Bishop Barron on Atheism and Philosophy
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 фев 2025
- In a recent article published in the online journal “Salon,” philosophy professor John Messerly claims that religion has a "smart-people problem." Is this the case? Bishop Barron responds. Find more videos at WordOnFire.org.
I’m a PhD student in philosophy and my experience largely confirms what the bishop says here. Philosophy is as faddish and political as any other area of human life. Philosophers are subject to social pressure and emotion and all that in the formation of their beliefs like anyone else. Most philosophers don’t have much of a grip on the debate over god’s existence beyond simplistic (and often incorrect) versions of the classic arguments and stock objections to them. Even Quentin Smith (a staunch atheist) has said most atheist philosophers don’t have justification for their belief that god doesn’t exist.
My only quibble is that the fact that most specialists in Phil religion are theists is probably explicable through an obvious selection effect (why commit your life to studying what you think is bs?) and don’t indicate much.
Well damn
Brandon, I've been a student of philosophy for 30 years (both formally and informally) and what you say of philosophers being faddish and subject to pressures is just rhetorical, welcome to the human race. And, yes, most atheist philosophers don't bother much to justify their unbelief because that type of work has been relegated to philosophy of religion which is not a compliment.
@@CesarClouds almost customary to assume that if someone specializes in analytic phil of religion, they’re an atheist.
@@rileypare7946 That's true.
I think what barron is trying to point out is that the statistics in phil religion are no more enlightening than the statistics in any other philosophy discipline. the nature of the discipline and the political/institutional environment are far more important determining factors in the proportion of atheists to theists than are the rational arguments for or against the proposition. the proportion of theists among philosophers of religion is just the counterpoint to illustrate the far greater pattern that emerges from environmental factors
I can’t thank you enough for this series. It has brought me to God, truly.
That's so encouraging.
How? I am really curious.
My astrophysics professor in college who taught a course on The Search Extraterrestrial Life believed in God. It seemed impossible for me to reconcile at that time in my life. The guy was beyond brilliant, the director of an observatory and the head of the Astronomy dept at a major university.
He knew so much that he realized how little he knew.
@Artem Down It's actually the other way round. To investigate the empirical, you need to physically movements, while to investigate the non empirical you only need a mental movement using reason and logic to investigate metaphysical realities.
Was this professor David Weintraub?
"A little philosophy leads a man away from God. A little more philosophy leads him back."
-Sir Francis Bacon
That's how I went. I thought I was too smart for God at one point. Then I kept thinking and I was brought back. No doubt I still struggle with faith as we all do. But I am still committed to growing in God as the days pass.
Quotes from the Bible leads you to theism. Reading the whole bible leads to Atheism.
Peter Martin
And this is why Catholics don’t go buy sola scriptura.
🙋🏽♂️
@@petermartin4298 Depends how you read it. You can choose to interpret everything in a litteralist fashion, like certain fundamentalists do. Or read it in a bit more of an intelligent fashion.
Dennett's "brights" idea was almost universally disliked among atheists, I wish it would stop being brought up
Agree. Insulting the intelligence of the opposition via labeling ourselves 'brights' is bad form.
I sympathize with both of you. Whether Christian or Athiest, it’s often the most controversial of either that get the spotlight most of the time. I think society needs to stop attaching negative stigma to both and start embracing that different ideas, beliefs, and methods are OKAY.
It’s often brought up because it’s a prime example of the hubris exemplified by the New Atheist movement.
There can be humble atheists, but there are many more egoists among them than humble ones.
This and all of these reflections capture a sweet spot for me of accessibility but having enough academic depth to inspire further study. I'm not necessarily a "holy roller" but I do want to go deeper with my faith and Fr. Barron has consistently struck a chord for me. God bless you.
Wow. Thanks for that engaging, pithy and complete analysis of contemporary atheist argumentation and the theist counter- argument. Fr Barron, you are a great gift to the contemporary Church, demonstrating that Catholicism is a smart religion. God bless you.
Well, Paul, not really so smart.
A vegan, an atheist, and a feminist walk into a bar.
How do I know?
They've told me 7 times
Why was I made to feel nothing but pain lol.
Why was I made to feel nothing but pain A Pentecostal, a Baptist, and a Catholic walk into a bar.
How do I know?
They tell everyone what sinners they are and that they need to accept their Lord and Savior into their lives in order to be decent people and not burn for all eternity.
Theists: We did good work!
Everyone: ...
Me: Well that killed everyone’s mood.
Gabbie Reed the ones that scream at you about hell and come knocking on your doors aren’t Catholic, they’re Protestants.
hahahahaha u got me xD
🤔 How do I know? By the veggie tattoo on a cross on her back, lol 😂
I like how Barron’s comment section in his video are like little philosophical debates. Its amazing that people on the internet can talk this intellectually on RUclips. Debate is always good and should always be promoted.
At the end of this video Fr. Barron discusses what CS Lewis called "chronological snobbery"-the premise that all things "new" are "enlightened" and therefore good and that all things "old" are "out of date" and therefore bad. Look around western culture with only this in mind and you will see how it has saturated everything. Chronological snobbery is a fundamental bias in the present day and that bias makes argument nearly impossible. Lincoln famously said: "One would start with great confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions of Euclid are true; but, nevertheless, he would fail, utterly, with one who should deny the definitions and axioms." The point is that if an "argument" begins with a bias, or a wrong premise, it is incapable of moving forward.
God bless you Fr. Barron!
His observations for me lead to a simple conclusion, for the argument for God to be properly framed within the contemporary framework we need to rediscover and recover thinkers like Thomas Aquinas. We need not reinvent the wheel, the answers have already been given to the questions that come before us.
+Michael Montague my dearest fool, to simply attack ones character is nothing more that a cunning ploy to avoid the man's thought, and not face the validity of the argument, a cowardly enterprise that it all too common. May I suggest also a reputable publication also rather than Wikipedia as it is hardly the most authoritative and valid source. Let me just end by incredulity of your ignorance, by saying what most would be all too aware of. That people are products of their day, to dismiss all for the unpalatable of morals past would see the abandonment of much ancient wisdom. Perhaps we should abandon Plato or Cicero for their many views on slavery? Or perhaps ban Wagner for his anti Semitic views or abandon Russell for his support for Eugenics. My the wisdom and light of grace illuminate your most darkened mind and cure you of your pestilential trolling.
Despite your ignorant rantings, Thermistocles, Tommy Aquinas advocated in clear terms the "extermination" of all persons who refused to accept the "authority" of the Roman Church. Period. Full Stop. End of Story. Worse, his writings became the intellectual foundation for the justification of the Inquisition for 500 years of torture and murder throughout Europe. Now, buddy boy. Study history and show me otherwise!
@@naturalismforever7140 , Catholicism had to deal with fundies for hundreds of years with their revisional history and theology ... It's simple, but sad. They have been taught all their lives that Catholicism is evil. So, then, it would be hard for these people to accept actual history and admit that their religion came from Catholicism and wasn't founded by Jesus, like Catholicism was. It was founded by some guy. Further, it would be hard for them to accept that the bible didn't exist before the Pope ordered it created from existing scripture in the late 4th century and that Protestants, Martin Luther, took books out of the original bible to suit his agenda(s) more than a thousand years later If they accepted these historical facts, they'd have to examine the Catholic faith itself. Could it really be evil if our religion came from it? They'd have to investigate why their church was created and by whom while finding out that the Catholic faith was, in fact, established by Jesus himself at the Last Supper. Then they'd have to admit that they follow NOT the religion established by Jesus but by a man. Moreover, they'd have to realize that the bible they depend on for everything, and that many of them worship, was put together by the very religion that they claim doesn't follow it. Frankly, it's easier to believe the nonsense they've been told all their lives than to admit they're wrong and do something about it.
Now, buddy boy stop reading Fox's Book of Martyrs for history and Jack Chick Comics for theology !
@@naturalismforever7140 Educate yourself on the Black Legend, will you.
Really? Are they really putting forth the argument that since most scientists are atheists, therefore Theism is not true, or God doesn't exist? Well, most scientists are also men, so let's see what nonsense can come out of that observation.
Well said! Even if it’s true and there is a direct correlation and you could weed out all the extraneous variables such as peer pressure, politics and confirmation bias it’s still (The Appeal to popularity Fallacy) and the (Appeal to Authority Fallacy). Authorities used to believe the Earth was flat. Equally, no religion ever created a weapon with the potential to destroy our children and grandchildren’s future at the press of a button (nuclear weapons) for this kind of monstrosity you need secular twentieth century science/technology and physicists and scientists who believe that morality is “arbitrary”.
“Since Hiroshima and the Holocaust, science no longer holds its pristine place as the highest moral authority. Instead, that role is taken by human rights. It follows that any assault on Jewish life - on Jews or Judaism or the Jewish state - must be cast in the language of human rights.”(Rabbi Johnathan Sacks)
“The news today about 'Atomic bombs' is so horrifying one is stunned. The utter folly of these lunatic physicists to consent to do such work for war-purposes: calmly plotting the destruction of the world! Such explosives in men's hands, while their moral and intellectual status is declining, is about as useful as giving out firearms to all inmates of a gaol and then saying that you hope 'this will ensure peace.”
(J.R. Tolkien 1945).
Not sure where the guy you're quoting says "less than 7% of scientists believe in God." The actual number of scientists who believe in God is something like 35%, and another 20% believe in some type of "higher power."
Not to mention, many of the greatest scientific minds in history have been devout men of faith. Science and religion are not in competition, one is not the replacement for the other. Anyways, another great video!
Whether it is 7%, 20%, or 30%, r these good enough percentage to be worth mentioning? Let alone it s not how many people believes or who believes that matter, it s the validity of the belief itself.
Illogical stuff is illogical stuff, contradiction is contradiction.
You just can't get away with it cuz those can be found everywhere in the bible.
When Atheists use said numbers as an argument against Christianity, proving them wrong is very relevant, yes.
And yes, they are good enough. When you have 30% who believe in a God, and an additional 20% who believe in some abstract form of impersonal higher power, that means (assuming those numbers are accurate) half of all Scientists are factual Deists. - That is something totally else from just 7%.
If atheists use the same logic, they will be wrong too.
Mike Schnobrich lets not forget MRI was invented by a young earth creationist!!
What is your point?
It could be 100% of all scientists. I'd just need at least 1 to make a convincing case.
It is just ridiculous how incredible Bishop Barron is!!! And that’s coming from a Protestant Pastor 👍
Brilliant as ever Bishop Barron. You're my hero.
M K A fantasy book author could be considered a hero by writing good fantasy people like to read. A fantasy author claiming his stories are true is just crazy.
Daniel Dennett is such a clown
Dennett is one of the smartest people on the planet!
Logic Reason Evidence smh...if you believe that well you need to read more
If name calling is all you can say about Daniel Dennett, then I think you are read and learn in vain.
***** how ironic, considering name-calling is a specialty of Daniel Dennett's
Oh, Fluffy: Your screen name indicates your intellectual prowess. So debate Danny, and let us all know the outcome. Thanks!
thank you dad, remember someone hear in Liberia is following your word on fire activities. May God richly bless you as you reveal these true unto us. Atheism and Philosophy very important analysis.
My philosophy teacher at my local public community college ran through Aquinas' cosmological and teleological arguments, and they were all straw men. She was trained as a logician, so it's no surprise why she was so ignorant of the arguments. When I pointed out to her what the arguments were actually saying, she admitted that they were sound and pretty much irrefutable, but did this lead her to accepting theism, or at least deism? Nope. She simply said that the fact that God is the best logical conclusion is simply because our minds are epistemologically limited. She would rather throw out reason than accept God. And us religious people are the wishful thinkers?
Hey Blake! You need far better instructors! You're clearly not getting your money's worth. You need folks who can articulate the stupidity of Thomism.
I agree that argument is a great way to resolve the issue. But the truth is that there are many thousands of important issues with complex and nuanced arguments on all sides of the issue, and no one has the time to examine all the arguments for both sides to reach their own decision. What people do in stead is choose some issues of interest to them to examine more closely, and for the rest the place their trust in others who will share their conclusions after having done the same for some other particular issue. These people are "experts" and we all rely on them for many things in many areas of life, like governance, sciences, education, behavioral treatments, medicine etc.
You are an expert on some things related to the teachings of the Catholic Church, and I have learned a lot about it from listening to you. Likewise, when understanding the physical nature of the world we turn to scientists. And when we want to understand the existence or non-existence of God, we turn to those who have examined the issue closely and who have spent time dissecting the arguments. Daniel Dennet is one such expert, if not one you agree with. You are another. I'm not really an expert but this is an area of interest of mine and I have spent some time with the arguments, I studied them some in College and after. I'm pretty good at Logical arguments. I think that the reason that old arguments don't work well anymore is simply because people today are less likely to accept the premises of those arguments.
Personally Father, I think you touch here on a serious problem that you highlighted in other videos. Religious people are being forced out of the public sphere, and the lack of emphasis on proper Theology and Philosophy in recent times has left us rather 'un-armed' persay to resist the incursions of Atheism into our institutions. One thing I would especially like to highlight is Wikipedia. Whereas Dawkins and Dennet have thousands of words on their pages, contemporary Catholics, your profile, and even St. John Paul II's Theology of the body are sorely lacking in content. We need a Catholic presence there!
The Bishop makes a remarkable admission with his statement that the philosophy departments of many, if not most, Catholic universities have become largely atheist.
Curious Fr. Barron what you read right before making this video? There is a lot more passion behind your message today. I appreciate very much your thoughts. Thank you.
Thanks SO MUCH for your illustrations and explanations!
Fr. Robert Barron Could you please answer questions on Quora? I would love to see any video addressing questions on there. Thanks!
P.s. I'm a big fan! Keep up the good work and God bless!
Early in this video, the Bishop states that atheists don't understand the nature of God. Atheists have good reason to be confused due to the broad range of ideas about God and different versions of theology that exist among Christian leaders.
The Bishop holds that God is a metaphysical being with no physical presence, so there is no physical evidence for God. I am not sure I completely understand the Bishop's theory on the creation of the universe, but his discussion of everything other than God needing a first cause suggests that God's role in creation was as the first cause for the Big Bang. In his other videos, the Bishop allows for the idea that much of the Bible is allegory.
Ken Ham holds that the Bible is literal truth. God is a physical being in whose image man was made. In the time of Noah, man lived alongside dinosaurs. Many Christian fundamentalist hold these ideas.
I had a coworker who attempted to reconcile the Bible with science by claiming that God created a mature world complete with fossils for scientists to find and formulate their theories.
The fact that there is no consistency in the versions of theology promulgated by Christian leaders is another factor that fuels atheism.
Right on and exactly. The "God" question is a political question.
Now if someone believes there is no God, after life or judgment, then what, in effect, is it that they are believing? That the moral law is of little or no lasting consequence or purpose. That all the most heinous and crimes of evil down through the ages will go unpunished, and that the innocent, or else essentially innocent, victim of the same will just have to stuff it. If this then is what they believe, is it not more or less implied that they think that there is a God but that he is the Devil?
Is it the Catholic view that Satan isn't a real entity but just a label for the bad things that people do? I don't think this is correct but I may be wrong.
nitelite78 No. Satan is certainly real. The sources of evil come from him as well as fallen (due to sin) human nature. God is in no way responsible for any evil in his creation.
ClassicalPhilosophyFTW So you would agree the opening post is not correct? (If I have read and understood what he is saying correctly).
I would contest that God isn't responsible for any evil. As creator of everything he would have to bare some responsibility. Free will isn't enough of an excuse for God to wash his hands of responsibility for pain and suffering especially when his all powerful nature dictates he can prevent it all.
So you're saying that the noncontingent ground of contingent existence will punish the wicked in the end?
The purpose of asking this question is that it points up how silly Fr. Barron is when he makes the ridiculous contrast between "serious" theists and the irrelevant "non-serious" theists who think of God as a being in the universe, perhaps one who goes around smiting the wicked. Perhaps we should call Fr. Barron's way of arguing the "no true theist fallacy."
To me it looks like there are an awful lot of Fr. Barron fans who are not, by his definition, "serious" theists -- they plainly have no idea what Fr. Barron is talking about when he speaks of metaphysics -- yet they adore him for his anti-secular polemic. Walk into any Catholic parish and start talking about "the condition for the possibility of the existence of the universe as such" and most folks will stare at you as if you have two heads. To my mind, Fr. Barron's metaphysics makes sense. But his polemic borders on nonsense -- the crude atheist fanatics are actually right to attack "God," because the God they attack is quite simply an idol which many Christians worship.
Respecting the question of Satan, our word for "Satan" stems from a Hebrew word that simply means adversary, and there are different uses for it just as there are in effect different kinds of "Satans" or adversaries (of moral good.) But one good definition I think that is of help here is to liken "Satan" to a word representing a military general, in this case a general commanding violent, premeditated forces of immorality (say, for instance, someone who dreams up and has the power to have carried out a holocaust.) In this sense, whether or not there is (only) one single such general or not; it is sufficient and reasonable to conclude that there are and exist at least one or more such persons of this description (and presumably whom, given their longevity and status, I personally would infer to be spirit persons.)
Now the argument, as some have mentioned or alluded to that God is the author evil is an extremely old and well hashed out one that I can't all get into here. But ONE response to this counter argument is to say is that if God then IS the author of evil, then God is the Devil (and the Devil God)-- which again is my original point against the dogmatic atheists; so that if you believe THAT, then you believe there is no God in the Christian sense to begin with.
much of philosophy these days is the result of marketing rather than any true love of knowledge
I agree. If you consider yourself an atheist, why do you watch Father Barron videos? As though trying to convince yourself of something you know is untrue. You would consider yourself smarter than some of the greatest minds of the past few thousand years such as Aquinas, Augustine, and St. Paul. Men and women have been martyred for thousands of years to defend the fact that God is real. How many atheists have died to defend the opposing notion?
sparker2760 If I don't read some evangelist's book then I am close-minded, if I watch some videos trying to support "God" I'm trying to convince myself of something I know is not true. Ignoring the fact you fallaciously insert a burden on a lack of belief, that is knowledge claims, how do I win the internet? Seems all options are close to me.
The road to scientism dogma begins with thinking that academics cannot be corrupted.
I would add as well that there a very few academic historians who are atheists. Not all are practicing believers of course, but you'd be hard-pressed to find many serious historians who endorse the 'no evidence for God' or 'God = tooth fairy' new atheist misreading of religion. I think it's because hard line atheism is basically ahistorical - it says that almost everything our ancestors believed is now invalid and irrelevant, which is clearly nonsense. If you immerse yourself in the mental universe of pre-20th century people you invariably find that there's a lot of truth, beauty and sense there (even if of course, terrible things happened in the past, some of them in the name of religion). It doesn't prove the existence of God of course, but it does make the new atheist position substantially weaker, in my view.
And, Alfonzridesagain, which of the tens of thousands of gods invented by humans over the millennia of historical Homo sapiens would such "historians" support?
Robert: A most profound, prescient, powerful quote, which if you took REALLY to heart, could change everything for you. It wouldn't change anything about the "reality" of your "god" but it would change everything about you:
"When faith is completely replaced by creed, worship by discipline, love by habit; when the crisis of today is ignored because of the splendors of the past; when faith becomes an heirloom rather than a living fountain; when religion speaks only in the name of authority rather than with the voice of compassion, its message becomes meaningless."
Abraham Joshua Heschel
Love you and May God bless you father
keep up the good work
and i hope to be catholic like you some day
According to 100 Years of Nobel Prize, a review of Nobel prizes awarded between 1901 and 2000, 65.4% of Nobel Prize Laureates, have identified Christianity in its various
forms as their religious preference (423 prizes). Overall, Christians have won a total of 78.3% of all the Nobel Prizes in Peace, 72.5% in Chemistry, 65.3% in Physics,
62% in Medicine, 54% in Economics and 49.5% of all Literature awards. [wiki article]
The philosophy department where I earned my degree went from being 3 Catholics and 1 Anglican to being 1 Catholic and several liberal Protestant and atheist professors within 5 years after I graduated. While I rediscovered my faith studying there because of reading Dante, Aquinas, and Aristotle, I grieve for the students learning philosophy there now.
Always amazing teaching
Your mentioning of Michel Foucault is interesting. His thesis that knowledge is a reflection of the power structure I think is an apt claim to make in describing the contemporary university system. I'm finishing my PhD in Public Policy at a secular university and I am deathly afraid that my dissertation proposal will be rejected due to its theological Catholic bent, for the reasons that you mentioned.
Hey, Anthony P. As a Ph.D. scientist, who has gone through the U.S. system at two very well respected secular universities, be very careful here. Do not confuse the rejection of a thesis proposal for "prejudicial" reasons versus its rejection because it adds nothing of consequence.
3:53 The biggest branch of professional philosophy, metaphysics, certainly has something to do with the arguments for the existence of God. Epistemology (at 4th place) also connects to the theism vs. atheism debate in minor, but more than just tangential, ways. These nontrivial portions of the philosophical community also possess relevant information to the discussion. This is because philosophy of religion, in addition to having its own subject matter, draws heavily from these (and perhaps other) subdisciplines.
5:56 Control the chair, control the department. Okay. Why is this only an issue with atheists? Surely theists can do the same thing. Why doesn't a single Catholic chairperson result in a largely Catholic philosophy department? Also, RE: prejudicing the "newer generation," it's not like people only write on their dissertation topics for the rest of their professional careers (lol).
8:36 Philosophy is certainly capable of moving upward in some cases. Developments in set theory and formal logic within the past hundred or so years certainly resemble advances in the sciences more than changes in poetic and artistic expression.
Me gustaría mucho que pasaron los programas en español o con subtitulos ya que vi el programa de Catolicismo por EWTN y me pareció bueno. agradezco su atención. Consuelo. Bogotá Colombia.
Philosophy in German schools and Universities always aks why God cannot exist, but never why God would exist. Only when I turned that around for myself after many years and started searching for reasons why God exists, it all started to make sense. Now, I hold God's existence on the same level as mathematical truth. Bishop Barron helped me do that.
Dürfte ich fragen was genau dich von der Existenz eines Gottes überzeugt hat?
God does not exist. Nobody has ever seen him. Him? 😊
It not surprising that God and the Holy Mother revealed themselves to unscholared people or to children rather than to philosophers. In comparison to the infinite inteligence of God a great philosopher and an ignorant child are on the same level.
I think we must turn back to argument!!! 👍🏻
Yet another amazing video father
"Then I'm an atheist and so is Thomas Aquinas!" Ha! That might be one of the greatest things I've heard Fr. Barron say
Yes Paddy. That is indeed one of the greatest things that Barron has ever promulgated. Your 3-part god is irrelevant and inconsequential. Worship it if you must. Submit yourself to it if you must. Bow down to it if you must. Simply don't expect any thinking person to consider you sane.
@@naturalismforever3469 cringe
That's what I Love about God, he doesn't reveal himself to those that think of themselves as worldly or wise but those who are humble and meek!
That was deep
If God is beyond science and beyond "evidence", then he has no relevance in our lives. It also means miracles (i.e. events caused by the divine) are impossible. What good is a God who doesn't interact with our world in any physical or measurable way?
Xuvial He's beyond what the scientific method can discover, but that doesn't mean there aren't rational warrants for believing in God. Consider the arguments from contingency, from motion, from the objectivity of morality, etc.
I would love to see you have a discussion with Adam Savage :)
I like the forcefulness with which Bishop Barron speaks in this video. You can see his convictions and his opinions, and I think that this makes his message even stronger.
👏👏👏👏bravo! Very well said!
Scientists don’t know what god is because Christians and other theists can’t define god nor can they agree on that definition. As such god ends up being some unfalsifiable nonsense. I challenge Robert to define god. If you yourself believe in god please provide a definition and try to be as specific as you can. 👍
"scientists rarely know what people mean by the word God"
.. fair enough. apologists rarely know what skeptics mean by "evidence".
What do you mean by evidence because when they say evidence you guys always want some sort of physical evidence. There are different types of what we can use as evidence so I have found that it is in fact skeptics that don’t know what we mean as evidence. They only see one type of evidence and when you provide a different type of evidence they say that doesn’t count.
SKEPTICS RARELY KNOW WHAT CAN COUNT AD EVIDENCE.
I recognize that Philosophy of Religion is a distinct subcategory of philosophy, and correct me if I am wrong, but isn't the primary philosophically distinction between the theist and atheist essentially materialism vs idealism, with idealism being a sort of prerequisite for Philosophy of Religion, or is it vice versa? I have always conceived of materialism and idealism as diametrically opposed philosophical positions within Philosophy of Mind with enough cosmological, ontological, epistemological and even neurological differences to be considered one of, if not the, major divides in theist and atheist thought, if not the principle philosophical foundation for either position.
Materialism = Matter Over Mind
Idealism = Mind Over Matter
This has been how I have conceptually defined the difference between the two philosophies, as they relate to the existence of the mind in relation to the body. But in the case of materialism, for instance, there are also other ontological and epistemic conclusions like a universe consisting of only atoms and void, if reality and consciousness is atoms in motion it is deterministic, there is no afterlife and consciousness is an emergent property of the brain. So my concern is can Philosophy of Religion be of any relevance to a materialist and does it seem to appeal only to idealists?
How about that, as a voice in the ongoing discussion: “While the Jews demand miracles and the Greeks look for wisdom, we are preaching a crucified Christ: to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get over, to the gentiles foolishness, but to those who have been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is both the power of God and the wisdom of God.”
The brilliance of the argument for or against God can never really prove or disprove God. Our only hope is to meet God. My question to those who would attempt to disprove God would be to ask if they have met Him or hope to meet Him. Anything short of encounter with God is simply speculation, even if all the signs point to His existence. Isn't it interesting that God moves away from anything less than encounter. He did not create us for speculation or argument about Him. He created us for Himself, to know Him; and so He remains untouchable to those who attempt to reach him through their own understanding. The touch of God through encounter with Him is on His terms. It is in this way that one both knows and speaks of God as true.
Glad you did this. I enjoy Daniel Dennet from an entertainment point of view. I don't think he is necessarily wrong about anything, I just know he doesn't know what he is talking about. The criteria that he uses for his own beliefs are the same that every individual in the world has. He is just one person, with "a" belief-whatever the belief is...means nothing. I'm not sure why no one sees that.
This is what makes the conversion to belief so gargantuan in its difficulty. It has to be done by the individual. It has nothing to do with Daniel Dennet!
Beyond that I think Dennet does infact provide a great argument for God. Studying him leads me to know I don't want what he has.. nothing.
"if we say that god always existed, why not save a step and say the universe always existed"
For the rest, its just a question that won't be anwsered, might aswell flip a coin.
"Scientists rarely know what serious people mean when they use the word God"
I would perhaps agree. However I think that comes down to two major factors. The first being that there IS no common definition of God, its limitations, its qualities, its thoughts, its actions, etc. Second, that God is not a scientific term because it lacks these qualities. The reason God can't be used as a variable in a scientific measure is because there is no quantity of God we can add in, the X factor remains unknown. Further, when we make models that ignore the X factor of a God, it turns out they work perfectly well. Your "serious people's" definition isn't needed in scientific pursuits.
If God existed and was necessary for all these events he supposedly caused, then we would be constantly coming up blank and looking for a solution that doesn't exist. When trying to solve for a supernatural cause, natural causes must be ruled out and that isn't the case we find. If God were real, there would be no need for such a large universe. Or even a need for anything but a flat earth with a sun circling it, as the biblical tales tell. There would be no need for fossils in the ground, or rock layers, or tree-rings dating back millennia. If God was a thing that existed and influenced the world in specific ways, even supernaturally, then there would be evidence of that shoeprint. But what we find is natural reasons for everything we look for. Even the largest current unknowns have naturalistic explanations, if unconfirmed. Abiogenesis steps in to create life and the big bang theory and quantum/string theory explaining the origin of the universe. Certainly the origins of humanity, something the bible and essentially ALL religions equate to the necessity of a god or gods, have natural explanations through evolution and genetics.
"They assume that God is some item in the universe … may or may not exist, and let's try to see if there's any evidence … What serious people believe about God is not that he's an item in the universe that could be discovered by scientific investigation."
Right, they are asking questions of a thing that we could even try to prove. At present science is limited to studying reality. Reality being defined as things that exist. You are correct that in this way we are limited to exploring things which can be tested or for which we can find evidence. We are limited in finding things that exist, within existence. However, if you God isn't within reality and lacks evidence within reality to substantiate the claim, I don't see any reason to believe the claim. Simply put, if God doesn't have proof, why do YOU believe in him without it?
At this point it doesn't matter what you define your God as. It doesn't matter that you define him as outside of the universe, or as a foundation of the universe, or literally anything else. If you are agreeing that there is no evidence for God to be found, then as far as I can see you've admitted that we should all be atheists (as you do at 2:25). Conversation over as far as I'm concerned. At this point it becomes obvious you don't care about intellectual honesty, you care about semantics and about trying to justify an unjustified belief, and I have no interest in that.
Please take a second to ponder a hypothetical... First, God is real (remember, hypothetical). Before everything, there was nothing. No existence, no memories, no emotions. For whatever reason God designed matter, time, energy and the great void of space. This design is all intricately held together by finely tuned forces that govern to create an equilibrium. In this grand equilibrium of forces and matter present in space, enacting out over time, objects start to from which become greater elements, molecules, nebula, fusion balls and solid masses. More time, tuning and formation. More balancing to create subsystems of systems of masses in order to get the most delicate organization of conditions. Eventually enough balancing has happened to allow for even greater levels of fine tuning, biological organisms are formed. For the first time ever autonomy is happening without being directly driven by the governing forces of the universe. Chunks of matter are moving independently of the matter around them and against the forces governing that matter. These organisms are the basis for only bigger and better things, more complex designs. Many iterations pass, some designs are kept around, some rejected. Gods design skills get so honed that eventually these complex structures of matter are moving around enacting on their environments, processing logical operations, replicating themselves, even self tuning their own designs to better survive in their surroundings. All this progress has been amazing, everything is running itself, no reason to stop here. The next step is complex organisms that are not directly controlled by the fundamental governing laws of the universe, or by the simple and predictable logical operating laws in their environments. With this God sees the opportunity to raise the bar and place desires in the mix. For the first time ever there are complex organisms performing operations in their environments that are driven by more than the simple setpoints of feeding, collecting, protecting and reproduction. There are organisms operating with such desires as to seek an objective beauty, find a common truth and to create deep bonds with one another outside the needs of logical survival. This would be where consciousness comes in, and most mistake as intelligence. This transition, like all previous, takes time and fine tuning. This would also be where human recorded history starts. The transition to these new operating desires over the lower level animal desires has taken time and is still taking time. Fine tuning is especially difficult as these beings are fully autonomous and independent. After a certain level of collective consciousness was achieved, God then tried to say, “Hi” and let us know what's going on and what we are supposed to do. Some listened, some chose not to. Just as some animals have become extinct because they could not fully survive in their environment, some humans have not fully made the next adaptive step. Why does God not show himself to us now? For one, its probably not in his design (for many good reasons) and two, he’s been busy working on the next step.
Keith Strang "...some animals have become extinct." SOME? Over 99% of the species that have existed on Earth are now extinct. Very few places, relatively speaking, in the universe can support life. Even fewer can support intelligent life. Given these facts, and the assumption by religious folks that God made the rules of the universe, why didn't God make it so there was no fine tuning needed? Why would he let 99% of species die out? And the fact that modern humans have been around for about 200,00 years, why did God take so long to reveal himself?
Keith Strang
WARNING: LONG.
"Please take a second to ponder a hypothetical... First, God is real (remember, hypothetical)."
Hypotheticals and thought experiments are only so useful but sure, let me follow this through.
Now, I read the full paragraph before starting and I understand where you are going. But I feel I need to break it down piece by piece to see where and why a god, to you, is necessary.
"Before everything, there was nothing. No existence, no memories, no emotions."
I presume this point was prior to the big bang? And since memories and emotions are dependent on minds, I would certainly agree.
"For whatever reason God designed matter, time, energy and the great void of space."
Already we hit a snag. In this hypothetical you have a god, but can define no aspect of him. Yet say he can design all these qualities? Also, in what period or point is God designing these things, if time and space have yet to be invented?
"This design is all intricately held together by finely tuned forces that govern to create an equilibrium."
In what ways is this equilibrium finely tuned? To explain what I mean I have to grind to a halt a little but let me continue. I would assume you would mean the constants of the universe are the 'finely-tuned' bits that God had a hand in, hypothetically. Except there is no evidence to show this, for two major reasons. First, we have no way of knowing how the constants are the way they are. We define them through observations but we have no way of knowing if they could have alternate numbers for their measurements. Alternatively, we do have models of what our universe would look like if ALL the combinations are possible. So, not only do we not know if ours is the only possible combination, we have allowed for the possibility it is not. Yet if a god existed and was capable of setting these constants then they could set them to literally anything. The way the constants are now, there is a vast (observable universe) with very little matter, of that matter, very little hospitable matter, of that hospitable matter, very little (known) life. Simply put, there is no reason to have such a universe if God's intent was to create us, or have a place for us to live - at least not if he is as omnipotent as usually described. Second, God is frequently described as magical, meaning beyond the laws of physics, beyond causality, beyond any restrictions we could put on him. There would be NO need for such constants in a universe created by such a being. A flat earth would be perfectly possible and actually likely. There would be no need for such a large (observable) universe, when a single flat plane is equally possible (it is mathematically possible now). At that point, objects would fall at the rate they do now, but would do so minus any need for gravity, since God is magical.
So, even in this hypothetical it falls apart because what we observe goes against what a god (that could do) would do. But continuing on.
"In this grand equilibrium of forces and matter present in space, enacting out over time, objects start to from which become greater elements, molecules, nebula, fusion balls and solid masses."
In this hypothetical, does it take as long as it does in our current scientific models? Billions of years? Elements being created in the furnaces of stars? Supernovae seeding the necessary elements necessary to create new life millions and billions of years down the line? If so, what is taking the god so long? Why is he setting the universe in motion and then sitting back and letting it all happen? Also, if this is the case, you realize it goes against basically ALL religious interpretations of any god or creator or designer, right?
"More time, tuning and formation. More balancing to create subsystems of systems of masses in order to get the most delicate organization of conditions."
More tuning? Tuning *how*? Organization of conditions…. to what end or purpose?
"Eventually enough balancing has happened to allow for even greater levels of fine tuning, biological organisms are formed."
Again, is this God actually doing something to create life, or is it abiogenesis done automatically over time - with God just putting the correct conditions in place to begin with? This is the problem with inserting God as a variable, since he doesn't actually do anything we can quantify.
"For the first time ever autonomy is happening without being directly driven by the governing forces of the universe. Chunks of matter are moving independently of the matter around them and against the forces governing that matter. These organisms are the basis for only bigger and better things, more complex designs."
So, evolution is happening - but counter to the governing force of the universe (the things that God fine-tuned)? And how does "first time ever without …" It seems like this would be simply the first time ever.. ever. No "without". At least in my understanding, but then again, I think you are being a little vague so it is hard to tell what you are describing, except abstractly.
"Many iterations pass, some designs are kept around, some rejected."
As already pointed out, "some" kept and rejected? That makes it sound relatively equal in numbers. Certainly closer to than the staggering reality of "remarkably few" things kept and "almost all" things dying off/rejected.
"Gods design skills get so honed that eventually these complex structures of matter are moving around enacting on their environments, processing logical operations, replicating themselves, even self tuning their own designs to better survive in their surroundings."
Wait. God's design skills needed honing?
Self-tuning? You realize life doesn't do that, at least either that or you are using a huuuuuge equivocation fallacy here, by describing "tuning" in very different terms in this grand paragraph.
Also, if we are self-tuning, what is God doing exactly?
"All this progress has been amazing, everything is running itself, no reason to stop here. The next step is complex organisms that are not directly controlled by the fundamental governing laws of the universe, or by the simple and predictable logical operating laws in their environments."
I would argue that the fundamental governing laws of the universe are directly involved, but it depends on what you are actually meaning. The same goes with "laws in their environments" though in that case, I'm unclear on what they might be to start with.
"With this God sees the opportunity to raise the bar and place desires in the mix."
At what bar is that? Because so far, even though I think you've eluded to evolution, you may be up to plant life? What is the opportunity? What is the quality you are saying was missing, prior to God "raising the bar" to give things desire? Isn't the desire to reproduce already a desire, inherent in all life? Or the desire to survive for that matter.
"For the first time ever there are complex organisms performing operations in their environments that are driven by more than the simple setpoints of feeding, collecting, protecting and reproduction."
Okay, so we've made it to .. post-homo, pre-sapiens? I don't even know. Again, I think you are being purposefully vague here.
"There are organisms operating with such desires as to seek an objective beauty, find a common truth and to create deep bonds with one another outside the needs of logical survival. This would be where consciousness comes in, and most mistake as intelligence."
Wait, you think consciousness comes in only when creatures start valuing beauty, truth, bonds, and needs outside of survival? Hate to break it to you, so long as this hypothetical at all resembles the real world, consciousness exists in a MUCH larger swath of things. Certainly all animal life. Possibly all plant life. Certainly anything that has a brain has consciousness.
Okay with that out of the way, I presume at this point you are talking of actual human beings, since I know of no other animals that seek "common truth" (again unclear what you are defining as this, but I'll give this one aspect to you), but plenty of animals seek the other things for non-survival reasons. Plenty of animals have concepts that we can equate to love, companionship, justice, and yes even beauty. But I'll admit that no other animals have made sitcoms.
"This transition, like all previous, takes time and fine tuning."
No it doesn't. I know I'm supposed to be going along with your hypothetical, but really what you are describing doesn't require fine-tuning. And in fact, reality goes against the concept of such. Each step you are describing, or that I can gather of what you are saying, is entirely biological in nature. It is ramp up in complexity, but fine-tuning has a presumption that humans are the ultimate goal - which is counter to what we see. Humans are distinct from animals in many ways, including that sitcom thing, but much of our core is decidedly human. This is why we can see such characteristics that we would define as "human" in plenty of other animals. Community, for example, is thought to be a human trait, but it exists in plenty of animals. Same thing with justice, as I already said.
This fine-tuned argument boils down to the presumption that humans must be the final goal of some fine-tuner. This is obviously false. Humans are plastic to our environment as anything else is. If we weren't, there would be no obvious differences such as skin colour. The fine-tuning is a product of seeing order out of chaos, like seeing a bunny in a cloud, when really it is just a cloud. I know why it is a pleasant thought, but it is certainly wrong. Life flourishes despite its environment, not because of it. Finely-tuned would mean that optimal conditions should be set, but we know that optimal conditions breeds complacency and stagnation and not diversity and evolution. We survive because the universe isn't finely tuned.
"This would also be where human recorded history starts."
What do you mean!? Human history starts when you misunderstand that consciousness starts?
"The transition to these new operating desires over the lower level animal desires has taken time and is still taking time. Fine tuning is especially difficult as these beings are fully autonomous and independent. After a certain level of collective consciousness was achieved, God then tried to say, “Hi” and let us know what's going on and what we are supposed to do."
Funny how God wasn't a single god when he did this then. And how his message was so muddied. And how often his message is indistinguishable from what people who wanted to control the masses would have said if he didn't exist.
"Some listened, some chose not to. Just as some animals have become extinct because they could not fully survive in their environment, some humans have not fully made the next adaptive step. Why does God not show himself to us now? For one, its probably not in his design (for many good reasons) and two, he’s been busy working on the next step."
I love how you assume that there are good reasons why God hides/doesn't show himself. Care to share any of them? Or how you came to the realization that there are any to begin with? Or how you came to the realization that God actually exists, when there is no evidence to support the claim? Or why, when there is no evidence, you would believe such a claim to begin with and operate as if it was supported? Or even how you can tell he is still designing some future "adaptive step"?
I mean I followed your hypothesis as long as I could, but it just came down to you attributing things that didn't need to be, and actually went against, God, to him. Really it seems to come down to you not seeing an alternative to him, which I get, but I obviously can see an alternative and it makes more sense as opposed to less. I would really suggest you look into the actual scientific explanations for these processes and check to see if they need a God, and if so specifically where and how. What is the hole in the processes and mechanisms we currently describe? At best at that point you will have found a god of the gaps. But really if God was a real thing, and he acted as described then the world would look much different than it does. The simple fact that our world is so automatic, it points to a guiding principle or grand designer being unnecessary. The fact that it takes billions of years for life to evolve points to it needing billions of years to evolve through trial and error, or condition, or adaptation, or any number of things; but it doesn't need a supernatural agent poking it. It isn't a matter of one line of evidence pointing to this hands off approach, they all do.
Science works by not including a god, because there are no qualities of a supernatural agent that we can reliably put into a model. Certainly if a god existed, they could come cure climate change (for example) but until such a time that one does show up and do so, or until climate change magically fixes itself, it would be better to act as if a god doesn't exist and to fix it ourselves.
And of course, in this hypothetical, you are ignoring all the other thousands of gods that have as much basis as the one you believe in, and for which there is as much proof. And we *know* people make up gods, there is no reason to think yours is special. I'm sorry, but we really don't. Until the time that a god can be proven to exist, I'm not going to believe they do and I can't be intellectually dishonest enough to act any other way. So, if you want atheists to shut up, come back with proof and a hell of a lot more than hypotheticals.
"The first being that there IS no common definition of God, its limitations, its qualities, its thoughts, its actions, etc."
Not true: This statement is very dishonest. While each religion may lack a common definition for God, each religion, in fact, does, still, have a common definition for God. Moreover, it seems to me that, when dealing with Christianity, you have a unique situation, wherein YHWH actually defines himself. So that even if one Christian says "this" and another says "that", you can easily check their chosen ideal of God by observing what he reveals.
Thus, if any scientist wanted to honestly argue against the existence of Yahweh, all they have to do is observe what he reveals; which provides the clearest definition possible.
"It doesn't matter that you define him as outside of the universe, or as a foundation of the universe, or literally anything else. If you are agreeing that there is no evidence for God to be found, then as far as I can see you've admitted that we should all be atheists."
This is an illogical statement, as it doesn't, at all, follow that because God can not be experimented on that we should, logically, conclude that he doesn't exist. Furthermore, it does not, at all, even approach the scope of Fr. Barron's opinion on the usefulness of the sciences, nor it does it accurately represent the term "evidence", wherein you limit the term to "experimentation".
retsea1
"Not true: This statement is very dishonest. While each religion may lack a common definition for God, each religion, in fact, does, still, have a common definition for God."
Wait. Let me get this straight. You are calling me dishonest for saying what you say, and what you also don't say. Impressive.
How exactly does each religion both have and yet lack a common definition for God?
This of course ignores the fact that not all religions have "God" as their figure. But whatever.
"Moreover, it seems to me that, when dealing with Christianity, you have a unique situation, wherein YHWH actually defines himself."
Well, no I really don't have a unique situation with Christianity for several reasons.
1. There is no reason to think that YHWH exists, let alone defines himself.
2. The god of Christianity is ostensibly the same god as that of Islam and Judaism, thus not-unique to Christianity.
3. Even within Christianity, if you got a dozen Christians into a room you couldn't get them all to agree what God does do, doesn't do, or his qualities and abilities. They might all agree "Jesus is Lord" or "Heaven is better than Hell" but those are things in Christianity that aren't actually defined. What is heaven going to be like, for example? Seriously, give me a description of what heaven will be like, and let's see if the next Christian to stumble upon your definition agrees 100%.
"So that even if one Christian says "this" and another says "that", you can easily check their chosen ideal of God by observing what he reveals."
So, check their ideal vs. literally nothing. Wait, what?
"Thus, if any scientist wanted to honestly argue against the existence of Yahweh, all they have to do is observe what he reveals; which provides the clearest definition possible."
Yep. That's what they do. Just like when they want to honestly argue against Bigfoot, all they have to do is observe what Bigfoot reveals (equally nothing); which provides the clearest definition possible (that he doesn't exist, or at the very least there is not sufficient evidence to think that Bigfoot exists).
The arrogance of these types of anti-theists always makes me laugh! These people think the world and all it's intricate wonders and complexities came into existence out of nothing, with no intelligence behind it all, and through only time and random chance.
If you said such a thing even about a child's sandcastle you'd be looked at like you were insane. (And rightly so!)
This naivety of some modern scientists remind me of Jesus' quote: "If you were blind, you wouldn’t be guilty. But you say we see so your guilt remains". Still, let us not minimize the negative impact of fundamentalism whose naive opinions feed into those criticisms and legitimize them in the mind of the ill-informed.
I majored in philosophy as an undergrad, and at the time, I really didn't appreciate a Wittgensteinian professor stressing to us that philosophers have had 2,500 years to answer the great questions and had entirely failed. Basic facts of our existence like "Do we know anything? Can we know anything? What is language really? What is aesthetics and how do we know?" have produced scores of theories and rebuttals to those theories. Over the years, I have come to believe that philosophers are indeed playing with language when they argue. More than two millennia and they have not established a coherent theory of knowledge that ALL philosophers can get on board with and say "ok, that one is done." Just endless argument, and yet we do truck along, knowing things. So when someone says that deductive reasoning or philosophical argument does not establish God's existence, my retort now is that neither has it come up with any solid conclusions with respect to any of the foundational issues of existence, the mind, etc. Philosophers are mainly arguing very precisely about language.
John Cottingham has a lot to say about this as well -- how philosophy has an unexplained bias against any form of knowledge (say, experiential) that cannot be compressed into a descriptive sentence, thereby leaving out things like music and love completely.
Why exactly should we consider a failure to produce some sort of universal agreement as "failure entire"? Why would we select a criterion for "success" that is contrary to the entire history of philosophical thought? This reminds me of Heidegger's remark about how a carpenter's bench is unuseful for flying-we could, I suppose, claim that all carpentry is a failure in this basis.
*Scientists assume the God is some item in the Universe.*
Do Scientists really think this? I find this implausible. I am sure it may apply to a few but not to that many surely.
Also is it really justified to dismiss science as a means for finding God or finding things out about God? After all God does interact with the Universe from time to time. Some people think all the time. There are scientific questions to be asked about things like "does prayer work"? I understand there is this barrier that religious people put up which says "YOU SHOULDN'T TEST GOD" but this has always seemed to me like a blatant trick to avoid any questions about testing.
Also don't the religious teachings contradict what you say about God not being a science question? Isn't the teaching generally that God should NOT be tested and not God CANNOT be tested? It would seem strange to teach God SHOULD NOT be tested if the actuality is that he CANNOT be tested. (Maybe this isn't really Catholic teaching. I am not sure. It is what I grew up thinking as a Catholic though so there must be a reason for that).
*Atheists Departments In Universities*
Is this just an explanation of why the statistics show Atheists dominate in these areas? Or is it your recommendation of a strategy of how to change those statistics? Theists and atheists alike seem to play the numbers game. You said early on in the video that the stats are irrelevant to you. But the way you discuss these stats in terms of science and philosophy faculties in Universities and your later discussion about poor atheistic philosophy and your desire to get back to argumentation seems like you do care about these statistics. I am sure the Vatican cares about such stats. The number of theists is only going to drop further according to trends. Perhaps it is time God showed himself again? With the hell that is happening in the middle east it would be welcome by many I am sure. Regardless, his silence isn't going to help on the stats.
If your reasons for the stats leaning towards atheism are correct doesn't this point to a failure in religious apologetics? You seem to be saying that all these atheist philosophers have poor arguments - doesn't the fact that the numbers show atheistic leanings imply the theistic arguments are poor or at least the delivery of theistic arguments is poor or both? I find it a bit of a stretch for you to claim it is bias in Universities and misunderstandings about God by scientists that is the main reason for the atheistic dominance shown in the statistics.
Every time a scientist talks about the lack of scientific evidence for God they are talking about God as a thing in the Universe. God may occasionally interact in a supernatural way in the Universe, but even in the Bible it was never in a predictable, repeatable fashion (which is kind of required for scientific inquiry).
Yes, one should not put God to the test, because that is the sin of presumption (suggesting that God owes you a special favor). But just because one should not do something that does not mean I can do something. I cannot put my head through a brick wall... but I also should not try.
Finally the stats might be irrelevant to him personally, but that does not mean that others don't find them persuasive and therefore they need to be explained.
Bill McHale God isn't supposed to be completely separate from the Universe. He is responsible for its existence and so it is reasonable to postulate whether we see the stamp of God within the Universe. God is supposed to be all loving so questions like "what would we expect to see within a universe created by an all loving God" is a valid question. Pain and suffering is something that can be scientifically measured. It is evident everywhere in life and it is therefore valid to draw conclusions from it which don't favour a theistic view.
Another example might be theistic concepts like substance dualism. Scientific findings like the brain not being able to function or remember things when damaged erode veracity of such concepts.
I don't see why it is so presumptuous to test God and I don't see what is so wrong about questioning our existence. We understand fully what the consequences of trying to put your head through a brick wall because of evidence which tells us it is a very bad idea.
The only thing that seems to happen if you try to test God is a lack of response. I don't see it as anything other than a trick to me to avoid questioning unless it can be explained properly why you shouldn't test because you can't. With the Christian view that God HAS spoken to many people over the years this "cannot test God" idea is very dubious. God is supposed to be omnipotent and omniscient so to suggest testing him is impossible because he is outside of the Universe seems absurd.
I think other people do find the stats persuasive. I question whether Fr Baron is being honest with himself about the reasons for the figures and his reasons for dismissing the scientists stats.
***** Something being necessary for our existence doesn't say anything about whether that thing we are dependant on is sentient and cares about us or whether it was sentient but no longer is. We are dependant on oxygen but that isn't God.
If "god" were to be discovered, observed, measured, etc that would mean that "god" is not supernatural. Scientists tend to adhere to materialism. Everything that exists is part of nature. Ergo if "god" exists, it is part of nature. Not supernatural.
*****
Define "spiritual" then science might take a crack at it. So far, "spiritual" is more subjectively arbitrary than "love".
My testimony says if God doesnt tells me something I don't know it if God guides me with my environment and the people there I may learn what he wants me to hear from what they have to say. God can guide my perceptions memories & thoughts. if I ask a question He tells me His thoughts. And there is scientific empirical evidence of the presence of God that he will reveal more in his timing just like the Lord is withholding the knowledge of Jesus to many of the Jewish faith. I have been humbled by the revelation of his sovereignty and my mind has been healed by his kindness that leads me to repentance to discover that his perfect love casts out fear and this is what he wants for all creation.
Glad you made your inability to remove bias known within 30 seconds. The whole talk was specifically not juxtaposing bright and dim. I'm gonna guess you tuned out the reference to gay vs straight, and that it's not gay vs glum. He suggested bright vs super. Maybe not catchy, but very useful to point out how clearly unable or unwilling you are to accurately represent his idea.
Russell did misunderstand Aquinas, but in my reading of him, he claimed to be an agnostic not an atheist.
That was very clever observations. Thanks!
You say there's no argument against the existence of God why don't you give me a break there's no argument for the existence of a god and what God are you speaking of every religion especially Christianity possess so many different versions of what they attribute to being a god. Christians even know what a God is.
No, mister atheist you're suppose to hit the dislike button after the video not before it starts.
Robert: You removed your other video on philosophy and "atheism" from RUclips? May I ask the reason?
Thank you Fr. Barron. - Be sure not to get caught up in the details & strategies of your opponents. Truth is calm & free flowing, that is your style.
To think is close, to believe is closer, to know is there.
This raises the question of discerning between belief and knowledge.
I think it has more to do with a misunderstanding of who God is that makes many people call themselves atheist. If you dig deeper, you actually discover that many actually do believe in God, they just believe that their conception of God is different from that of Christians or Muslims. It seems to me that they see God as a physical being, probably even as a human like the representation of God in Micheangelo's Creation of Adam, instead of the incorporeal and formless being that he actually is. So they are just atheistic to this kind of physical, Zeus-like god, but not atheistic in the sense that no god exists.
Of course, this is a caricature of Christianity and Islam since Abrahamic theologians have been saying that God does not have a body for centuries by now. But I suspect that many Christian laymen do have this rather unsophisticated view of a God that looks like the Michelangelo's portrayal of him in the Creation of Adam.
What a pile of rubbish, Apostol407. You're a full blown atheist when it comes to a consideration of the existence of Apollo, or Zeus, or Mithras, or Osiris, or Krishna......nth of tens of thousands of gods ever invented by humans. You simply happen to believe in the existence of a particular god of your choosing, one for which you offer an interesting definition, considering that, if you are indeed christian, your "god-man" "Jesus" appeared to have a "body."
Hey Apostol407: Kindly supply the verifiable, undeniable evidence that your silly god exists. Thanks!
What you're writing is a mockery of atheism. We don't believe in a creator spirit either. It doesn't matter whether your god has a physical body or not. The essence of the Abrahamic god is that of an all-powerful, all-knowing, sentient spirit (now that I think of it, at least one person of which - Jesus Christ the Son - DOES have a corporeal body so you're partly wrong in your defense of the idea of God there too). We don't believe such a being to have any evidence going for him either.
Somebody said, "I'm an athiest. God doesn't exist." To which was replied, "Wow! And here I thought atheists didn't exist but, here you are! Miraculous!" 😃 Based on a True story.
I believe that Christopher Hitchens even ridicule the term “brights.”
Really appreciate this video.
...the problem with Fr. Barron's argument is that the same things can be said about Allah, or Leprechauns. If you really want to believe in these things...you can...but that doesn't make them real.
Your response to Fr. Barron's argument might not sound so foolish if you gave evidence of having listened to it and understood it.
???? Did you watch the video?
***** - I listened to it....
...and I kept thinking this....
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
***** - I'm sorry you feel embarrassed...
The old man in Oz was embarrassed when he was discovered behind the curtain also...
I get it...
What are you talking about?! Same thing can be said about Allah? He is talking about Allah! Allah, Dio, Dios, Gott. Kami, Deus all translate to God. And as a Catholic, I stand with the Muslims when defending the existence of God.
I am persuaded that God, if “he” exists, has done us a favor by not revealing “himself” through argument. By the same token I am often concerned that even we Christians say God is like this or like that as if we know precisely. I don’t think it is possible to know the nature of God in “his” entirety. He is the “cloud of unknowing” that we only have glimpses of in love.
So science has no bearing on the existence of God. What does then?
Presumably if science doesn't have a bearing on it, then there is no test even in theory that would tip the scale. If there was a test, then science would have a bearing on it.
I guess what I'm saying is, "What would, in theory if you knew it was the case, prove that God doesn't exist?"
If the answer is there isn't anything, then in what sense is this a debate?
This is a classic expression of "scientism," the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge.
Thank you for responding.
If it is scientism and can be rejected immediately then I'll ask this instead.
What other, non scientific, form of knowledge has bearing then, and what sort of way does it lend credence to the existence of God?
What would be a possible way that it would turn on the question of God's existence if something were otherwise?
TomServo "If it is scientism and can be rejected immediately..."
Science is different from scientism. The former studies the natural world while the latter limits (all) legitimate knowledge to scientific methodology (epistemology). Scientism tends to assume that only the physical world is real (ontology) and hence the only realm of knowledge. However, this viewpoint, scientism, is both arbitrary and self-refuting and hence incoherent. It demands that all truth-claims have to be scientifically (empirically) verifiable. This is ridiculous, simply because there’s no way to verify scientifically that all truth claims must be scientifically verifiable. Therefore, this viewpoint of scientism is not a result of scientific research, but rather a philosophical assumption. From experience, I’ve found that many of the youtubers that I’ve dealt with fall into this trap.
In summary, scientism and can be rejected immediately because the notion that everything must be empirically verifiable to be meaningful knowledge--can't itself be empirically verified. It's a self-refuting view since it doesn't measure up to its own standards. The very articulation of the statement actually undermines the statement--like saying, "I can't speak a word of English," or "I don't exist." Thus, we can't validate science by appealing to science.
Maximiano Anguiano Fine. Godel's incompleteness theorems. Have to take things as axioms and all that.
Are you saying God has no empirically verifiable evidence attached to him whatsoever? Or just wholly insufficient for a scientific perspective?
Because I would say, for instance, that coming down as his own son and turning a few fish into several thousand fish, or all the prophets of Israel rising from their graves, were it to happen today in front of reliable witnesses, would in fact be pretty good empirical evidence that the God of the Bible existed.
I'd maybe accept this for Deism, but not for a Theistic God that supposedly listens to and cares for us and causes miracles to happen. Going by the Bible, I'd think I would have empirical evidence. Angels, Demons, Miracles, Prophecy, Spirits, etc. One of these would have shown up in some sort of way.
The people in the Bible certainly get empirical evidence by my standards of that term.
TomServo "Are you saying God has no empirically verifiable evidence attached to him whatsoever? Or just wholly insufficient for a scientific perspective?"
You or anyone is either ignorant or dishonest if you ask for proof for the existence of God. This is a philosophical issue and thus a metaphysical matter. Science, not philosophy, deals with empirical data. Thus, to fault anyone (philosophy for that matter) for not having empirical data to support the existence of God is like faulting mathematics for lacking in biochemical confirmation. I agree with late and great Francis Bacon who asserted, “A little philosophy makes men atheists: A great deal reconciles them to religion.”
Bishop Barron gave a very convincing explanation.
I've always found these kinds of arguments incredibly disingenuous. Statements such as "Science cannot explain the supernatural" or "Science explains the *how* but not the *why*" just reek of presuppositionism. You have to give us a good reason to think that there is such a thing as the supernatural before you can criticize science for not being able to explain it. You have to show that "why?" is a reasonable question before bringing it into the equation. It's like saying "science cannot explain why marshmallows spontaneously turn into unicorns with spinach for eyes." You first have to show that this actually happens before asking scientists to demonstrate it. It's the same with *why* questions. We have no reason to think that there is an answer to this question, so demanding that we answer it seems ludicrous. Give us a reason to think that this is a question that has an answer and then we'll discuss the question of why.
SuperSupermanX1999 You know, *disingenuous* is an understatement if we are assuming he actually has education in the matter.
His entire "objection" seems to be "all atheist use this statistic for an ad-populum argument". Which is fine, but that's not even relevant to atheism. It's just a straw-man.
>He could have just left it at that, but he had to go on to make conspiracy theories, he had denounce the entirety of philosophical departments of "just not understanding the arguments" as if they somehow lacked education on the matter, and then at the end of this huge subjective interpretation of statistics:
He appeals to dead philosophers and says "look, these people believed in theism!"
ShouVertica True. The fact that people such as Newton believed in God is really not particularly impressive, since literally everyone did at that time.
SuperSupermanX1999 Well here's the thing, *in the end* it's an appeal to authority/ad-populum. If you are going to recognize this and explain why it's wrong, you can't just use the same fallacy right after that.
Either Fr. Barron doesn't actually understand why the fallacy makes the argument wrong, or he's banking on the confirmation bias of his listeners.
(example: Bob says this is wrong, but not wrong when he does it.)
Hopefully it's the lack of understanding, though with his education I severely doubt it.
SuperSupermanX1999 Not necessarily true. Newton lived through the early years of The Enlightenment, which frequently questioned religion.
ShouVertica If the philosophy departments were run by conservative Catholics, they would show preference to papers with theistic arguments. Since they are run by atheist, there is a natural preference for atheistic papers. Fr. Barron is not putting forward a conspiracy theory. Rather, he is suggesting that the statistics might be simply showing a current trend, which would make them invalid as a support for the argument that "all smart people are atheist."
Lastly, he puts forward examples of renown philosophers that believed in God to further dismiss the latter argument, which was the whole point of the video to begin with!
Regarding Daniel Dennett's proposal that we atheists call ourselves "brights."
Yeah, uh... I don't know if you realize this, but the overwhelming majority of us heard that and (wisely, in my opinion) decided to ignore him on that issue. Don't for a moment think that Dennett spoke for all atheists with that. I'm pretty sure most of us thought about that rather similarly to how most believers seem to, as incredibly arrogant and condescending, and we wanted none of it. It was a total gaffe on Dennett's part, but to his credit he seems to realize that because he let the matter drop soon afterwards and it mercifully came to naught.
So Jesus wasn't an item in the universe either.
Deep Ashtray His human nature was, yes.
Fr. Robert Barron So, Jesus is not what "serious" people mean by god?
Which by the way, your argument in the video already is a no true scotsman fallacy, which for hilarity sake I'll prolong.
Deep Ashtray Yawn.
Darckense Onoda Why are you all so bad at identifying informal fallacies? Internet atheists read a Wikipedia article and suddenly they're world class logicians.
Corona Civica
So His nature was also a product of the imagination? because everything else can be easily explained as just that.
I sometimes wish that we had a different word for Academic philosophy because they are mainly Philosophers in name only.
In principle, no one can adjudicate the existence of God, or any other claim made without evidence....
...at the level of "knowing"...anything goes if you are willing to accept it without any form of evidence.
Agree with minute Catholic: Whatever you watched or did before making this video must have really got you going, Father! :-) This video definitely has a different dimension and flavor that I've never seen before in previous videos: more emotionally charged language and a greater variance in volume and intonation as well as body language. Which is good. Nothing wrong with showing our passionate, human side. :) But for what it's worth, I'm not sure I'd make too many more like this, as I think people have come to respect you for your even keeled commentary. Nonetheless, an excellent video! Thank you for all you have done for the faith. Glad you had safe travels back from London!
I'm an atheist, but I'm giving this video a like. Bishop Barron, it seems, wants a level playing field, and not some blind adherence to the 'newer is better' mentality. Totally fair.
I did not quite follow the video's definition of "god". If the definition of "god" is "an ambiguous force that created the cosmos", then I am probably going to have to call myself a theist. However I will tell you what everyone I know has as a definition of god, including me up to about ten years ago; god is an all-powerful being who created the universe, has given us directives in the form of commandments or some other compilation of social laws, and has provided for us a heaven, or a hell as our post-life destination, to be determined upon our adherence to the commandments. The reason scientists and various other scholars do not believe in god is because the god I described is the god they are referring to. And those scientists practice strict methods for determining reality from fallacy. Those methods usually require evidence. Generally speaking, scientists do not think such a god is impossible, they think such a god is unlikely to exist given there is no evidence. A follow-up problem would be; if there is a god, is he aligned with any known religion, and if so, exactly how was that information determined?
if you still don't understand what he means i may be able to explain
Katie Anderson Some of his other videos are more explicit with regard to the definition of God. Please check them out on his channel if you're interested.
"Generally speaking, scientists do not think such a god is impossible, they think such a god is unlikely to exist given there is no evidence."
There's the crux of the issue right there: evidence. Fr. Barron is trying to explain (albeit briefly) that _science is not the sole possessor of truth or knowledge_. To refute "scientism," we only have to point out other areas of knowledge that hold truth but cannot be scientifically explained.
For example, I cannot scientifically prove to you that the war of 1812 was won by the Americans, but we take this truth on *authority* and *history*. For similar reasons, Christians believe in the truth of the Gospels and the Bible.
Greg S " To refute "scientism," we only have to point out other areas of knowledge that hold truth but cannot be scientifically explained.
For example, I cannot scientifically prove to you that the war of 1812 was won by the Americans, but we take this truth on authority and history. For similar reasons, Christians believe in the truth of the Gospels and the Bible."
You can probably give me a better example. The War of 1812 is documented. There is evidence. There are relics from that war. And it is not something supernatural. So although it may not be technically science, it is an evidence-based belief that the war happened, and evidence is a prime component of how scientists evaluate. .
Katie Anderson These relics and-more importantly-testimonies from 1812 provide corroborating evidence, correct? They cannot be reproduced in a lab and tested over and over to confirm scientific reliability and formulate a theory, but combining all the information together forms a coherent story to rationally believe in. Likewise, it is *extremely important* to examine a historical event such as Jesus' life from the perspective of history and not science.
There are no reputable historians that would deny Jesus Christ's existence, and there is no other ancient person who has so much written about them in such a short span of time after their life. There are extra-Biblical sources which speak of Christ and confirm events (such as the hours of darkness after His Crucifixion), and archaeology confirms the accuracy of what the New Testament writers' explain (e.g. locations). This is all evidence. Also, why shouldn't we consider the New Testament writers as reliable? They write from different areas with corroborating stories of Christ and His works.
With that said, why should claims of miracles and the like be a deterrent to our evaluation of the truthfulness of the Bible? Since Jesus definitively existed, we can take C.S. Lewis' proposition and say He was either really who He said He was (i.e. God), or we can dismiss Him as insane. Do any of His other sayings and works indicate insanity as known by psychologists today? No. Did anyone deny His miracles in His day? No, and-in fact-the Jewish leaders of the time tried to brush Jesus off as something of a _sorcerer_ to explain this (cf. Talmud, Mishnah).
Finally, I urge you to look at the testimony of early Christians as evidence. These were not people who would receive political gain by converting (to be contrasted with early Muslim converts). No, they were given death, and horrible deaths at that: crucifixion, burning at the stake, being eaten alive. Similarly, Jews who converted would be shunned by all family members and friends, and they risked perdition in the eyes of the Jews if they left their familial faith. These people _really_ believed in Christ despite the pressures not to. That is corroborating evidence as well.
Greg S The historical events pertaining to the War of 1812 are far more reliable than second-hand accounts of something that took place 2000 years ago. There is no comparison. As for geographic locations in the Bible, yes most of them probably existed, or still exist. It should be noted that America exists and is home to the fictional superhero Commander Steel.
"With that said, why should claims of miracles and the like be a deterrent to our evaluation of the truthfulness of the Bible?"
Really?
"Since Jesus definitively existed, we can take C.S. Lewis' proposition and say He was either really who He said He was (i.e. God), or we can dismiss Him as insane. Do any of His other sayings and works indicate insanity as known by psychologists today?"
A third option would be that Jesus did exist but performed no miracles and made no claim to be the Son of God. Maybe those incredible aspects are fictional. Of the three possibilities, I would say that by far the least likely to be true would be that Jesus is the son of god, or any kind of sacred prophet, the least likely... by far.
"Finally, I urge you to look at the testimony of early Christians as evidence. These were not people who would receive political gain by converting (to be contrasted with early Muslim converts). No, they were given death, and horrible deaths at that: crucifixion, burning at the stake, being eaten alive. Similarly, Jews who converted would be shunned by all family members and friends, and they risked perdition in the eyes of the Jews if they left their familial faith. These people really believed in Christ despite the pressures not to. That is corroborating evidence as well."
Strongly believing in something does not mean it is true. There were Muslim terrorist who died flying aircraft into buildings believing that they would be rewarded for doing so after death. Were they correct in their beliefs? For thousands of years people thought the earth was flat. All those people were wrong.
So someone led me to your video through an atheist vs christian debate forum. So I've been listening, and have a few questions. I should say up front that I'm an atheist. I don't know where the 70% of scientists and 86% of philosophers not believing in God came from. Polls are usually skewed in one way or another and it all comes down to who's writing it. I should also say that I don't take don't care about philosophy and think it's pretty much meaningless, I just stick with math and science. So with that stuff out of the way, let's go down the road of what you were saying that science won't be able to find the evidence because it's some physical thing that we can detect. Ok, so let's go with that for now. If this is true, then why does there need to be a God at all, why can't it all just come from the big bang. If the answer is that it can't be the big bang because something would come from nothing. So then I may get the answer, well God designed it, to which I would reply, then who designed God. This is when I usually get the statement well God just is, which brings me right back to the Big Bang. So how do you get to God from this?
Philosophy tends towards universals which necessarily does not need to be updated for every particulars discovered. Generally others sciences by their nature (specific objects of study) changes over time and therefore are updated. In truth, we still utilize old philosophical foundations for doing sciences today.
As a Catholic I am having a quite courteous debate with an atheist about the existence of God. Can anybody expand, please on what Bishop Barron says about Bertrand Russell's misunderstanding of Aquinas' infinite causal series?
Per se vs Per accidens series
Thank you @@kevinpulliam3661
I like your approach Father Baron.
Ok Father, but why did Academic Politics veer towards atheism in the first place if religious philosophy is so solid? This is a sincere question, I really want to know.
1. Your point about statistics is well taken. As someone educated in the sciences I can tell you that one of the first things we learned (even at Loyola, 50 years ago) was that arguments from authority are meaningless. Example: as persuaded as I am that anthropogenic global warming is real and urgently requires action, I am offended by those who would argue over how many scientists hold that view and how many don’t. Such arguments miss the point completely, and waste time that we don’t have.
2. Science has nothing to say about God. Not because it won’t, but because it can’t. The only questions capable of being useful in science are those that can be falsified. I would submit to you that aside from logical inconsistencies or linguistic difficulties, Science is simply not equipped to deal with questions about God, And we come to grief when we do. Example: drawing an inference of teleological intention from - say - biological function. I will allow that such a guess may be absolutely correct or it may not. But there is no way to demonstrate that it is. In any case, Finding the answer is not a prerequisite to making further scientific advances.
3. Philosophy is, as you point out, another matter. But, with all due respect, I think your argument about academic politics is a strawman.
That should read, “straw-man. “ Moreover, science should not be capitalized except at the beginning of a sentence.
Continuing with 3. We know that there are in advances in philosophy. Many ideas have been demolished, and rightly so, just as in science. Rhetorical query: consider the most persuasive argument (in your view) for the existence of God. If it was your job to knock it down, how would you approach it? Suppose you were successful. Would you conclude that there was no god? I think I know the answer. So-called proofs of the existence of God are almost destined to fail. But failure does not prove the negative.
Philosophers may be atheists, or they may not be atheists. But remember what an atheist is. And atheist does not affirm the negative. And atheist simply says I have no reason to believe. Is that where your faith comes from? Reason?
Hmmmm I don’t think Wittgenstein was a theist. But his great pupils Elizabeth Anscombe and Peter Geach were. A famous example of a former atheist Anthony Flew who changed his mind and became a deist before he died. You might also mention Alvin Plantinga who is a very eminent philosopher and the a theist.
One of your very strongest videos.
I find it interesting that you compare philosophy with poetry. The problem is that poetry doesn't necessarily deal with fact or truth. While mastering language is certainly a skill, how good a poem is is largely subjective, like any art. A poem isn't judged on how true it is.
Philosophy on the other hand does try to actually make statements about the actual world. An argument isn't judged on it's beauty like a poem, it is judged on it's validity and soundness. So philosophy is more like science than it is like poetry.
Science does move forward yes, but that doesn't mean newer is better. Was Einstein a better scientist than Newton? Einstein was certainly more right, but he also had hundred of years more knowledge to stand on.
But the same is true for philosophy. Later philosophers build on what has come before them. And it's a good thing that philosophy isn't like poetry, because being beautiful isn't enough in philosophy being right is what matters.
Academic politics certainly play a big role in countless of universities in the U.S. Even the political science departments in lots of these universities consist of communist professors. I am a political science major and I was very carefully in selecting the university I wanted to attend.
I think another question that people do not look at in a serious way is "what is science?" I wonder if Fr. Barron has acquiesced to the modern view of what science is when he says that science differs from literature, poetry, and philosophy in that newer does mean better. This would seem to presume that Francis Bacon was right in rejecting the Aristotelian world view and that it is not worthwhile to study Aristotle's view of science for anything other than historical curiosity. I believe this is especially relevant for the Church when you get into issues dealing with bio-ethics. How can the Church make well reasoned arguments on bio-ethical issues without referring to Aristotelian metaphysics? Another question that people don't look at seriously enough is "what is technology?"
Absolutely brilliant thoughts. Subscribed!
There are plenty of bright people who are religious. There were plenty of bright people who thought the world was flat too
Oh, Robert, Robert, Robert. It's bad enough that you impugn the integrity of philosophers. Even I, who find philosophy, shall we say, as one of the least effective methods that humans have invented for understanding anything at all, would not impugn the integrity of those who practice this stuff. What's really bad is that you fail to understand something so very simple: CONTEMPORARY PHILOSOPHERS, BY AND LARGE, DON'T BUY YOUR ARGUMENTS! I know that you think that's tragic, but Robert, it ain't tragic. it just is.
But finally, that's neither here nor there. You show me where the arguments fail. Don't hide behind the skirts of skeptical academics!
Oh, I've shown you over and over and over again where the silly Thomistic scholastic arguments fail! They fail on the sword of modern physics and cosmology! Thomistic causality means nothing absent space-time. It has no definition. It's irrelevant. And then you propose two further absurdities: (1) that your "god" "caused" space-time, when causality makes no sense prior (if indeed there is a "prior") to its existence AND (2) far, far worse for your argument, you propose that your silly concept of a "god-man" "Jesus" is the equivalent of the Thomistic "essence of being." Naw...Robert...NONE of it works. And modern philosophers, who understand physics and cosmology, simply don't buy it. It's not that they are Machiavellian, as you so onerously accuse them--which is absolutely shameful of you--- it's that they are INTELLECTUALLY HONEST!!
Robert: Another thought. I'm no fan of philosophy as a way of "knowing" anything, but I do agree that it can be a good way to make inquiry. Don't you have the vaguest notion that when you impugn the integrity of philosophers, you place YOURSELF at enormous risk? What philosopher, like you, who works for a multi-trillion dollar institution like the Roman church (and from which he obtains his financial livelihood, prestige, position, and probable sense of self worth) could be thought more likely to compromise in order to "serve" his corporate master? If I were you, I'd be upholding the integrity of the discipline of philosophy, not denigrating it.
Friend, if you really believed this, you would be ruling out the physical sciences as well. If you're allergic to the term "causality," substitute "sufficient explanation." It wouldn't affect the classical arguments in any way. Thomas himself knew that God is outside of space and time and yet exercises causality.
Robert, you aren't being precise with your language, and I thought philosophy was highly dependent upon very clear, well-defined, carefully constructed language. Science certainly requires such effort.
You apparently delight in employing borderline defamations such as "allergic to" instead of "unconvinced." Come on, Robert. Only lawyers do that. Not scholars.
Furthermore, you fail to define the "this" that I don't accept. Is the "this" the notion of the absurdity of causality absent space-time? I assure you: the verifiable evidence combined with the mathematics are together unassailable. Absent space time, the notion of "causality" or "sufficient explanation," which you use without definition, is the equivalent of asserting that a sound is made by purple. It's a non-sequitur, meaningless, irrelevant, inconsequential. Is the "this" the notion of a "god-man" "Jesus" who is the equivalent of the Thomistic "essence of being?" I assure you that I find this absurd as well, based upon every bit of verifiable evidence, rational thought, and the best, broad, robust, falsifiable, and predictive explanations that we have ever developed.
And then, finally, you assert, absent any evidence whatever, that "Thomas knew" that his "god" existed "outside of space and time" and yet exercised "causality." Really? And how could a man like Thomas who knew NOTHING of modern cosmology and physics POSSIBLY "know" that?
More important, how can you? And at that, you fail to address my recommendation to you for upholding the integrity of philosophers, rather than impugning it!