. Also, it seems strange that Barron's critique of Nietzsche is that will to power is not primary to will to truth. It seems that he is missing the point that both are driven by will. Will is always primary. I don't understand why many religious thinkers today believe that supremacy of the will necessarily conflicts with religious authority. I think Peterson has a much better understanding and critique of postmodern thought.
Nope. Disagreement can be great! I'd be interested to hear them talk. Largely, because they have such different epistemologies, and it would be interesting to see how they sort out those differences.
the idiosyncratic primate Bishop Barron has spoken this way for along time. This sports metaphor has been used before. He spoke very similar about how anyone who loves a sport actually loves the ref (can't remember the vid) because they love the rules of the game. Bishop Barron's talks don't have Jordan Peterson undertones. Jordan Peterson's talks have just opened the door to hearing the message Bishop Barron has spoken all along!
I would love to see on TV a show called "The Great Debate". One that was void of staged/encouraged violence, protest, intimidation in the name of "drama". Rather, honest respectful intelligent discourse would be the focus. This should be mainstreamed and not just hidden away for a future RUclips search.
After seeing this, I think Bishop Barron and Ben Shapiro should have a discussion on modern society and discourse in this day and age. They're both in Los Angeles so it could happen!
I have been following you tubers who are switching to homeschooling because of this very reason, they don't feel like their children are receiving this in depth teaching at a traditional school, so they are getting it by focusing for longer periods on time on these types of issues. As for college students, perhaps an emphasis should be placed on learning collegiate debate, to move people into deeper thinking, reflection and argument.
Your excellency, Comments and associated questions please. You recall the confessional joke of the adolescent admitting to the old priest of his impure thoughts? The confessor asked the youth if he entertained those thoughts and the boy quickly responded, absolutely not Father! But boy did they entertain me. 1 - How are we obligated to listen, more than once, to the message of Mr. Murray, Ms Coulter, and the like? For me, their message of bigotry, discrimination and hatred are as impure as the young boy's thoughts in the joke. What good comes from their words? At best, they bring about contrarian reaffirmations to ensure we remain prudent, compassionate, merciful and humble. At worst, they lead one to violence, mental, physical and spiritual violence toward themselves and others. In effect they are the highly charged field effect that magnetizes a united object into two separate poles and a neutral middle. They teach hatred, division and polarity for action and effect, and they have many students. The more exposure young persons have to their message the more caught in their nets. This bombardment of blame, victimization and obligation to recoup is a well-honed tool used by both sides, from the violent alt-right white supremacist to the violent alt-left ANTIFA. Yes, every person has a right to speak, but as Father Whalen taught me in 1972, your rights come with responsibilities and don't confuse liberties with freedoms. 2 - If I may, I believe you are equivocating in the case of the professor going to work on campus when he was supposed to refrain in support of the protest. If I am wrong, then you are saying that campuses and other public venues should allow any type of speaker and it is up to each person, knowing what they will be hearing, to chose not to go. Thanks for all your work..
Thank you your excellency - I shall, and will review your lessons where you discuss how to argue (and how not to). I seem to remember you had some lessons on "Religious", Atheists and Apologetics. Thank you for taking the time to reply and teach.
@Joe I understand where you are coming from. It's not I have anything against debate nor do I have anything against being confronted with opposing views different from my own. But I do have something against the notion that all ideas are worthy of a platform. This egalitarianism of ideas is just as damaging as the attempt to repress ideas. I think it's the lack of conviction which is partly responsible for rise of civil unrest in college campuses.
Joe Ciliberto Thank you, Joe! You raise a wise argument and do it diplomatically. This angle of the Bishop's argument was gravely missing. He needs to listen to his mom... he is "overexposed" and needs to come down from the pulpit to get a deeper understanding.
Sunshine - I took the Bishop's counsel, to take on and defeat vitriolic arguments of ultra-conservatives, versus suppressing and ignoring them to heart. The truth we believe in and the lies they tell coexists in the world. We argue i defense of the truth, against their lies, so that all those who hear can decide. Didn't Jesus do the same? Surfs up! Breaking left! I lived while in the Navy on the North Shore of Oahu - great surfing. Take good care of yourself.
Well put, Bishop Barron. As MacIntyre relates in After Virtue, it's either Nietzsche or Aristotle. I would add that, in addition to rediscovering Aristotelian (and Thomistic) epistemology, the average person must rediscover the ancient roots of rhetoric. As you probably know, Nietzsche was invested in rhetoric, but more in the sophistic than the Aristotelian sense.
How do we fight this culture on our college campuses? How can we argue with those who do not know the rules of rational argument and do not wish to learn them? I attend an extremely liberal campus, and even to say that one is a Christian, much less a Catholic (especially since I am a convert), is to invite opposition and ridicule. I don't hide my faith, but students and professors look at you differently when you reveal it.
Dear Bishop Barron - "We stand beyond good and evil"; would the Catholic tradition consider this idea and its resultant actions "Original Sin"?. My Best Regards, Justin Keating.
Bishop Barron, rich and insightful as ever. Something doesn't sit right with me though. It seems to me that if college campuses truly were hotbeds of moral relativism as you claim, then the activists would not really care who came and spoke. Now, your point on Wills is well taken, but the epistemological emphasis seems to neglect the ways in which economic, political and social Wills have rigged so to speak the rules of society against those of marginalized peoples. So, what is taken as neutral epistemology is really privileged ontology. Activists are not just responding to one argument among many, but strains of arguments that perpetuate that privileged ontology and give it air to breathe. So its not just a forum for discussion. Its like Creationism and evolution in schools, and treating both as equal scientific approaches, or climate change denial, etc. Cheers.
But friend, the minute we start talking about "privileged epistemologies and ontologies," we've basically given up on reason. What would prevent me from rejecting the argument you've just made on these same radically politicized grounds? The beauty of the thing is that you and I, despite our differences, can appeal together to shared ethical and epistemic norms.
Bishop. Thank you for the acknowledgement. Your essays have been very important in my own reasoned and intuitive path from Mormonism to contemplative catholicism. But I have had some very powerful experiences where when I seemed to be appealing to a reasoned argument, I was in fact drawing on the rationale accumulated in the experiences of a white middle class male. Now I am not all that eager to dive into identity politics, but I think a listening stance to experience can be just as powerful as appeals to what feel like reasoned argument. Emotion and reason, are after all two sides of the same coin. Cheers.
Jason Brown But it was objective reason that enabled you to appreciate limitations in your earlier approach. My point is that everyone always implicitly appeals to objective standards of rationality.
Bp Barron > Your usage of the word "objective" bothers me. In your basketball analogy the game depends on having rules but I wouldn't call them objective. The rules could change every week and the show will go on so long as the players agree to be "subject" to those rules.
She exercised poor judgement but there is a dangerous trend in America today: try to get people fired for something offensive. Both leading political ideologies do it. I am of the old school of free speech. If person A has despicable views, let him talk. That way he can hang himself with his ignorance. When a controversial speaker goes to a college campus is a golden opportunity to confront the speaker. I'd get in line and ask the speaker uncomfortable questions. A campus is not an elementary school. I am sure grown-ups will survive some controversial ideas. Maybe I am naive, but as cynical as our society is, I still strongly believe in the decency of most people.
The "Day of Presence" at evergreen wasnt because POC were feeling unsafe, it was a show of power that they could force their "oppressors" to stay at home. It was a play on their "Day of absence" which they have held for years where POC voluntarily stay home in an attempt to show how empty the world would be without them. It is all IMO extremely immature actions that could only be available to a very privileged and and coddled group of adults acting like toddlers. It pretty much destroyed their college, which had been enabling the negative behavior for years.
Bishop, I have a question regarding "objective truths." There is the metaphor of a game (intellectual competition/exchange of ideas) only being possible when rules (objective truths) are followed. Do you mean freedom of speech or objective truths such as there are men and there are women? Wouldn't someone who says there is a spectrum of gender be another player and not necessarily violating the rules? I don't support that perspective, but as an example.
Thank you Bishop Barron! I've learned so much this last years thanks to your videos! Thank you and God bless you! thanks for helping me keep the path that God showed me two years ago when He call me to be a member of his true church!
I would like to ask Bishop Barron this question. What if it is not a game, but it is really a war? I mean, if both sides are not talking to each other and don't care about the facts, and instead clash? That's war. Maybe the right books to refer are "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and "On War" by Von Clauswitz. Both books are taught in military academies around the world.
The biggest things I see are, total lack of capacity to communicate in any rational way shape or form. total lack of emotional maturity, total lack of ability to both define and defend ones reasoning and views. total lack of capacity to loose with honor and dignity. total lack of understanding and value of social rulesets. total lack of a capacity to think on ones own. total lack of understanding about the world they live in and how they do or will not fit into it. Add any combination of these traits to any even mild degree together in a person then bring a bunch of people who all exhibit similar limitations and you get what we are seeing now. As someone who has tried to hold a rational debates or arguments with such people as this on online forums and chat sites the overwhelming thing I see is, 1. They can not accept defeat no matter how obvious it is that it will or already has happened . 2, there is no depth they will not sink to to avoid having to own up to being wrong. 3, They have zero issues with doing everything within their power to block their opponent, despite even knowing full well they are wrong while doing it, and that it will cost them everything they have ultimately to gain nothing for it. The mentality is to force anything they can take as a win out no matter how absurd or hollow and if that can't be accomplished simply stand in the way of what they oppose, no matter the self inflicted consequences, just to prevent the other side from moving forward, even if for all their efforts it only lasts for a second, before being run over and left for dead looking like stupid uneducated belligerent fools. The sad part I see is that not one I have came up against yet has ever shown any indication that they are in fact outrightly stupid or of a naturally limited cognitive capacity or at least not to the level they will play themselves at. They will play stupid to no end if it means they can score a hollow win or just block you but they are not by any means legitimately stupid people which make their actions that much more bewildering , frustrating and disrespectful to both themselves and their opponents to see and deal with. Uneducated, YES! Inarticulate,YES! Of poor self respect,YES! Ignorant of how reality works even with things they feel passionate about, YES! Blatantly simple minded stupid beyond the capacity to learn, NO! But they will play to it all extraordinarily well just to keep from having to accept they are wrong about something, no matter how trivial or easily disproven it may be.
Guessing you are talking about yourself being it's clear you apparently can't tell the difference between a generalized, and largely neutral, summation comment and a negative complaint. How's your skills on separating informed disagreement from 'racism' and 'bigotry'? F student there too? Or didn't your school use a grading system? Are these comments, complaints, microaggressions or racism/bigotry towards you? (Chose your sensitivities battles wisely for your opponent just might be someone who does not care what you feel, expressly if you are feeling it wrongly! !) :P
Bp Barron, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you think elements of the progressive movement , hostile to Judeo-Christian traditions and morality, has in a sense "forgotten" some of its own early literature. What I'm referring specifically is Nietzsche's genealogy of morals in relation to the unexpected and poll-shattering elections. Forget the errors in Nietzsche's value judgment (or lack thereof) of morality, just look at the narrative he creates. It seems to me, the "progressive-left" elites, especially in accademia, have made themselves the priests who control the ideological altars of western culture. What we're seeing now, may be something ominous but something that the left should have been able to recognize before they entered in a game of alienating Christians and Natural Law proponents as irrational troglodytes without bothering to engage in dialogue and vigorous debate. Marxist economics have showed themselves to be such a clamorous failure in comparison with the capitalist west that it seems like much of the left began a culture war to prove its own relevance. Doing so created a very top-heavy class of moralizing figures who impose their hegemony on the lower ranks demeaned as inferior in intellect and culture. I'm no fan of Nietzsche or Marx (count me as a determined enemy of their ideas) but were the left so "erudite" and "learned" they should have probably seen this coming their way.
It's amazing that this bishop is so rational on this matter yet when it comes to discussing religious matters he suddenly devolves into someone completely irrational basically regressing to this has been debated before argument and the Bible is metaphorical. This man is a typical proving the Bible using the Bible.
Bishop Barron, I am a Christian atheist (raised Protestant), but I always love watching your videos. You have a way of seeing past the minute details of a seemingly senseless event (like this one) and pointing out larger cultural patterns. I agree that the safe-space leftist anti-intellectualism is a huge problem. Thank you for doing your part in helping the culture at large understand it.
All true, though I would add that the conflict that resulted from Nietzsche's was not an unintended effect but a deliberate attempt to set in motion a struggle that would lead to the emergence of new values that would overcome the individualistic relativism that he saw coming out of the enlightenment. What he did not expect was that the democratic impulse was so strong that it subsume his thought in order to radically enforce the hedonistic nihilism that he railed against.
Thank you BB for your common sense. Sadly the trend today isn't to debate/discuss/argue our differences but to say there won't even be a debate. I am shutting you down. I will deplatform you. I will riot so you can't even have a debate. We have to keep standing up for free speech whenever it is threatened. Even speech we don't like. As Catholics we know from history that forcing people to believe something never ends well. We need to take people with us because the message is right.
Anyone else want to see a conversation between Bishop Barron and Stefan Molyneux? There's definitely some overlapping themes being brought up regarding this topic.
Here is how you respond affirmatively to Bishop Barron's message about objective epistemic and moral decay: if you are a political conservative, locate the most liberal, social justice warrior you know....and take them out to lunch. And enjoy their company for a couple hours. And if you are a political liberal find the most conservative, media-bashing authoritarian you know....and take them out to lunch. And their company for a couple hours.
I take Ann Coulter's conservative populism more seriously than Charles Murray's radical libertarianism and neoconservatism because I'm not fourteen anymore, and I don't work for a Jewish thinktank.
Objectivity is the prerequisite for civility, after all. Losing objectivity puts us one step closer to a State of Nature in which there is a War of All against All, and life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Sorry Bishop Barron but I think the solution for the raging Relativism lies with Bl. Scotus, who solves the new evangelization with four simple words ... "the will IS primary" - not in how we elevate it, but in how it is formed and functions. Rather, Scotus says the will is not naturally rational; and separated from a desire for God brings about human misery. His writings and those scholars who explore this premise give a beautiful, straight forward and somewhat easy way to understand the emotion of "love". I believe The Church has been moving toward Bl. John Duns for at least the last 170 years, and that his Marian devotion was meant for our times. Scotus inspired the third Marian Dogma and can lead us to the unclaimed fifth one. Many Popes have supported the study of his works, and Paul VI proclaimed him "the perfecter of St. Bonaventure". Benedict XVI in his praise stated " The heart is a better way of knowing". By the design of God, the will IS primary in human beings; and the prayer Christ gives us is explicit in saying so with regard to the Divine Will of The Father. .... I have been inspired and learned much about the beauty of Catholicism from your work. Bess you Father.
Why should I feel sorry about any of this?! Though I'm a Thomist, I have no substantive quarrel with Scotus himself on this score. I do fear that he planted some seeds that later sprouted as full-blown voluntarism. I prefer Thomas's solution that the will, properly construed, flows from the mind's perception of the good. But within the great Catholic conversation, there is room for a variety of voices.
With all due respect, and I don't even really like Kathy Griffin's style of humor, but Trump has made comments that were downright lewd and disrespectful, calling Kelly O'Donnell a fat, dyke and then talking about how he can go around "grabbing any woman's p...y". He didn't apologize for his previous behavior until it became public during his candidacy when he needed those votes. I heard Kathy Griffin's apology and it sounded very sincere. She said she wished she could take it back and that it was one of the most embarrassing things she has done. That sounded much more humbling than Trump's apology and he's our president. If God can forgive Trump than I have complete faith that He can forgive Kathy Griffin.
I think that you are right about the problems of subjectivity and the whole Postmodern attitude towards absolute truth. But I have to say that the right is just as guilty, with trying to proclaim truth in the wrong places through reducing truth to a particular political or social ideology. It seems like we need to be looking for truth in a person instead of more ideologies.
I don't agree with that. The problem I'm identifying in this video--the link between epistemic relativism and violence--is far more common the left than on the right.
I agree with you your Excellency...there are right wing people who are violent out there (like the Bundys and Sovereign Citizens and Militia types), but so far as I know none of those people have engaged in a systematic effort to shout down and silence debate (especially on campus).
Im a little bit confused. My point was that any side can be guilty of epistemic relativism, as long as the personal Trinitarian God is not the center of our epistemology.
Charles, I have to say, this whole idolizing of the right and demonizing of the left is accomplishing nothing. If you look at history and the present, anytime church aligns itself with the state, it always fails. Thats what happened with Europe, and Religious Right in the USA has only been turning people away from Christianity. Why? Because anytime Church aligns with the state, it compromises the Gospel, by subtracting parts that dont align to the particular political ideology. However, the political ideology then gets disguised as a religion, and will not compromise, no matter how miserably it has failed.
@BishopRobertBarron: I very much benefited from this video; I upvoted it (and I'm a subscriber, and a big admirer). But this remark-"the link between epistemic relativism and violence--is far more common the left than on the right"-is a sweeping generalization, not only unsubstantiated, but very likely not able to be substantiated, and thus irresponsible to assert. I'd be interested in your response to this, which happens to be in today's news: FACT CHECK: Is Left-Wing Violence Rising? www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising Is your statement here based on research, or just your impression? "Far more common...." Really?
Nominalism - destroying civilization since it started referring to a thing that only existed in the mind. Anyways, what should I read for a better epistemology? This is one area I've always struggled with, especially in the relationship between reality and our perception of reality. I believe in objective moral truth that is knowable but I can't really defend it from a serious philosophical standpoint.
Why not back it up to Rush Limbaugh and the vanishing of argument. Kathy's just the latest in a very very very very very long line, until recently almost all conservative/Republican.
Bishop Barron, as a parishoner in your region (Santa Barbara), I am concerned by the apparent politicization of your comments. I made similar remarks to the commentary you posted on your Facebook page, but the bottomline is this: are you ignoring the moral relativism and subjectivism of contemporary conservatives? Your comments highlight the egregiousness of the left, but fail to point out the equally egregious behavior of the right-- just read some of the comments for this video. The Catholic Church, as Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich have recently reminded folks, should not embrace conservative or liberal ideologies. We, as the Body of Christ, should defy political labels and seek first to do the will of God, regardless of where we might fall along the world's political spectrum. I think you would do well to follow up this video with one that highlights the gross arguments of people like Trump, Milo, Coulter, and Alex Jones, just to name a few. Someone earlier made the same observation, but it's true: liberals roundly condemned Kathy Griffin's offensive stunt, but we don't hear conservatives condemn their wingnuts. Instead, they get rewarded by being commentators on supposed "news" outlets and are embraced by the mainstream. So, for your own credibility, please balance this video out with one that highlights the faulty reasoning and failure to use arguments from the right.
The thing is there isn't just one party that claims objective truth, every religion claims its own truth. So by which rules should we play the game by bishop? by catholic rules or evangelical rules or muslim rules?
By the rules of the only objective Truth actually, the Lord Jesus Christ who taught that men should have the right to shoose their convictions. John 20:29 (KJV) ... Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. "It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his *own convictions*: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man." Tertullian To Scapula Ch 2. Acknowledging the right of people to follow their own convictions DOES NOT MEAN acknowledging that the Truth is subjective, it's just a simple universal right, what's all the fuss about? What a silly idea to want to make everyone a carbon copy of each other just Republicans and Democrats won't fight each other! And even then, if all people followed one religion they would still find stuff to fight over. You shouldn't tell people to just give up their subjective truths, you should just preach the Gospel instead of ranting, and if they accept it they would be willing to do it on conviction, and not just out of lifestyle change to play well with the team. But then you know better than me what's happening across the Atlantic.
Jonney Shih I could be wrong but I think he was offering you a rhetorical question and letting you find the answer in the premises you held in order to formulate your question in the first place.
Sartre and Foucault were more influenced by Marx, they rejected objective truth because of the misguided belief that it is a construction of the ruling class. Nietzsche was criticizing the abandonment of objective truth. As usually, great video.
Nietzsche is so fascinating of a study. He accurately prophesies a society that turns his back to God and the breakdown which will result, yet he himself seems to a willing participant in it.
Actually, I really don’t think that is an accurate representation of Nietzsche’s views. See Nietzsche’s criticism of Truth in Plato: the idea that there is a truth beyond human conceptions of it. It’s instead Nietzsche who is advocating for the social constructionist view in the Will to Power. Hopefully you (and I) will both look in to these matters more. Good day
And herein lies the damage of why removing traditional objectives. Once, say, an objective truth has been eradicated, it is now seen essentially as the state giving sanction for violence against those who want to remain true to their objective truths that have root in substance beyond the state. Once state is become God, it's zealots stand on their justification of violence to force all to bow to it or be destroyed unmercifully.
I concur, but I suspect that even if we did manage to convince people to hold to objective truth and recognize morality as a concept, we'd simply spend all day debating what that truth is. As Christians we cannot really expect atheists to accept our idea of the truth, so even if we get them to recognize right and wrong, I suspect they'd still disagree with us on what exactly is objectively right and wrong. Still, I would be a step in the right direction. This trend in today's society to simply shun argument however, is not really a result of postmodern denial of objective truth, but more a case of people unwilling to question their own convictions I think, and people being very uncomfortable with discussing hard topics with people who hold different viewpoints, even though that's kinda the whole point of argument. There is little point arguing with someone who already agrees with you.
"A solution to this [what? epistemological crisis? rampant subjectivity and relativism?] is a much better account of objective truth..." - Bishop Barron Have you offered anything more than question begging? Was a light supposed to go on and the word "god" uttered in my mouth? I think you're correct in your historical understanding of the problem but you have no real answer other than god, apparently. First of all, subjectivity is on the loose and it's not going anywhere because it is a tool and rationale for power. But maybe more importantly -- at least philosophically - is that much of what is in dispute now is a matter for subjectivity and is not merely empirical. Yes, it would be nice if social norms incentivized recognizing empiricism and disincentived denying established facts but who is going to enforce such norms or rules if the people themselves won't do it?
A very serious subject and a significant problem in modern public discourse, however... I couldn't help thinking "May the most powerful uber-mensch win. Would that be Batman or Superman?"
Let's be honest here too....the rise of the very dumbed down "new atheist" movement has made it very difficult to "discuss" much mainstream Christainity in the wider community. To be fair, extreme "Christian" groups ie, tele-preacher fundamentalists do the faith no favors!
Isn't it objectively true that we shouldn't profane the sacrament of communion. Because that's what it looks like when we begin to allow people who have been divorced and re-married (outside the church) to receive the sacrament. All in the name of inclusiveness. Now i'm all for a greater inclusiveness, but when it flies in the face of what we know to be 'objectively true, then i have to bow to what our good Lord has established to be sacred. I'd like people to be reconciled with the sacrament (including myself), but there is already a way for them to do that. Its just that, i believe, they don't want to. They want to be reconciled on their own terms and not according to the teachings of our good Lord Jesus Christ. But we can still pray for them and hope that they come to terms whit what has been established as 'objectively true.' Thank you for your time. These are just the thoughts of a rambling dingbat from a time long ago.
Jack Potts. Your counter "argument" is what we would call a "Tu quoque", and it is ironically also exactly what Barron is fighting against, avoiding the argument in order to keep everyone happy.
Dozo G One) your original statement is not objectively true. 2) your prof that: all religions make the same clam. seems to counter your argument. Because if all religions make the same clam that would be evidence that there clams are true. so you original argument defeats it self.
Jack Potts. I didn't say my statement was objectively true. You claim some objective truths in your first statement. If you think my point that many religion make the same claim, proves the point they are all true.. then you have not considered that they make the claim to be exclusively true. (Meaning that if one is true, all others can't be true. This does not prove your religion is not true, it does prove it is not objectively true)
Seeking truth takes effort. And truth is the only foundation worth building on. Everything else is an allusion. People tend to take the easy way. They will follow the sheep with the most followers. Rather than think for them selves. Then if questioned they become aggressive. They don’t like it when people point out the fact that they have built there house on sand.
The Bishop insists on objective truth and morals, and is perhaps disappointed that in a constitutional republic, his Church no longer has the authority to dictate what it is and see that people get it good and hard, just like in the old days. Ask poor old Galileo about how much the Catholic Church values objective reality and an appreciation for the power of rational argument.
Arguments in favor of rational argument about objective reality are always going to get you smacked with Galileo and poor old Giordano Bruno. The inquisition was no picnic, and the church has a lot of penance to do for burning heretics. Galileo and Bruno were right about cosmology of course, and it's amazing that Lemaitre dared open his mouth. Your many videos have generally been interesting and thought provoking (except for the weird Catholic stuff like transubstantiation, etc,) and congratulations on hitting the big time. Chicago's loss was Los Angeles' gain.
This is the first time after watching one of your videos Bishop Barron that I feel you are missing important details and that as a result can lead to negative results. In an indirect way you seem to suggest that a person of color can be racist against a white person which is the whole premise people of color fight to refute. Listening to their voices requires deep pastoral care from any Bishop. I do agree that aggression from the political left predominantly preaches a deterioration of objective moral standards. However, this is also preached by the conservative right; just observe the rhetoric used by Trump and how his followers use the violence of nationalism to defend their ideas. I would had loved for you to have cleared up this point; most young conservatives and liberals are not fighting for the cause of Christ since they both are pragmatically wrong in their spreading and communication of ideas which is the whole basis for the use of argumentation. Blessings,
May I ask you to pray for me Bishop? I am a young man being drawn to the priesthood and I am trying to evangelize my agnostic friends. Thank you and God bless you in your online ministry!
As always, great commentary Bishop Barron! Lord help us through these troubling times.
when christianity is not on threat.
BEST_NIP fan_SO_FAR From its birth, Christianity has always faced threats. Yet for more than 2,000 years, it has survived. I pray that now, in an age of terrorism, spreading atheism, and even hatred of Christian teaching, Jesus will never abandon His faithful. He calmed a storm, walked on water, and breathed life into the dead. Our Lord can do all things. We shall not be afraid of the threats of men so long as we hold onto the promises of God.
I'm an Assemblies of God Pastor and I absolutely LOVE your teaching ministry! I always learn so much from you. many thanks.
"Welcome to the death of the Age of Reason. There is no right or wrong, not anymore. There's only being in, and then being out." -- Frank Underwood
Johnny McLaughlin exactly the problem in modern society and politics.
By using the word "only" in this quote, I think Underwood is a cynic and is being carried along by the culture as we all tend to be. The spoken language fails us as definitions are changed. But God does not change, and it is in losing sight of Him we meander in the desert. Until America is declared Christian as in its founding moral ethos, we will suffer endless confusion. Declaring "for" Christ does not promote Christ, it promotes America and better relationships among its citizens. This also clearly calls out any belief system that denies Christ as The Second Person.
His character represents the soul of modernity. Unshackled by the limits of right and wrong, he feels freed to pursue his ambitions, but in the end is only a slave to the desire for power itself. House of Cards is in many ways the story of the modern man.
"I may not agree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it." Almost no one says this nowdays.
Care to share the punchline? It was a glorification of violence while she emulated ISIS.
Yes, everyone should have the right to say whatever they want without fearing legal action or such, but they shouldn't expect everyone to be silent. I was taught at a very young age that while I have the right to say whatever I want, I need to be very careful how I say it.
If someone insulted you in the worst possible way and then proceeded to call your mother names, even saying that it would be fun if she died (best case scenario, that was pretty much Kathy's joke) would you simply stay silent and say nothing because "It's their right to free speech"? True, it's their right to free speech to say whatever they want, but it's also YOUR right to respond in kind. All the criticism she recieved was fair. (not talking about the bullies)
Again, yes, she had the right to do so, but she should have expected criticism.
Well, no one took away her right to say it, so that means even those who found it distasteful and boorish( like myself) didn't try to stop her. I was a stand up comic for 15 years on the road and I learned that I had to be willing to live with the consequences of a joke even if I thought it was fairly benign. Ms Griffin just thought this would be funny to her leftist Hollywood friends and catch the eye of producers to keep her at the top. I get that, but you still have to know that just because something is lawful, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Let's not be naive; Kathy had an agenda with this joke and that was to prove she still had edge. It wasn't "just a joke". She knows that more of her Trump hating friends will love her for this faux martyrdom and put her back on top. I don't doubt she didn't mean for everything to go down like this, but a comic knows this kinda stuff can happen.
Ionita Mircea Those who do are found in the Military.
I for one have no quarrel with her right to say it.
Bishop Barron you are Very wise . I watch your commentary every day since I found you when looking for a Move review on "The case for Christ" I am a Baptist and have been sending your Word on Fire to my brother as his son lost his faith in University from the atheist Prof. He and other's are now following Word on Fire I love what you are doing ...
God bless you, Ron!
Ron Anderson. praise the lord
@@BishopBarron I have just discovered you on RUclips, Bishop. Wonderful videos. As a Catholic in England, I wish you were better known over here. We can't even get your "Catholicism" series on Region 2 dvd.
Well said Reverend Bishop. The dialogue is so volatile that it has become the religion of our day, setting brother against sister and father against son.
How do we turn the tide such that we can have an actual discussion? We are so quickly dismissive. It seems finding the voice of reason is impossible.
You know, for years, I have also used a professional organized sport as a metaphor for objective truth, but goodness, you sure put forward the same argument with greater eloquence, and with stronger backing. I had never heard of the philosophical approach of "Volunteerism" before, and have been made better with this new knowledge. Thank you!
Voluntarism. I have nothing against volunteerism!
Oh my goodness! See! Spelling is important! Sorry about that Bishop Barron. I'd edit and correct my original post, but then your comment would make no sense. We'll let this be a lesson learned :)
All of your videos are great Bishop Barron, but this one was absolutely fantastic! Thanks for sharing these videos with the world- this was spot on!
This was excellently done. The problems we're in today are simply the outworking of the philosophy, "Everyone has their own truth", that has been shoved down our throats for most of my life. (And I am in my 40s!)
hello father, you have talked alot about Protestantism, but I was wondering if you can talk about eastern orthodoxy or orthodox thinkers like leo tolstoy and fyodor dostoyevsky.
Very good analysis. We NEED a bishop Barron everywhere. What can you do more bishop?
Excellent commentary. Thank you for this. I hope one of your upcoming podcasts on the Word on Fire Show is dedicated to this subject.
It's interesting to note that the Nazis who adored Nietzche's concepts titled the documentary Leni Riefenstahl shot of the Nuremberg Rallies "Triumph of the Will"
Hi Bishop Barron,
Thank you so much for all of your videos, I'm such a big fan. Could you please do a video explaining all the contradictions in the bible (especially those in the New Testament regarding the life of Jesus). I'm a Catholic however this is something I am struggling with rationalising and is something with which I need guidance.
Bishop Baron, did you just quote The Big Lebowski? I listened to your podcast and commentary on the film and I have to say I really enjoyed your thoughts on it.
We see this exact same thing play out in today's political discourse. Everyone appeals to their own set of facts in order to justify their worldview. What matters to people is not truth, but what feels true. That's why each political faction now lives in its own universe. It has led to having a president who casually makes things up as he speaks so as to justify his ideas and his dominance. There is no regard for truth, the facts, or honestly seeking out the truth. Bishop Barron's critique of the culture in academia can just as well be applied to the political culture of the party that is now in power.
This is the BEST video Bishop Barron has EVER done. Every other video he has ever done, whether social, cultural, or theological, pivots on this one. That said, and without disagreeing with his premise, he shows his biases too transparently--biases that I wish he would acknowledge, if not strive to overcome. The bias I speak of is NOT his insistence that segments of our country is too centered on moral or epistemological relativism. That is obvious the heart of his argument, and while I disagree to some degree with whether that is really the issue on campuses, or whether it is the urgent moral flaw that he describes, I do not challenge his contention in that regard. What I wish the good Bishop would do is to speak to the fact that discourse is a two-way street, and much of the stridency that he describes is not merely pro-active. Many of the campus agitators have developed believes as a consequence of the disintegration of our discourse in this country, and conservatives are equally responsible for that. I teach at a politically moderate university. I am also a member of the Heterodox Academy (a group of university professors and instructors dedicated to giving equal voice to all. Look it up online.) I see the quality of the cultural discourse, and it is poor on both sides. Bishop Barron doesn't suggest cultural viable solutions. I wish he would. He needs to take the conservative elements in our society to task a bit. He needs to read the posting that Catholic Vote posts to see the extent of conservative tribalism in our culture.
Would love to see a conversation between father Barron and Jordan Peterson
agreed
That would be a terrible.
It has been done!
Great video +Bishop Robert Barron
Very interesting, thank you.
This is a subject many youtuber are now facing. Jordan Peterson, as a theist and psychology professor talks a lot about these subjects.
He particularly talks about the need to find the truth in a spiritual quest and the nature of the post-modernist philosophy in our times.
Thank you again for your deeper explanations.
is he christian?
Yes she is but sure he is Catholic.
He's Christian, but I believe he's evangelical. He once gave a terrible response when an interviewer asked how he reconciles faith and science in his own career - he said he struggles with it. No Catholic scientist struggles to reconcile faith with science.
Yes, you are right about it.. :)
i'm kinda not sure about he's christianity because he's answers are not really correct i mean it's hard to understand what he exactly says
can you guys give me a some source, where he says "i'm a christian" or something like this pls :D
Your excellency, I can't help but point out that what I have been reading in the comments here proves the exact point you were exploring in the video! I realized one day that we now live in a world where contemporary sensebilities have managed to reduce sex to sport while simultaneously becoming the driving force behind all we do. Winning a fight has become more important than accepting truth, and condoms have replaced Christ as savior of the world.
With the fullness of existence having been reduced to the most base of human motivations within the common conscience, it's no wonder folks are so sensitive these days. We seem to collectively behave like children who have been told they can't have candy for dinner whenever moral issues arise. I do not envy the burden you carry as bishop. As a father of nine, I understand how much is at stake with every word you speak and everything you do. Peace be with you father.
ryeis1 God bless you!
The world needs this kind of sanity more than ever.
Your words are nourishment for the mind and soul straight from God, Bishop! 🙏👏🙌
Thank for Father Barron !
Bishop, it will be great if you could unable translate contribuition so we can reply all your powerful messagges in our native languages.
Greetings from México!
hey Bishop Barron this is unrelated but could you do a video on panentheism? I know this is probably borderline heritical but in find it very interesting and apparently it was accepted by the early church? or the orthodox church. i do think there might be something to it. thanks and God bless.
Bishop Barron, I was initially taken aback when you cited "the left" as being guilty of denying objective truths but I had an ah-ha moment. I guess I would be considered a member of the political left (albeit with some reservations) but it occurred to me that it is exactly this "us vs. them" mentality that is the problem. Why bother going into a debate at all if one is not open to hearing and fairly evaluating the other side? And to prove my point, as I read some of the comments, people were most certainly allying themselves into the two camps: liberal/left and conservative/right. Isn't this just a sort of arrogance on all our parts? Whether we are "right" or "wrong" seems to take precedence in our puny little minds over engaging in a combined effort to find Truth. Thank you for the wonderful videos. God bless you.
Thank you so much Bishop Barron!!!
Bishop Barron:
I think this video echoes a number of themes you touched upon in an earlier video on Gay Marriage and Moral Argument. Along those lines, I really enjoyed the video of your conversation with Dave Ruben, who is himself a man married to another man. While I know very little about Mr. Ruben, he seems to be a sincere person of good faith (to use that phrase to describe his approach to argument and truth) who would likely acknowledge the existence of some objective truth and the importance of cultural norms in discourse and argument. (In fact, I think he has recently come under fire from the Left for, among other things, having a civil discussion with Milo Yiannopoulos and other rhetorical "bomb throwers.") I would enjoy watching an extended conversation on these subjects between you and Mr. Ruben. Any plans to continue your dialogue with him?
Many thanks for this video!
Off subject, wondering if you have seen "The Keepers" on Netflix? Would love to see a video on that.
famofunk - careful - the "holy excellence" Bishop Barron might have your account terminated for speaking such heresy.
Getting a lot of Jordan Peterson vibes from this video
Holy crap do I want to see those two hold some sort of debate/panel/discussion.
the idiosyncratic primate I would love to see them speak. I really hope this happens.
I don't know about that. I think they would disagree radically on epistemology. I also don't think Peterson has the same fear of the will as Barron does. Peterson is a huge fan of Nietzsche, partially because he pointed out that the will to truth is not man's primary will. Also, it seems strange that Barron's critique of Nietzsche is that will to power is not primary to will to truth. It seems that he is missing the point that both are driven by will. Will is always primary. I don't understand why many religious thinkers today believe that supremacy of the will necessarily conflicts with religious authority. I think Peterson has a much better understanding and critique of postmodern thought.
Nope. Disagreement can be great! I'd be interested to hear them talk. Largely, because they have such different epistemologies, and it would be interesting to see how they sort out those differences.
the idiosyncratic primate Bishop Barron has spoken this way for along time. This sports metaphor has been used before. He spoke very similar about how anyone who loves a sport actually loves the ref (can't remember the vid) because they love the rules of the game.
Bishop Barron's talks don't have Jordan Peterson undertones. Jordan Peterson's talks have just opened the door to hearing the message Bishop Barron has spoken all along!
I would love to see on TV a show called "The Great Debate". One that was void of staged/encouraged violence, protest, intimidation in the name of "drama".
Rather, honest respectful intelligent discourse would be the focus. This should be mainstreamed and not just hidden away for a future RUclips search.
After seeing this, I think Bishop Barron and Ben Shapiro should have a discussion on modern society and discourse in this day and age. They're both in Los Angeles so it could happen!
Excellently said Bishop
I have been following you tubers who are switching to homeschooling because of this very reason, they don't feel like their children are receiving this in depth teaching at a traditional school, so they are getting it by focusing for longer periods on time on these types of issues. As for college students, perhaps an emphasis should be placed on learning collegiate debate, to move people into deeper thinking, reflection and argument.
Your excellency, Comments and associated questions please. You recall the confessional joke of the adolescent admitting to the old priest of his impure thoughts? The confessor asked the youth if he entertained those thoughts and the boy quickly responded, absolutely not Father! But boy did they entertain me. 1 - How are we obligated to listen, more than once, to the message of Mr. Murray, Ms Coulter, and the like? For me, their message of bigotry, discrimination and hatred are as impure as the young boy's thoughts in the joke. What good comes from their words? At best, they bring about contrarian reaffirmations to ensure we remain prudent, compassionate, merciful and humble. At worst, they lead one to violence, mental, physical and spiritual violence toward themselves and others. In effect they are the highly charged field effect that magnetizes a united object into two separate poles and a neutral middle. They teach hatred, division and polarity for action and effect, and they have many students. The more exposure young persons have to their message the more caught in their nets. This bombardment of blame, victimization and obligation to recoup is a well-honed tool used by both sides, from the violent alt-right white supremacist to the violent alt-left ANTIFA. Yes, every person has a right to speak, but as Father Whalen taught me in 1972, your rights come with responsibilities and don't confuse liberties with freedoms. 2 - If I may, I believe you are equivocating in the case of the professor going to work on campus when he was supposed to refrain in support of the protest. If I am wrong, then you are saying that campuses and other public venues should allow any type of speaker and it is up to each person, knowing what they will be hearing, to chose not to go. Thanks for all your work..
Thank you your excellency - I shall, and will review your lessons where you discuss how to argue (and how not to). I seem to remember you had some lessons on "Religious", Atheists and Apologetics. Thank you for taking the time to reply and teach.
@Joe I understand where you are coming from. It's not I have anything against debate nor do I have anything against being confronted with opposing views different from my own. But I do have something against the notion that all ideas are worthy of a platform. This egalitarianism of ideas is just as damaging as the attempt to repress ideas. I think it's the lack of conviction which is partly responsible for rise of civil unrest in college campuses.
Joe Ciliberto Thank you, Joe! You raise a wise argument and do it diplomatically. This angle of the Bishop's argument was gravely missing. He needs to listen to his mom... he is "overexposed" and needs to come down from the pulpit to get a deeper understanding.
Sunshine - I took the Bishop's counsel, to take on and defeat vitriolic arguments of ultra-conservatives, versus suppressing and ignoring them to heart. The truth we believe in and the lies they tell coexists in the world. We argue i defense of the truth, against their lies, so that all those who hear can decide. Didn't Jesus do the same?
Surfs up! Breaking left! I lived while in the Navy on the North Shore of Oahu - great surfing. Take good care of yourself.
Excellent commentary. I've become a big fan.
Thank you on this Bishop Barron
Well said. Thanks for sharing.
Well put, Bishop Barron. As MacIntyre relates in After Virtue, it's either Nietzsche or Aristotle. I would add that, in addition to rediscovering Aristotelian (and Thomistic) epistemology, the average person must rediscover the ancient roots of rhetoric. As you probably know, Nietzsche was invested in rhetoric, but more in the sophistic than the Aristotelian sense.
Awesome. God bless the Bishop.
How do we fight this culture on our college campuses? How can we argue with those who do not know the rules of rational argument and do not wish to learn them? I attend an extremely liberal campus, and even to say that one is a Christian, much less a Catholic (especially since I am a convert), is to invite opposition and ridicule. I don't hide my faith, but students and professors look at you differently when you reveal it.
So now we get to see your collection of traditional philosophy books? :)
Dear Bishop Barron - "We stand beyond good and evil"; would the Catholic tradition consider
this idea and its resultant actions "Original Sin"?. My Best Regards, Justin Keating.
Great video!
Bishop Barron, rich and insightful as ever. Something doesn't sit right with me though. It seems to me that if college campuses truly were hotbeds of moral relativism as you claim, then the activists would not really care who came and spoke. Now, your point on Wills is well taken, but the epistemological emphasis seems to neglect the ways in which economic, political and social Wills have rigged so to speak the rules of society against those of marginalized peoples. So, what is taken as neutral epistemology is really privileged ontology. Activists are not just responding to one argument among many, but strains of arguments that perpetuate that privileged ontology and give it air to breathe. So its not just a forum for discussion. Its like Creationism and evolution in schools, and treating both as equal scientific approaches, or climate change denial, etc. Cheers.
But friend, the minute we start talking about "privileged epistemologies and ontologies," we've basically given up on reason. What would prevent me from rejecting the argument you've just made on these same radically politicized grounds? The beauty of the thing is that you and I, despite our differences, can appeal together to shared ethical and epistemic norms.
Bishop. Thank you for the acknowledgement. Your essays have been very important in my own reasoned and intuitive path from Mormonism to contemplative catholicism. But I have had some very powerful experiences where when I seemed to be appealing to a reasoned argument, I was in fact drawing on the rationale accumulated in the experiences of a white middle class male. Now I am not all that eager to dive into identity politics, but I think a listening stance to experience can be just as powerful as appeals to what feel like reasoned argument. Emotion and reason, are after all two sides of the same coin. Cheers.
Jason Brown But it was objective reason that enabled you to appreciate limitations in your earlier approach. My point is that everyone always implicitly appeals to objective standards of rationality.
Bp Barron > Your usage of the word "objective" bothers me. In your basketball analogy the game depends on having rules but I wouldn't call them objective. The rules could change every week and the show will go on so long as the players agree to be "subject" to those rules.
I agree Bishop Barron. Thank you, you should check out Prof Jordan Peterson and his arguments for god. Would love your take.
She exercised poor judgement but there is a dangerous trend in America today: try to get people fired for something offensive. Both leading political ideologies do it. I am of the old school of free speech. If person A has despicable views, let him talk. That way he can hang himself with his ignorance. When a controversial speaker goes to a college campus is a golden opportunity to confront the speaker. I'd get in line and ask the speaker uncomfortable questions. A campus is not an elementary school. I am sure grown-ups will survive some controversial ideas. Maybe I am naive, but as cynical as our society is, I still strongly believe in the decency of most people.
The "Day of Presence" at evergreen wasnt because POC were feeling unsafe, it was a show of power that they could force their "oppressors" to stay at home. It was a play on their "Day of absence" which they have held for years where POC voluntarily stay home in an attempt to show how empty the world would be without them. It is all IMO extremely immature actions that could only be available to a very privileged and and coddled group of adults acting like toddlers. It pretty much destroyed their college, which had been enabling the negative behavior for years.
Bishop, I have a question regarding "objective truths." There is the metaphor of a game (intellectual competition/exchange of ideas) only being possible when rules (objective truths) are followed. Do you mean freedom of speech or objective truths such as there are men and there are women? Wouldn't someone who says there is a spectrum of gender be another player and not necessarily violating the rules?
I don't support that perspective, but as an example.
Unfortunately, with the dumbing down of education this days, most students are incapable of understanding that video. Brilliant and true, nonetheless.
Wow, that is dumbed down, because bob isn't the brightest match in the box...
As a philosopher and religous thinker, he holds up ok!
One of Bishop Barron's best videos I've seen so far.
Thank you Bishop Barron! I've learned so much this last years thanks to your videos! Thank you and God bless you! thanks for helping me keep the path that God showed me two years ago when He call me to be a member of his true church!
I would like to ask Bishop Barron this question. What if it is not a game, but it is really a war? I mean, if both sides are not talking to each other and don't care about the facts, and instead clash? That's war. Maybe the right books to refer are "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu, and "On War" by Von Clauswitz. Both books are taught in military academies around the world.
There wasn't much argument during the Cultural Revolution in China either.
The biggest things I see are,
total lack of capacity to communicate in any rational way shape or form.
total lack of emotional maturity,
total lack of ability to both define and defend ones reasoning and views.
total lack of capacity to loose with honor and dignity.
total lack of understanding and value of social rulesets.
total lack of a capacity to think on ones own.
total lack of understanding about the world they live in and how they do or will not fit into it.
Add any combination of these traits to any even mild degree together in a person then bring a bunch of people who all exhibit similar limitations and you get what we are seeing now.
As someone who has tried to hold a rational debates or arguments with such people as this on online forums and chat sites the overwhelming thing I see is,
1. They can not accept defeat no matter how obvious it is that it will or already has happened .
2, there is no depth they will not sink to to avoid having to own up to being wrong.
3, They have zero issues with doing everything within their power to block their opponent, despite even knowing full well they are wrong while doing it, and that it will cost them everything they have ultimately to gain nothing for it.
The mentality is to force anything they can take as a win out no matter how absurd or hollow and if that can't be accomplished simply stand in the way of what they oppose, no matter the self inflicted consequences, just to prevent the other side from moving forward, even if for all their efforts it only lasts for a second, before being run over and left for dead looking like stupid uneducated belligerent fools.
The sad part I see is that not one I have came up against yet has ever shown any indication that they are in fact outrightly stupid or of a naturally limited cognitive capacity or at least not to the level they will play themselves at.
They will play stupid to no end if it means they can score a hollow win or just block you but they are not by any means legitimately stupid people which make their actions that much more bewildering , frustrating and disrespectful to both themselves and their opponents to see and deal with.
Uneducated, YES!
Inarticulate,YES!
Of poor self respect,YES!
Ignorant of how reality works even with things they feel passionate about, YES!
Blatantly simple minded stupid beyond the capacity to learn, NO!
But they will play to it all extraordinarily well just to keep from having to accept they are wrong about something, no matter how trivial or easily disproven it may be.
Tcmtech. Are you done complaining about others?
Are you done exemplifying my points?
Tcmtech. The biggest thing I see is poor self reflection.
Guessing you are talking about yourself being it's clear you apparently can't tell the difference between a generalized, and largely neutral, summation comment and a negative complaint.
How's your skills on separating informed disagreement from 'racism' and 'bigotry'? F student there too? Or didn't your school use a grading system?
Are these comments, complaints, microaggressions or racism/bigotry towards you? (Chose your sensitivities battles wisely for your opponent just might be someone who does not care what you feel, expressly if you are feeling it wrongly! !) :P
Tcmtech. Thanks for exemplifying my point.
Bp Barron, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on whether you think elements of the progressive movement , hostile to Judeo-Christian traditions and morality, has in a sense "forgotten" some of its own early literature. What I'm referring specifically is Nietzsche's genealogy of morals in relation to the unexpected and poll-shattering elections. Forget the errors in Nietzsche's value judgment (or lack thereof) of morality, just look at the narrative he creates.
It seems to me, the "progressive-left" elites, especially in accademia, have made themselves the priests who control the ideological altars of western culture.
What we're seeing now, may be something ominous but something that the left should have been able to recognize before they entered in a game of alienating Christians and Natural Law proponents as irrational troglodytes without bothering to engage in dialogue and vigorous debate.
Marxist economics have showed themselves to be such a clamorous failure in comparison with the capitalist west that it seems like much of the left began a culture war to prove its own relevance. Doing so created a very top-heavy class of moralizing figures who impose their hegemony on the lower ranks demeaned as inferior in intellect and culture.
I'm no fan of Nietzsche or Marx (count me as a determined enemy of their ideas) but were the left so "erudite" and "learned" they should have probably seen this coming their way.
Good analogy.
Great analogy
It's amazing that this bishop is so rational on this matter yet when it comes to discussing religious matters he suddenly devolves into someone completely irrational basically regressing to this has been debated before argument and the Bible is metaphorical. This man is a typical proving the Bible using the Bible.
That's what happens when human beings have forgotten the source of the truth.
This is great
Bishop Barron, I am a Christian atheist (raised Protestant), but I always love watching your videos. You have a way of seeing past the minute details of a seemingly senseless event (like this one) and pointing out larger cultural patterns. I agree that the safe-space leftist anti-intellectualism is a huge problem. Thank you for doing your part in helping the culture at large understand it.
Thanks, David.
All true, though I would add that the conflict that resulted from Nietzsche's was not an unintended effect but a deliberate attempt to set in motion a struggle that would lead to the emergence of new values that would overcome the individualistic relativism that he saw coming out of the enlightenment. What he did not expect was that the democratic impulse was so strong that it subsume his thought in order to radically enforce the hedonistic nihilism that he railed against.
Thank you BB for your common sense. Sadly the trend today isn't to debate/discuss/argue our differences but to say there won't even be a debate. I am shutting you down. I will deplatform you. I will riot so you can't even have a debate. We have to keep standing up for free speech whenever it is threatened. Even speech we don't like. As Catholics we know from history that forcing people to believe something never ends well. We need to take people with us because the message is right.
Anyone else want to see a conversation between Bishop Barron and Stefan Molyneux? There's definitely some overlapping themes being brought up regarding this topic.
When did we lose any respect for the idea of form?
'The world is nothing but a will to power' - Schopenhauer (Nietzsche's master)
Bishop Barron, you should make a video addressing the flood of claims that Jesus never existed.
Here is how you respond affirmatively to Bishop Barron's message about objective epistemic and moral decay: if you are a political conservative, locate the most liberal, social justice warrior you know....and take them out to lunch. And enjoy their company for a couple hours. And if you are a political liberal find the most conservative, media-bashing authoritarian you know....and take them out to lunch. And their company for a couple hours.
I take Ann Coulter's conservative populism more seriously than Charles Murray's radical libertarianism and neoconservatism because I'm not fourteen anymore, and I don't work for a Jewish thinktank.
What was the crime of all the slaves that perished during the trans Atlantic slave trade?
Objectivity is the prerequisite for civility, after all. Losing objectivity puts us one step closer to a State of Nature in which there is a War of All against All, and life is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.
Sorry Bishop Barron but I think the solution for the raging Relativism lies with Bl. Scotus, who solves the new evangelization with four simple words ... "the will IS primary" - not in how we elevate it, but in how it is formed and functions. Rather, Scotus says the will is not naturally rational; and separated from a desire for God brings about human misery. His writings and those scholars who explore this premise give a beautiful, straight forward and somewhat easy way to understand the emotion of "love". I believe The Church has been moving toward Bl. John Duns for at least the last 170 years, and that his Marian devotion was meant for our times. Scotus inspired the third Marian Dogma and can lead us to the unclaimed fifth one. Many Popes have supported the study of his works, and Paul VI proclaimed him "the perfecter of St. Bonaventure". Benedict XVI in his praise stated " The heart is a better way of knowing". By the design of God, the will IS primary in human beings; and the prayer Christ gives us is explicit in saying so with regard to the Divine Will of The Father. .... I have been inspired and learned much about the beauty of Catholicism from your work. Bess you Father.
Why should I feel sorry about any of this?! Though I'm a Thomist, I have no substantive quarrel with Scotus himself on this score. I do fear that he planted some seeds that later sprouted as full-blown voluntarism. I prefer Thomas's solution that the will, properly construed, flows from the mind's perception of the good. But within the great Catholic conversation, there is room for a variety of voices.
With all due respect, and I don't even really like Kathy Griffin's style of humor, but Trump has made comments that were downright lewd and disrespectful, calling Kelly O'Donnell a fat, dyke and then talking about how he can go around "grabbing any woman's p...y". He didn't apologize for his previous behavior until it became public during his candidacy when he needed those votes. I heard Kathy Griffin's apology and it sounded very sincere. She said she wished she could take it back and that it was one of the most embarrassing things she has done. That sounded much more humbling than Trump's apology and he's our president. If God can forgive Trump than I have complete faith that He can forgive Kathy Griffin.
Kelli Owen No quarrel from me on that score.
Great!
I think that you are right about the problems of subjectivity and the whole Postmodern attitude towards absolute truth. But I have to say that the right is just as guilty, with trying to proclaim truth in the wrong places through reducing truth to a particular political or social ideology. It seems like we need to be looking for truth in a person instead of more ideologies.
I don't agree with that. The problem I'm identifying in this video--the link between epistemic relativism and violence--is far more common the left than on the right.
I agree with you your Excellency...there are right wing people who are violent out there (like the Bundys and Sovereign Citizens and Militia types), but so far as I know none of those people have engaged in a systematic effort to shout down and silence debate (especially on campus).
Im a little bit confused. My point was that any side can be guilty of epistemic relativism, as long as the personal Trinitarian God is not the center of our epistemology.
Charles, I have to say, this whole idolizing of the right and demonizing of the left is accomplishing nothing. If you look at history and the present, anytime church aligns itself with the state, it always fails. Thats what happened with Europe, and Religious Right in the USA has only been turning people away from Christianity. Why? Because anytime Church aligns with the state, it compromises the Gospel, by subtracting parts that dont align to the particular political ideology. However, the political ideology then gets disguised as a religion, and will not compromise, no matter how miserably it has failed.
@BishopRobertBarron: I very much benefited from this video; I upvoted it (and I'm a subscriber, and a big admirer). But this remark-"the link between epistemic relativism and violence--is far more common the left than on the right"-is a sweeping generalization, not only unsubstantiated, but very likely not able to be substantiated, and thus irresponsible to assert.
I'd be interested in your response to this, which happens to be in today's news:
FACT CHECK: Is Left-Wing Violence Rising?
www.npr.org/2017/06/16/533255619/fact-check-is-left-wing-violence-rising
Is your statement here based on research, or just your impression? "Far more common...." Really?
Nominalism - destroying civilization since it started referring to a thing that only existed in the mind.
Anyways, what should I read for a better epistemology? This is one area I've always struggled with, especially in the relationship between reality and our perception of reality. I believe in objective moral truth that is knowable but I can't really defend it from a serious philosophical standpoint.
Muh Spooks Read Ètienne Gilson's "Thomist Realism and the Critique of Knowledge" and "Methodical Realism"
Wonderful books
Thanks for the suggestion.
what really scary isn't a comedian without arguments but a goverment that builds itself from "alternative facts".
Why not back it up to Rush Limbaugh and the vanishing of argument. Kathy's just the latest in a very very very very very long line, until recently almost all conservative/Republican.
It'a about TIME someone in the RCC said something! Well done, Bishop Barron!
Bishop Barron, as a parishoner in your region (Santa Barbara), I am concerned by the apparent politicization of your comments. I made similar remarks to the commentary you posted on your Facebook page, but the bottomline is this: are you ignoring the moral relativism and subjectivism of contemporary conservatives? Your comments highlight the egregiousness of the left, but fail to point out the equally egregious behavior of the right-- just read some of the comments for this video. The Catholic Church, as Pope Francis and Cardinal Cupich have recently reminded folks, should not embrace conservative or liberal ideologies. We, as the Body of Christ, should defy political labels and seek first to do the will of God, regardless of where we might fall along the world's political spectrum. I think you would do well to follow up this video with one that highlights the gross arguments of people like Trump, Milo, Coulter, and Alex Jones, just to name a few. Someone earlier made the same observation, but it's true: liberals roundly condemned Kathy Griffin's offensive stunt, but we don't hear conservatives condemn their wingnuts. Instead, they get rewarded by being commentators on supposed "news" outlets and are embraced by the mainstream. So, for your own credibility, please balance this video out with one that highlights the faulty reasoning and failure to use arguments from the right.
As they say in preschool "Use your words."
+Bobby Winters I don't think I've heard that since preschool :P
justCantHandel m
The thing is there isn't just one party that claims objective truth, every religion claims its own truth.
So by which rules should we play the game by bishop? by catholic rules or evangelical rules or muslim rules?
Well, what rules are you playing by as you make this argument?
By the rules of the only objective Truth actually, the Lord Jesus Christ who taught that men should have the right to shoose their convictions.
John 20:29 (KJV) ... Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.
"It is a fundamental human right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according to his *own convictions*: one man’s religion neither harms nor helps another man." Tertullian To Scapula Ch 2.
Acknowledging the right of people to follow their own convictions DOES NOT MEAN acknowledging that the Truth is subjective, it's just a simple universal right, what's all the fuss about?
What a silly idea to want to make everyone a carbon copy of each other just Republicans and Democrats won't fight each other!
And even then, if all people followed one religion they would still find stuff to fight over.
You shouldn't tell people to just give up their subjective truths, you should just preach the Gospel instead of ranting, and if they accept it they would be willing to do it on conviction, and not just out of lifestyle change to play well with the team.
But then you know better than me what's happening across the Atlantic.
Jonney Shih I could be wrong but I think he was offering you a rhetorical question and letting you find the answer in the premises you held in order to formulate your question in the first place.
Sartre and Foucault were more influenced by Marx, they rejected objective truth because of the misguided belief that it is a construction of the ruling class. Nietzsche was criticizing the abandonment of objective truth.
As usually, great video.
Nietzsche is so fascinating of a study. He accurately prophesies a society that turns his back to God and the breakdown which will result, yet he himself seems to a willing participant in it.
Actually, I really don’t think that is an accurate representation of Nietzsche’s views. See Nietzsche’s criticism of Truth in Plato: the idea that there is a truth beyond human conceptions of it. It’s instead Nietzsche who is advocating for the social constructionist view in the Will to Power. Hopefully you (and I) will both look in to these matters more. Good day
Voluntarism shouldnt be confused with voluntaryism, the latter is a great principle
And herein lies the damage of why removing traditional objectives. Once, say, an objective truth has been eradicated, it is now seen essentially as the state giving sanction for violence against those who want to remain true to their objective truths that have root in substance beyond the state. Once state is become God, it's zealots stand on their justification of violence to force all to bow to it or be destroyed unmercifully.
I'd like to hear the Bishop speak with Andrew Klavan and Jordan Peterson altogether.
I concur, but I suspect that even if we did manage to convince people to hold to objective truth and recognize morality as a concept, we'd simply spend all day debating what that truth is. As Christians we cannot really expect atheists to accept our idea of the truth, so even if we get them to recognize right and wrong, I suspect they'd still disagree with us on what exactly is objectively right and wrong. Still, I would be a step in the right direction.
This trend in today's society to simply shun argument however, is not really a result of postmodern denial of objective truth, but more a case of people unwilling to question their own convictions I think, and people being very uncomfortable with discussing hard topics with people who hold different viewpoints, even though that's kinda the whole point of argument. There is little point arguing with someone who already agrees with you.
"A solution to this [what? epistemological crisis? rampant subjectivity and relativism?] is a much better account of objective truth..." - Bishop Barron
Have you offered anything more than question begging? Was a light supposed to go on and the word "god" uttered in my mouth? I think you're correct in your historical understanding of the problem but you have no real answer other than god, apparently. First of all, subjectivity is on the loose and it's not going anywhere because it is a tool and rationale for power. But maybe more importantly -- at least philosophically - is that much of what is in dispute now is a matter for subjectivity and is not merely empirical. Yes, it would be nice if social norms incentivized recognizing empiricism and disincentived denying established facts but who is going to enforce such norms or rules if the people themselves won't do it?
... and look at us now! Things are 100 times worse!
A very serious subject and a significant problem in modern public discourse, however...
I couldn't help thinking "May the most powerful uber-mensch win. Would that be Batman or Superman?"
Bish please make a Jordan Peterson video
Let's be honest here too....the rise of the very dumbed down "new atheist" movement has made it very difficult to "discuss" much mainstream Christainity in the wider community. To be fair, extreme "Christian" groups ie, tele-preacher fundamentalists do the faith no favors!
I like how he brought up Milo even tho he's gay
Isn't it objectively true that we shouldn't profane the sacrament of communion. Because that's what it looks like when we begin to allow people who have been divorced and re-married (outside the church) to receive the sacrament. All in the name of inclusiveness. Now i'm all for a greater inclusiveness, but when it flies in the face of what we know to be 'objectively true, then i have to bow to what our good Lord has established to be sacred. I'd like people to be reconciled with the sacrament (including myself), but there is already a way for them to do that. Its just that, i believe, they don't want to. They want to be reconciled on their own terms and not according to the teachings of our good Lord Jesus Christ. But we can still pray for them and hope that they come to terms whit what has been established as 'objectively true.'
Thank you for your time.
These are just the thoughts of a rambling dingbat from a time long ago.
Jack Potts. Nothing objectively true about your religion...
(proof.. the exact same claims made by many other religions)
Dozo G I could say the same about your statement. This kind of argument gets us nowhere. but I'll give u an emoticon just so there's no hard feeling 😀
Jack Potts. Your counter "argument" is what we would call a "Tu quoque", and it is ironically also exactly what Barron is fighting against, avoiding the argument in order to keep everyone happy.
Dozo G One) your original statement is not objectively true. 2) your prof that: all religions make the same clam. seems to counter your argument. Because if all religions make the same clam that would be evidence that there clams are true. so you original argument defeats it self.
Jack Potts. I didn't say my statement was objectively true. You claim some objective truths in your first statement.
If you think my point that many religion make the same claim, proves the point they are all true.. then you have not considered that they make the claim to be exclusively true.
(Meaning that if one is true, all others can't be true. This does not prove your religion is not true, it does prove it is not objectively true)
Seeking truth takes effort. And truth is the only foundation worth building on. Everything else is an allusion.
People tend to take the easy way. They will follow the sheep with the most followers. Rather than think for them selves.
Then if questioned they become aggressive. They don’t like it when people point out the fact that they have built there house on sand.
The Bishop insists on objective truth and morals, and is perhaps disappointed that in a constitutional republic, his Church no longer has the authority to dictate what it is and see that people get it good and hard, just like in the old days. Ask poor old Galileo about how much the Catholic Church values objective reality and an appreciation for the power of rational argument.
Dannys9988776 Oh brother...Friend that's just a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda.
Arguments in favor of rational argument about objective reality are always going to get you smacked with Galileo and poor old Giordano Bruno. The inquisition was no picnic, and the church has a lot of penance to do for burning heretics. Galileo and Bruno were right about cosmology of course, and it's amazing that Lemaitre dared open his mouth. Your many videos have generally been interesting and thought provoking (except for the weird Catholic stuff like transubstantiation, etc,) and congratulations on hitting the big time. Chicago's loss was Los Angeles' gain.
This is the first time after watching one of your videos Bishop Barron that I feel you are missing important details and that as a result can lead to negative results.
In an indirect way you seem to suggest that a person of color can be racist against a white person which is the whole premise people of color fight to refute. Listening to their voices requires deep pastoral care from any Bishop.
I do agree that aggression from the political left predominantly preaches a deterioration of objective moral standards. However, this is also preached by the conservative right; just observe the rhetoric used by Trump and how his followers use the violence of nationalism to defend their ideas.
I would had loved for you to have cleared up this point; most young conservatives and liberals are not fighting for the cause of Christ since they both are pragmatically wrong in their spreading and communication of ideas which is the whole basis for the use of argumentation.
Blessings,