Also I am currently in RCIA, I come from Jewish background. I credit Bishop Barron solely for my desire to be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. He changed my life, and I just hope to thank him personally one day.
I was confirmed on Saturday and I absolutely agree with you. Bishop Barron (along with a few others like Matt Fradd) played a huge role in my understanding of the faith and Catholicism. We are lucky to have him.
Agreed. And I would bet Bishop Barron's talk with Jordan Peterson (among others) also helped reach a lot of people, likely a lot of young people. If I recall correctly, the two had another recent dialogue and it should be posted soon.
Protestant here, watching a Catholic review a debate, involving a Catholic and an atheist, for my personal learning and spiritual growth. See, we can all get along beautifully :)
It should be mentioned that Alex claimed that a return to faith is still very much on the table, and we should pray for his return to faith in Christ and His Church. If not only for his soul then also to have such a thoughtful and brilliant intellect as a defender of our Lord. Be blessed by faith, Alex. And thanks for this great little review, Matt.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. He is my favourite atheist because he makes well thought out arguments in a non arrogant tone. It would be so inspiring to see his conversion. I do believe though that intelligent atheists are important to God's revelation to the world. Imagine a world where we blindly believed without delving deeper into those religious beliefs. Atheists force us to do just that. Revelation is a process. They are important to that process. 😊
It is perhaps for this reason that our teaching on invincible ignorance exists. It may be that God consigns some men to ignorance until their end for His purposes. Just as He hardened the heart of Pharaoh or sent the Assyrians to destroy Israel and Judah.
Atheist here. I am loving the increasingly deep and respectful conversations now taking place on youtube between those of faith and those without faith; an exchange of ideas rather than people clobbering each other.
Thank you for talking about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater at the beginning. As someone who likes both Bishop Barron and Taylor Marshall a lot, it drives me crazy how people completely despise either of them because of one position they might hold. I think Bishop Barron is very wrong on the “Dare we hope?” Issue, but it’s not like he thinks this needs to stop us from evangelizing, he’s one of the only bishops even doing evangelization in the first place! Likewise, I agree with Marshall about the infiltration and the horrible abuses after the council, but he does hold some problematic positions about the council itself that I would not endorse. Regardless, it’s not then okay to lie and say he’s some sort of sedevacantist or something like so many people do. You don’t have to agree with someone 100% of the time to like them!!
Same here: we shoundn't discount Bishop Barron, as he's a smart and kind man. I disagree with him on some things, but he can speak and explain many things in a very simple yet brilliant way. I love the traditional movements in the Church, but many of them end up being a tad too...maybe arrogant? Not sure how to describe it; plus, ngl...at times they misquote or misrepresent the Pope's words (and that's quite...low, to say the least).
@@ItsChrisFtw Because the devil is getting the drop on us and sewing division. I recently decided for the sake of peace in my own marriage that we would go half time to a charismatic Novus Ordo and then half time at Divine Liturgy. Same Eucharist. Same Faith. Unity in diversity is what makes Catholicism so great.
@@thehausen5054 it comes form a Von Baltashar's book 9sorry if I butcher the surname!) where he "dares to hope" all souls may be saved by God, if I recall right. Bishop Barron even became sort of a meme being called "the empty Hell man" for a while. I think it was a misstep on his side, but on many things he has spoken with enlightening words, so, like Folofus pointed out as well as Matt Frad, we should not "throw out the baby with the bathwater", as on many things our Bishop has been and is able to speak with very clear and orthodox messages. He has his flaws, but we should not insult or belittle him (as laypersons, we should of course pray for him).
Marshall would never do it. He doesn't debate and never has anyone on his show who disagrees with him. He's a one-way spin-meister and RUclips is his megaphone.
Yes, lovely intro, I am on board with you , about not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The good and true remains a light in spite of the darkness.
@Pints With Aquinas... The thing about Bishop Barron is he plays the "puck not the body," meaning he looks at what people are saying word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, realizing that people are a mix of good and bad. So when endorses a book like Fr. James Martin's book on prayer he is looking at what Fr. James actually wrote on prayer rather than judging Fr. James' character and launching ad hominem attacks. This is what Saints do, play the puck, not the body.
As much as I think (and know) Catholics should stay away from Father James, I agree in terms of the defense of Bishop Barron. Bishop Barron is amazing, and it seems like only the radical conspiracy theory type Catholics don't like him. The WOF books are amazing and so rich. And as you said, he's endorsing his writing on prayer. I just hope and pray Bishop Barron doesn't go further than that, because most likely, other than prayer, James Martin is off the rails. Anyways, I'm not trying to make this negative. Just finding the balance.
Hearing Bishop Barron speak here brings me back to the early days of first reverting back to my faith, before everything became complicated by problematic statements, debates, etc. It's quite nice
I come from a family that is not super knowledgeable on deep Catholic doctrine and Bishop Barron has helped us a lot. I know that he is not perfect but he is great for the reasons you talked about. Thanks for defending Bishop Baron even though he is not perfect.
Thank you for recognizing that one doesn't have to agree with everything a person says in order to still find good in what they have to say. I like Bishop Barron.
I’m so confused haha. What part of the video are people talking about. I watched the whole thing and just saw him talk about the Beer Cup at beginning and end. Am I missing something?
There is another dimension to faith that transcends reason - TRUST. I can give ascent to doctrinal statements, but I can only put my trust in another person - so this is the takes me a step further than rational ascent to specific statements.
Yes, Matt! One person, cannot be everything to all people (except Christ). Bishop Barron brought in into the Church. His intellectual approach made it easy for me accept very basic and philosophical ideas about Christianity. The way he engages the culture helped me connect the missing links between my brain and heart that closed me off to Christianity in the beginning. As I have grown in my faith, and disconnected from the culture in that way, his message doesn't resonate with me as much. Now I find people like you, Fr. Goring and even T Marshall more edifying. T Marshall's tone can be off putting, but he has a ministry that is important, ie. call out the wolves, and reawaken the traditions and beauty of the church (almost like BB used to do).
JennBull--and your post rresonates with me. B. Barron is in the ditch when it's highly informed Catholics talking together; he's great out where it's Mere Christianity.
I almost feel the opposite of you. The intellectual tradition of the Church continues to be foundational to my practice of the faith, and I still do not care much for the private revelations of the Saints, but only insofar as they agree with the scriptural tradition rather than being agnostic to it. To take the classical example of "dare we hope all men be saved?", I maintain an agnosticism proper to the subject. There are Saints who believed that all men will be saved eventually, and there are some who believed few will be. The scripture gives indications of both being possibilities in a contradictory way without settling the matter. And Mother Church has never settled the matter either. Therefore I find Grace and peace in the Divine Mercy chaplet, in which I'm not called to hold any position but I am called to pray for God to show his mercy upon all men.
I think there is a failure to appreciate how awful it is that Barron and others follow von Balthasar. v Balthasar is favored as a counterweight to "progressive" theology. But his principles followed to their conclusions yield not only the novelty view that Hell may be empty, but also that Christ did not experience the beatific vision (an idea outside Christian thought), that Christ had the virtue of faith, He experienced ignorance, and He even experienced positive error. So many intellectual paths are tried in the attempt to dump Aquinas/Aristotle yet keep Catholicism.
@@pmlm1571 I actually have a campus minister who gave me a copy of "Dare We Hope?" and has been working for months to get me to embrace Balthasar. So far, I have not, but since you seem more knowledgeable on Balthasar, could you elaborate on those problems in his theology, ideally also pointing to where he wrote of these ideas? I'd very much like to understand the Balthasar phenomenon in people of Bishop Barron's generation who are otherwise orthodox, but I'd like to be able to hold my own in actually understanding what is being said.
@@williamcrawford7621 Sure, I'll try. Christ refers to Judas as lost and the son of perdition. The great saints all echo Him that Judas is in hell: that hell is populated (as the Mother of God showed the Fatima children, by the way). What moves those of the von Balthasar school such as Bishop Barron to assert it is a Christian's positive duty to hope that hell is empty? Ideas Have Consequences. In this case they are the ideas of German eighteenth-century philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who claimed that no religious statement or concept is absolutely true. All are false or relative in some way. Because only God is absolute truth. Concepts contain their own contradiction and only find their resolution or synthesis in God who is Absolute Truth. Hegel said that every concept contained a "Negative, which it carries within itself." For Hegel this positive-negative opposition within an idea is the dialectic and "a necessary procedure of reason." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "dialectic" as "the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite." Thus, Hegel maintained "the Necessity of Contradiction" for all thought to develop toward the Absolute, which is God. Similarly, Balthasar believes that contradiction is a part of truth (this reminds me of how fond the pope is of confusion). As he explained in Word and Revelation, Balthasar believes that expressions of' "worldly truth," like "worldly Being," can be "contradictory" and even expressions of scriptural truths can be opposites or "contrary." Balthasar agreed with Hegel that "only God is 'the absolute truth'" and "'all truth is not, negation itself is in God' ". Thus, statements in the Bible are not absolutely true but each is relative and in some way negative or false, and these statements will find their synthesis only when we come in heaven to the Father who is absolute truth. But, for now, one cannot have complete confidence even in the words of Christ. Balthasar stated: "The word of Christ, who spoke as no other had spoken, who alone spoke as one having power, is nonetheless an insecure bridge between the wordlessness of the world and the superword of the father" BUT: hoping that all will be saved -- when Scripture says that some are lost -- is like hoping that no one ever sins when we know that Adam and Eve sinned. The hope is an absurdity. More importantly, Balthasar's philosophy of truth violates the first self-evident principle of Logic, the Principle of Non-Contradiction: it states that the same thing cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time and in the same respect. One cannot say that Judas is "lost" and that Judas is "not lost" (saved) at the same time, without equivocation. And to "hope" that Judas is saved when Scripture says that he is already lost is to hope for a contradiction in Scripture and in the Church's teachings. But, this violates the Church's defined teaching that "God cannot... ever contradict truth with truth" (Denz. No. 1797), which guarantees that the meaning of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament and the Church's dogmas can never be different but always remain the same (Denz. No.1818). This results in other errors such as vBalthasar's teaching that though the "Son of God" has "omniscience," His "omniscience" is nonfunctional when He comes to earth on a "mission." In fact, vBalthasar's "hope" is logically based upon his theory that Christ did not speak with omniscience and infallibility. This opinion, that there was ignorance in Jesus, was already rejected during the fourth-century Arian heresy. This error was refuted even more thoroughly in A.D. 600 when Pope Gregory I (St. Gregory the Great) rebutted the Monophysite sect known as the "Agnoetae" who also held that Mark 13:32 ("neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour") indicated that Christ was ignorant (Denz. No. 248). Pope Gregory taught that Christ knew by means of two natures, and what He did not know "from" His human nature, He knew "from" His divine nature God's self-knowledge is intrinsic to His divine Being, for St. Thomas Aquinas says that, "God understands Himself through Himself." And, he says: "the act of God's intellect is His substance" and "His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence" (Summa Theologica, 1a, q. 14, art. 2). Statements to the contrary have papal condemnations. I took these few bits from a good article on the subject: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3344 Hope this helps! (Thomas Aquinas, though less trendy and sparkly, is the way to go.)
"the context provided by reason" is a very elegant phrase but the implication is very simple: you believe in spite of your lack of evidence. "we don´t have inmediate access to it", i mean... yeah, that´s the point, you don´t have access to the evidence, you believe, based on context, that you are right. Context is important, it can lead to good hypothesis, but if you don´t have the evidence it doesn´t matter how beautiful your idea might be, it`s not "reasonable" to claim it to be true. This happens in science too, you can have an amazing idea (that makes sense), but it becomes a theory only when the evidence is consistent with it.
Your opening statement on not throwing out the bathwater is exactly what we as Catholics and all peoples in general need to be mindful to combat the scourge of cancel culture. Even our Catholic faith teaches us that all can be redeemed. Something we should always keep forefront in any discussion. God Bless! And yes, Bishop Barron is a blessing even if you don't always agree with him! Such a wonderful gift to Christ's Church!
I felt that if you’re going to argue that god will always be beyond our horizon of understanding then you’ll never be justified in any assertions about him. It’s the very definition of the god of the gaps criticism. Not once was there an argument not made from ignorance and from question begging.
I’m so grateful to God that acceptance of Him came easily. That’s what having “Faith” means to me. Love Bishop Barron and you as well. I was born and raised as a Jew, accepted Jesus in my early 30’s. Not a fan of denominations, I attend a Southern Baptist church, also been attending a Catholic ladies Bible Study group for over 20 years! I do believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, took quite some time for me. Southern Baptist’s do not see that at all. Yet they believe all of scripture is the inerrant word of God, save for those few verses.
@Nancy Barry do you have a blog? I love what you said about denominations. Do you believe the Real Presence of Christ is in the communion at Baptist Churches too? How do you respond to the Catholic views about praying to Mary?
Great to hear that you are going to make videos in spanish! A lot of people in south america does not have access to all this content because of the language barrier and there is not much material in spanish, so great news!
The spanish catholic church does not make apologetics cause they dont have too. The people is so ignorant and the church so big there was never the need
Reflecting a bit on what you said about some of the traditionalists. I'm probably quite liberal in some ways, but resolutely obedient to the doctrines of the faith. I used to be annoyed by some of the more traditionalists, but after watching a number of videos about the disintegration of our Episcopal sisters and brothers, I now realize what a gift they are. The episcopal church leadership did not respond to the elements that were eroding the faith and the laity appeared quite unable to respond-- truly sad. The recent protests of the traditionalists to the German bishops ("we're not going anywhere'), and the hilarious throwing of the pagan statues in the river in Rome was quite prophetic and worthy of an Isaiah.
I am not a traditionalist but the last years have made me have sympathy for them. When the Church is in shambles, when the Pope is saying anti-Christian statements once and again, when sin an disrespect is promoted by some bishops, when the Vatican makes cerimonies and issues coins for a pagan goddess (Pachamama)...there are people who are calm about all this while criticizing the traditionalists to death. It's like people criticizing Jesus because Jesus was not nice with the Pharisees. “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” (Confucius)
I love how you started this podcast -we need more voices like this in the church. A forgiving and inclusive tone open to the gifts that the traditionalists are giving us as well as figures like Bishop Barron. The Gospel is a hard road, and it is very easy to go too much to either extreme. Thank you for this hopeful and intelligent perspective.
As an agnostic I still struggled to make sense of Bishop Barron's final definition as given. It's often said that one believes in the existence of God on faith, but with faith being 'a response to the revealing God', this definition is revealed to be begging the question on the existence of God in the first place. In other words, saying that one's faith is a response to the revealing God presupposes the existence of said God, meaning that faith cannot itself be the justification given for belief. To put it in the form of a question: ' what is the mechanism used by the theist to ascend to the view that that which is revealing itself, is in fact 'God'? It seems that the answer cannot use 'faith' by the Bishop's definition because it presupposes the very God which is being sought.
3:14 That opening remark was very insightful. I think I've always sensed this in a way but never quite had the words to materialize it. Definitely an eye opening way of discussion that I'll try to thoughtfully consider in the future. Also another thing I noted when you said that atheists say call it "reason" and not faith, a personal issue I have with it is one can have reason yet no faith. I have reason in Catholicism, and yet my faith is quite low, and I've been told that's quite common. It's very easy to find reason, and yet very difficult to find faith
Faith means to my understanding that you may have reason to trust the person, but no direct logic to understand what they propose. Faith is in contradiction of fideism because we have reason to trust God whereas the fideist trusts explicitly in contradiction to reason.
@@HolyKhaaaaan Faith can be contrary to reason. In fact, Abraham, Noah, and Moses all had faith contrary to reason. This is not a one and not the other argument. Abraham BELIEVED God that he would have a son by Sarah, CONTRARY to reason, and this was granted to him as righteousness. Faith that waits for understanding is still faith, but of a lesser kind. Not being able to have children, walk over dry ground from the sea being divided, or surviving a global flood with a mission to save the animals... where can you pull reason from this? And where do you pull reason out of a man rising from the dead?
Thank you Matt for the videos in Spanish. Being one of the most important languages in the world, it's amazing the lack of apologetics material in Spanish. Unlike with other topics, there is some of this material but very few compared to English. I have problems to reach my family and friends because I cannot translate everything.
Try reading about spanish saints like San Francisco de sales, san Juan de la Cruz or Santa Teresa de Ávila. These and others of the many spanish saints are very good resources that can help you.
I’m an atheist but Bishop Barron missed out on an important point during the problem of evil debate. Alex kept implying that because Christians believe that God permits evil so that more good may come about (or to prevent even worse evils) that therefore they should celebrate the occurrence of evil. However, just because good may eventually arise out of something bad or evil, doesn’t mean that the bad or evil action/event was itself good. For instance, if at some point in the distant future (or perhaps after the resurrection) we finally see and understand the greater good that came about from God permitting the Holocaust to happen, it won’t therefore mean that the Holocaust wasn’t a terrible thing, nor do I think God would see it that way. After all, if your wife cheats on you and you end up with someone else later down the line who makes you happier, you don’t think “Oh what my wife did was morally right.” You might be grateful such a bad thing happened because it led to something better, but it doesn’t mean the action itself was right, no matter what good comes from it. This is important. Failing to take this position, or something like it, leaves Christians sounding rather like moral subjectivist/relativists. If you go around saying, “Hey, hey, who are we to say the Holocaust is morally evil? We don’t know God’s plans!” it sounds an awful lot like a moral relativist who says “Hey, hey, who are we to say anything is morally evil? We don’t have access to absolute knowledge about morality!” The problem here is that Christians do make objective moral claims, such as about homosexuality, abortion, etc. The only way you can say those things are bad is if you do in fact believe God has revealed to some extent things that are objectively morally right/wrong or good/bad. Otherwise, if you take Bishop Barron’s position in the debate, you’d have to be committed to saying that perhaps homosexuality is a good thing since it’s always possible some greater good may come from it that we’re unaware of may be apart of God’s plan.
@@scottlafleur4148 you are correct, however an insistence of two things being falsely opposed to one another is a dichotomy. I thought that was what Zeraph meant.
That distinction you mentioned at the beginning is so important. We tend to create ‘narratives’ out of public figures rather than dealing with the specifics of what they say and do in specific situations. If we create narratives out of people rather having the intellectual humility to acknowledge the good and the bad, and which outweighs which, then that’s the death of public discourse.
Watched the debate as an atheist. The bishop was good at the flowery rhetoric that talks vaguely around the topic. Stopping 10 minutes in on this video, I am not seeing a good definition of faith other than belief in the absence of reason. As now a non-believer, I feel immune to flowery word salad rhetoric and are looking for those that talk succinctly and clearly about their faith. Theists need to understand that is how you reach us.
Exactly. Want to convince an atheist to believe in god? Then don't say anything except clear, strong evidence proving a god exists. That would do it. Yet strangely even in _prolonged_ conversations with theists you can't pry that out of them. It's almost like they don't actually have a good basis for believing in god...
I did feel like Alex started to be less charitable in his takes at the end once he started his appeal to emotion about the problem of evil. Otherwise this was a great one to watch. Praying that Alex does come back to the faith if he finds the answers he needs.
Bishop Barron was like a prosecuting counsel who argued for God's existence as his starting point, while Alex was like a defense counsel who tried to punch holes into the argument to create reasonable doubt.
Alex is a skeptic or agnostic on matters of religion. He created doubt but it is far from reasonable. There is hope that he will change his mind. He has done it before.
@@winstonbarquez9538 He is still a kid from what I understand. Speaking from experience it almost seems natural for young people to go though phases of doubt or skepticism (I did), I think it can be healthy in a way. I can't speak for him because I don't really know too much about him, but if he is truly open to it, he could easily change his mind at some point.
I think the problem is that theists justify too much using faith. The context of reasons is still problematic, but even after granting that, it is simply not enough to justify all the extraordinary claims that Christianity makes. It's as David Hume puts it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faith is simply not even close to that.
When I hear atheist claim that, I got to proof my belief. And They dont because they dont believe in a Creator. And they say science dont prove Gods existance, so whats my proof. I often think to myself of the Allegory of the Cave, where the cave is The modern project. For ME! Science science has always been part, and born out of the great Church traditions. Every diacovery science uncover from reality is my proof for the existance of God. I think that the discussion must talk a few steps back. And we must analyse our own time, culture and era. For me, saying its no creator sounds unreasonable. From a scientific, philosophical, moral and historical point of view. And at a point in my reasoning faith comes in, but I think my faith is reasonble. Atheism, and its beliefe in a universe without a creator, seem to me unreasonable. It baffles me, that Atheist are often so ignorant about this, it amazes me. It is really an error of our time. So I am SO glad to see the shift in conversation and discussions between the two belief systems. And if we dive in my faith, my faith in the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition, thats another discussion. About why evil etc. (Thats waaaay out in the horizon in the discussion). Do you understand my reasoning, or where I come from. I dont want to discussion with you, I am just telling you my view. Have a good day mister, take care! Peace!
I could give you some very specific items for you to consider as proof. Question is, would you accept them? Sorry if I'm bit late in responding here...
@@sondre9056 what scientific discovery makes your faith stronger? You're welcome to elaborate at length, listing many, if you like. [Edit] as it happens, atheism isn't the belief that a god doesn't exist; rather, it's a rejection of the claim a god exists. Those ideas are not equivalent.
@@dalanology what scientific discovery makes my faith stronger... I will say every diacovery of the truth, be it through Philosophy, art og the scientific methode, show the Glory of God the Creatore. So its not every discovery through the scientific method, that are as apealing to me. Because, we are different in that regard. And not every so-called "discovery" using the scientific method is a truth. One can use the method, And discover something. But that something is not allways the truth, or maybe one draw conxlusions And develope theories from a diacovery. And the theory and the conclusions might be flawed. But get presented as the final truth. Sometimes it might not be. I am sorry I did answer your question so broadly. But listing discoveries: Micro evolution Thermodynamics And all they discover in the animal kingdom really fasinates me. You know, how the birds operate in different ECO system. How different species operate in relation to eachother and the sesons. Its so much creativity in creation. You know. And how the planets swing through space. And the BEST! ALL that we DO NOT KNOW. And kind of the Joy that we really dont know that much more. Its really more of an ego trip of the human part. Yes, that is my thoughts sine you asked. I am probably not going to go into a discussion about this. Pax!
I like Alex a lot; he seems like a bright, thoughtful young man. I can't help but sense some pain in him and his morphism into a young Christopher Hitchens. It would be interesting to know more about Alex's childhood. In particular, how old was Alex if he was even born when his grandfather died and his father lost his faith? He said he was devout as a young boy. My guess is his mother had influenced him as a young boy, and as he matured, his father had a stronger influence. That is the typical progression. In "Faith of The Fatherless, The Psychology of Atheism," Dr. Vitz argues that disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. Although, as Alex pointed out, it can go the other way, it is more common for loss.
Agreed. He really does seem to be the heir-apparent (at least rhetorically) to Christopher Hitchens. He is also a philosopher who (as Bp Barron described) wants to be 'in control'. 'Faith is the response of someone who is addressed by God' - I liked that explanation! - and is probably why anyone who 'deifies' reason, might find faith a scary prospect!
@@NickOeffinger The English accent certainly helps him with his emotional arguments I agree. Hitches definitely used to his advantage with his American audience
@@NickOeffinger I agree. I'm not convinced that Alex is as brilliant as some people are led to believe, especially in this comment section. If anything, his calmness falsely lends to his credibility given that keeping calm is half the battle of debate and that, in fact, he's British. I suppose it's that accent like how women are easily impressed with a French accent.
@@WhyCatholicdotCom and Sam Harris uses little quips and humor. ultimately all their arguments boil down to “God is mean tho” Well.. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
@@TickleMeElmo55 I didn't mean to imply he is brilliant as it has been said "Wisdom begins with fear of the Lord" but for a young guy he has a lot of academic knowledge and I think he has some pain to work through and will ultimately come back to his roots. Many others his age aren't even thinking about things
The boy doesn't show any joy. It seems he's always unhappy. I think he's an atheist not because of arguments, that could go either way, but because he hasn't found the Christian joy.
@@inglesrapido6967 I assume you don't believe in the Greek god Zeus. Why not? Have you not found the joy of the Greek gods? Your statement adds nothing to the debate. It is a meaningless platitude.
As a Catholic and a former scientist I have two objections to arguments used by atheists. 1) to claim that an actual or potential infinite exists in the physical realm, the case is made for a finite piece of string or unit of time. They claim it can be divided into an infinite number of ever decreasing divisions. But as each purely hypothetical sub division is added they must get smaller and smaller. Moreover, an actual infinite consists of an infinite number of FINITE parts like hotel rooms, mathematical sequences 1,2,3 or units of time e.g. seconds, hours days etc. 2) nothing in the physical universe including a yellow chair can remain potentially or actually the same. The universe is expanding, stars are imploding, rocks, meteors are continually subjected to forces like heat and weathering. Overtime, igneous rocks can become dust or sedimentary rocks and vice versa. As mathematician Dave Hilbert said the infinite exists nowhere in reality. It remains solely an idea in abstract mathematics. No atheist like Krauss, or Hawking suggest that past time is eternal, thus the need to explain something from nothing, aka creation ex nihilo. Hawking then fantasizes that a "law such as gravity created the universe out of nothing". But laws don't stand in causal relationships, nor does gravity exist in the absence of mass.
Alex is brilliant and a really good listener! Of course Bishop Barren is an amazing and has a gentle way of explaining ( at least to me ) the facts and both sides of everything! Thanks Matt ! Hope you’re loving Steubie 🙏
OMg in Spanish! God Bless You Matt. I pray you get really good people and content. Please God let it be as solid, intellectual, AND appealing, without egos as is your show.
Hi, whoever reads this, autistic atheist here. There's a part of this video that I don't understand and I was wondering if anyone is willing to discuss and clarify it? 18:50 to 19:13 "Context provided by reason for the claim that God has spoken" - "so its not mere reason because I don't have immediate access to it, and it not faith in the sense of believing without evidence. Its, Rather, I have good reasons for believing what God now reveals to me which I accept by faith". he has good reasons and accepts them by faith is what I'm getting out of this? Not sure what he means by faith here, so I imagine that has impact on what is meant. Thanks in advance :D
Traditionally, faith refers to having a degree of trust in something or someone. We use the word faith in that sense in our normal speech too, for example saying that we "have faith in someone". It can also mean being loyal to someone, like when we would describe someone as faithful. In Christianity, it means both of those things simultaneously, it is just applied to the context of God and the revelations of prophets and the like. When figures like Barron talk about faith in ways that can seem more esoteric, it's because they're getting at an important and somewhat more subtle element in Christianity: having enough faith (that is, trust) in God to believe in Jesus and his claims should naturally lead to having faith in other things as well. For example, miracles ascribed to Jesus are treated as signs of things God will do in the future, because he did them once on a small scale, and we believe he is God, we believe him when he says that he will do it again on a much larger scale. The most significant of these is the resurrection, as Christians like myself treat Jesus' return from the dead as a precursor to all of us being raised up and united with God, and so it affirms our trust in that particular religious claim.
Hey Matt- This video was really helpful. Thanks for making it! I watched the Barron/O’Connor discussion and while I really enjoyed it, admittedly some of the deeper philosophical concepts they covered went over my head. You honing in on this distinction Bishop Barron makes here cleared this up for me!
Alex reminds me of the period between when I gave up 13 years of public atheism/antitheism during the "Four Horsemen" movement, and during the 18-month period between when I dumped antitheism to search through world religions, and when I eventually came to general Theism and closed in on Taoism, Sufism, Judaism or Ancient Christianity. I was still technically an atheist, but I - or rather God - weeded out the seething hatred in my heart for anyone who believed in God, from Christian to Mason (except he's smarter). I'm Greek Orthodox today.
Wow. You've had quite a journey. Have you heard of Jonathan Pageau /the Symbolic World? Great YT channel. He is an orthodox christian. I find him fascinating.
Seems to me that Alex misses the point about the "reasonable context" thing as examplified in the friend revealing a personal fact. He says it's either reason (which it isn't entirely) or a hunch (but the initiative to bridge the gap doesn't come from you). It's not entirely reason because you do NOT have *all* the reasons to make the definitive statement (in fact you can totally imagine a million scenarios where the friend is lying - some very unlikely, but still possible) but it *seems* reasonable enough. So it's not entirely reason that's at play here, as it is insufficient on its own, though necessary and helpful. But there comes the leap of faith, to which you are drawn by something outside of yourself.
I think one of Bishop Barron's tactics is "meeting his interlocutor where they are at". If a person is doubting the very existence of God, starting with deep, theological orthodoxy may not be the best tactic. By meeting them where they are at (including many hundreds of people who may be watching), as long as the response isn't heretical, it plants a seed. Over time, if faith is established and matures, additional clarifications can be made. If Bishop Barron isn't supported in this process, we could create unnecessary confusion in the minds of the faithless.
Alex has a very shallow Philosophy and ephemeral Reasoning . I am very sorry for Alex Soul . . . I Pity him . . . His Life nowhere has no colorful meaning . . . Intellectual Arrogance . . . We cannot separate Reason and Faith . . . Alex is not Open to the Totality of Reality . . .
Christianity uses the concept of “faith” at its foundation as a way to conveniently dismiss the lack of evidence and reason for the religion to be seen as true from a logical or reasoned POV. The religion basically says you have to have faith to believe in it, but that’s just another way of saying you have to have belief to believe. This is circular thinking to me because it just basically says that something should be believed in because it’s believed in. Not sure if I explained myself well, but that was an attempt. I rejected Christianity eventually because I just couldn’t make sense of the thinking of Christians. They just seemed to believe because someone told them to believe and that their belief would feel more real if they double-down on believing. My brain is too logic based for this kind of mushy thinking IMO.
o connor was very rationally sharp. bishop was very philosophically pastoral. an estranged son/father encounter. deep argument. reason is stronger now, faith is stronger now, Christ clearer now. top class.
Alex O'Connor said that when author od a book makes a character suffer we cannot say that's good for the character and I think that's just wrong. I mean Simba suffered death of his father and became a better king through that experience. Raskolnikov suffered battling with his concience and that made him realize what horrible evil he has done and that penance for that is due.
I appreciate your opening remarks about a certain 2 Catholic speakers that have good things to say. I have read good about each but only follow one. I think it’s important to be well catechized in order to watch any religious youtuber ;)
Alex seems to be wanting the answer to be ‘faith is knowing what you know ain’t so’ (Mark Twain) unfortunately it’s not that and it a a little more complicated.
Never watched you before, your nuanced take between Barron and Marshall earned you a sub. I love the Holy Mother Church, I don't want to be a sede. But I do have reservations about Vatican II and what it caused. Nor do I want to be a modernist. People like Barron are incredible evangelisers- which is crucial. I don't see this as much from the SSPX laypeople, who (sometimes) seem less charitable and inward-focussed. But likewise, Barron- a Thomist and certain defender of truth- seems (again only sometimes) too interested in the modern spirit of compromise. Where is the middle line? And the truth? The figure of Christ of course; who loved without end, who evangelised to crowds, but who suffered no fools; but I guess you just mentioned it.
We have to be careful of people who gear their public face against people, though. I have seen a few channels geared in this direction, including one channel featuring rather surprisingly vicious personal (nonideological) attacks on traditional Catholics from a sort of bizarre Novus Ordo-onlyism and obedientism. The big trad channels, OTOH, spend a majority of time attacking ideas, though the sin against attacking hierarchs in a "beating a dead horse" sense should be avoided and is part of why I don't watch these as much today.
Hey Matt, thanks for you comments at the beginning. I thought that what you said was a good example of Catholic holistic thinking. Even though I would say I have more of a left-wing temperament myself I appreciate a lot of your content. That's all from me. God bless you.
Good point. If I had to agree with everything a person says in order to appreciate them, I would never visit this particular channel. Or have any friends.
Looking forward to the spanish channel. I've learned tons with you. It is great news because latinamerican audiences need this kind of teachings. God bless.
I agree. That's also what I dislike from Hallow app. Spanish content is by far too small. I also think this will benefit Latin America, since the bar on reasoned Faith feels pretty low here too. And now we are paying a high price.
Bishop Barron did a good job here. Unfortunately I will never forget these 4 things regarding bishop Barron: 1. Suggesting to Ben Shapiro that Jews don't have to convert to be saved. 2. His cowardly response to requests of the faithful to protect statues of the saints from BLM/Antifa. 3. Kind words towards James Martin's book. 4. His unchristian "reasonable hope" that the Hell is empty.
Matt!!! How are you changed so much since July 2020? I went on watching the Trent's debate and you look like a different person there! both great, just so different!
Asking an atheist what they think is the best argument for god is akin to asking which piece of garbage looks most appetizing. It's all already been dismissed as rubbish
I think Alex wins the discussion on the definition of faith. Bishop Barron reverts to his obscure academically-infused, opaque definition, an analogy on a long-time friend revealing something, and then a "context of reason" or whatever, but Alex cuts through the muddy waters and states it clearly: You either have sufficient reason to believe something or you don't. (paraphrased). With all due respect, I still don't understand the good bishop's definition of faith, and I daresay 98% of Catholics do not either. Barron's definition seems to be that faith is a promise to never entertain any serious challenges to your belief system after committing to it. Bad epistemology.
Good debate. But. I still find Bishop Barron disappointing. After years as a rabid anti Catholic Protestant, Bishop Barron’s videos on the Church helped me as they were winsome, well produced and edifying... to a point. But as thenI went deeper into Church history,, the great encyclicals and early catechism, councils, lives of the saints, Church Fathers- I was shocked at how squishy and cowardly our modern Catholic Church is. Matt FraddI love your podcasts but I must take issue, dear brother, when you put on the same par someone who has what you describe as the wrong “tone” in expressing timeless Church teachings and someone substantive twisting or confusing doctrine : these are two very different levels of harm. Bishop Barron has many gifts, but the fame and praise he receives hasn’t helped him. He seems to fear offending anyone with the potency of the Gospel, it might lessen his popularity. in modern subjectivity as religion culture. You can be respectful, well reasoned, gentle while speaking with unwavering clarity on the very moral and theological truths that are so sorely needed to be said RIGHT NOW to save souls. Truth may sting. Only truth saves. It was winsome words that brought me home, it was people who possessed the charity for my soul who told me the whole truth and helped me grow so much more. Courage to tell the undiluted Catholic teaching IS charitable. Truth stings. Truth heals. Truth alone saves. We don’t need our ears tickled. We need pierced in the heart by charity and truth-two sides of the same substance! Thank you, Matt! Get Marshall and Barron on together!!
Alex takes the time to understand what religious people believe. I've heard him talk to muslims and others. He's respectful despite being told that all these gods are real. Just presuppositional apologetics laughing at the other religions. As nice as this discussion was, there was no evidence except, "I believe it, therefore it's reasonable to believe it.
I think they both missed the point. If someone you know says god revealed to him, it's completely fine to accept the fact that this person had an experience, but you're not justified in accepting his interpretation of what that experience actually was without any evidence. Other than that, this proposed "context" the bishop offers as justification, is nothing but confirmation bias.
Alex actually didn't show himself to be a "super thoughtful guy" in the debate with Bishop Barron. Toward the latter part, he emotionally demanded that the Bishop define what he means by "Faith." Well, if he didn't understand what the Bishop meant, why didn't he ask for clarification earlier? One just has the uncomfortable feeling watching this young fellow that he is a rather smug Oxford student. Hopefully, he will mature as he gains more age and experience.
Hello Matt. I enjoyed the debate between the Bishop Barron and Alex, so thank you for your review. This was the first time I've watched any of your videos so I wanted to address the question that you posed to atheists. In general the most difficult questions to answer are the ones that we must answer with "I don't know". Among them I believe the teleological argument for theism is the strongest. This argument basically attempts to demand that God is the answer since the Universe's properties are so precise, so ordered, and so seemingly fine-tuned that nature could not over come the statistical boundaries. In a nutshell ,the reason I dismiss this argument is because we have no numerator to make such a calculation. For example , when we roll a standard die we know we have 1 in 6 chances of rolling any particular number. How would one even begin to calculate the odds of a particular universe with these particular properties and parameters coming into existence ? is there any such limitation equivalent to the six possible results of the die roll when considering these odds ? I hope this answers your question and I'm willing to address any further questions you might have. As far as faith is concerned, it seems to me that to create this context of which the Bishop spoke, one must presuppose the existence of this God, thereby expecting him to "speak", as the Bishop puts it, and then somehow concluding that this couldn't be of one's own making but could only be a mystical communication from this presupposed God. Does that sound reasonable?
"when that person speaks her heart to you, your reason is not in control... but accepting what she says, has to be an act of real belief", you said this was a great point, I find it patently absurd. When someone tells you some 'truth' about themselves that you previously knew nothing about, you use reason y necessity. Your acceptance is based on experiences with the person, facts you know about them, facts about reality that may conflict with their 'truth' etc. For example, your best friend tells you they were abducted by aliens. You know that person, you know they aren't crazy, they've never made up crazy stories before, they seem sincere etc. Can you reasonably believe their story. Of course not. Alien abduction flies in the face of everything we currently understand about reality, this person cannot demonstrate anything about the abduction other than their story, maybe they drink or take drugs, maybe they were medicated, maybe they lucid dream or had sleep paralysis etc. You use reason. Conversely, you accept their story on their word alone, despite the lack of evidence, simply because you trust them, that's faith.
The same applies to some kind of religion which said that there is a revelation from God asking then to kill, rape, hate others ecc. We can directly rejected such of idea even if it is said that God revealed such kind of thing. But when the revelation says something about love, self sacrifice for the good of others, to endure patiently difficulties of our life, I think it's acceptable than the first one. So, I just want to say that Bishop Barron gave us an illustration which help us to understand his point. He used B to explain A. But you used C to confute B. Peace. God bless you.
@@palma23adi The same does not apply because in every case you have no evidence of God that you can demonstrate, whereas with a friend, you could. As far as rejecting revelation from God that says to kill, rape etc. I'm glad that you do and would, however I'm not sure how you can since that claim is contradicted in the bible.
@@bigtomivan that's why I said bishop Barron used B to explain A. But you made the case for B by introducing C. So A: trying to explain relationship with God in faith. B: using relationship with a friend as comparison to better describe A. And you introduced C: by changing the example with the story about alien, which of course doesn't fit to this comparison. Just like when Chrysostom explained the Trinity (A) using comparison of Sun, radiant, and heat (B). Then comes C : "but God is not a sun". Of course not. It's only a way of comparison which is used to explain A. You changed the propositions in B, that's why the example became problematic, as you said.
@@palma23adi my comparison was not about aliens, it was about evidence. The faith the bishop was arguing for is a perversion of faith as described in the bible and the faith believers use to affirm God. You cannot demonstrate God, in the same way as my example cannot demonstrate his alien abduction, but you can demonstrate your friend. One is evidence based and one has no evidence. Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence, when the bishop talks about the faith he has in his friend, he is using evidence and reason, he cannot do the same with God. That's the difference. Feelings, intuition and faith are not evidence.
@@bigtomivan So I misinterpreted your statement. Ok. In this case, I think bishop Barron said that those things you mentioned are not "stricto sensu" evidences, but a kind of "context" or "condition" which makes us decide or assent to something not out of the blue.
Whilst in your context I agree that having justified reasons to belive one thing provides you with context to accept another on faith, but i see others use this mechanism, of justifying faith by connecting it to a context supported by reasoned belief, to defend beliefs that i dont agree with. I dont know how to reconcile with the idea that this mechanism effective, as i use it to defend what i believe, whilst it seems to also support claims that i find uncomfortable.
Fr Barron helped me with my reversion but since learning more and more of the faith I can now see the deficiency in his theology and philosophy. As for the Dave Rubin interview. If he received accolades from atheists or others who don't hold to all the truths of the faith what good is it if they are left with feeling as though they are justified in their objection of the truths of the faith.
Here is the distinction: does reason inform me that the object of testimony is believable or that the witness giving the testimony is believable? In the latter case, belief in the object of testimony is irreducible to reason alone.
we venerate the martyrs who broke (man's) law in order to practice their faith. in the eyes of the world they were criminals. yes, you can say disobeying an unjust law is in fact the right thing to do. man's law is not synonymous with God's law. its important not to take things Bishop Barron says out of context to misunderstand him. this is a good rule of thumb when we're talking about anybody, period, but also for Pope Francis (and any Pope). the protestant tendency to "proof text" is not a problem for protestants alone, as it seems many Catholics fall into this tendency as well, using a sound byte in place of an argument. watch the dialogue (it's not really a debate) on Justin Briley's Unbelievable Show, it's worth it
I would put it another way: Alex is confusing "the stuff of reason" (i.e. facts) with "the reasoning process". Now of course, the reasoning process is involved in everything we do and it always goes beyond the facts that we have - sometimes further beyond them and sometimes less. For example, when I walk out the front door, I assume the steps are there without looking at them - because they were there yesterday, the day before, etc. So, the idea of defining Faith as being on the far side of reason makes perfect sense. Alex was simply blurring definitions.
Trusting Australia exists is for me an act of faith but entirely rational and one in which the object is grasped by me fairly well. To get the "beyond reason" bit one needs the rational distinction of physical and spiritual. Without that Alex is right that the "beyond" is a "distinction without a difference". It's the rational concept of spritual communion which Alex needs to be shown. Barron and Fradd confuse this with the further specification of "faith" which concerns the transcendent God.
The simple point that is not getting addressed is that faith is very often used as a synonym for "trust" with respect to our relationship with God. We trust in Him based on our experience, that of others, and His revelations to us so when He makes things more and more personal and challenging for us as individuals and as a church we will submit our trust to Him and do as He asks and requires. Heard it said before that it's like climbing a tree with another person being your visual guide. Since you trust them, you have faith in what they tell you but you can not see on your own. Jump up two feet and there is a branch that will support you so you can continue without falling. Same could be said for mountain climbing. So by substituting the word faith with trust the problem is solved for the rational and reasonable person who appreciates the subtleties of language and it's variances instead of turning all words into the word "reason" because they're not honest enough with themselves or anyone else to admit that God exists. Alex is being difficult to support his position and Bishop Barron is missing the obvious association to trust with faith. Got that from a 1982 missal when I had to work this out years ago for myself with the Lord. In Christ, Andrew
Appreciate your opening statement. Other than Christ, I don't think I agree 100% with anyone. Even Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate conception. Point is, that doesn't need to detract from the truth other people do say. As a Catholic, I don't think Protestants are 100% wrong - I agree with them on certain things and disagree on others. As opposed to throwing away people like William Lane Craig, why can't we just appreciate the truths they do share?
If an atheist has a responsibility to understand arguments for theism (I agree). Does a Christian have an obligation to understand arguments made by atheists? Does a Christian have a responsibility to understand arguments for other faiths? In my personal experience, I have spoken to many Christians about my lack of faith. I have rarely met one that didn't assume high ground/superiority, never met one that didn't assume my beliefs instead of asking, and never met one that understood arguments made by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins etc... I would suspect a much higher number of atheists are familiar with the Kalam and the watchmaker, compared to theists that are familiar with thinkers outside of their own tradition. It takes very little energy to go along with whatever you're brought up with.
As an atheist the theist argument that has most resonance with me is that there are billions of people who believe they have a personal relationship with God. They are neither stupid or deluded so I have to consider they are feeling something that I don't feel and I cannot just dismiss it. It leaves me still an atheist because it's a knowledge that I don't have access to and leads onto Divine Hiddenness. But it's something that gives me sleepless nights whereas the Kalam doesn't seem to lead to any God let alone the God of the Bible.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." If you are seeking the truth. You will find Jesus there waiting. All Christians are bound by Jesus's marching orders. Love your neighbour as yourself. Let all you do be in Love. Pray for your enemies. It takes alot of courage to be a christian. But the joy you will find there is worth it. The clarity of thought. The clarity you see in others. God Bless and keep searching.
Same, more or less. But consider everything that's happening in their experience is occurring in their brain. I can believe a person is having an experience, even a spiritual one, without believing their experience is a manifestation of some otherworldly power. We know even healthy brains hallucinate in various ways just as we all hallucinate our own experience of reality.
I thought the best part fo the debate was the section on evil, where Alex actually came up with some very poor arguments about the problem of evil, which perhaps revealed his lack of life experience when it comes to tragedy.
My thoughts exactly. I was surprised that Bishop didn't press him harder on that. Suffering seems to be the end all be all for Alex, yet I wonder why it is an issue for him at all? Why care about suffering in an atheistic worldview? Why the unchallenged notion that suffering is a problem ipso facto? I''ve never heard an atheist give a valid explanation of why they care at all about evil and suffering. I would genuinely like to understand this, it seems like an enormous problem for the atheist.
@@momoffive5606 Yes, the pantheist sees suffering as a part of the illusion of realty that needs to transcended, just as the good things need to be transcended. Non-attachment to the flow of karma. That is implicitly what the atheist wants to teach us but when it comes down to it, they're still pissed off with God about suffering.
@@momoffive5606 "I''ve never heard an atheist give a valid explanation of why they care at all about evil and suffering" empathy and the understanding that your conscious experience is also present in other beings. The problem of evil/suffering is not a question about why we should care about suffering but rather about pointing out that the suffering that exist in the world is in contradiction with a loving and caring being who is also all powerful.
Also I am currently in RCIA, I come from Jewish background. I credit Bishop Barron solely for my desire to be baptized into the Roman Catholic Church. He changed my life, and I just hope to thank him personally one day.
I was confirmed on Saturday and I absolutely agree with you. Bishop Barron (along with a few others like Matt Fradd) played a huge role in my understanding of the faith and Catholicism. We are lucky to have him.
Agreed. And I would bet Bishop Barron's talk with Jordan Peterson (among others) also helped reach a lot of people, likely a lot of young people. If I recall correctly, the two had another recent dialogue and it should be posted soon.
What a complement!!!
Welcome Home! :)
Welcome home!
Protestant here, watching a Catholic review a debate, involving a Catholic and an atheist, for my personal learning and spiritual growth. See, we can all get along beautifully :)
Amen. :)
Fantastic! God bless you!
I did that so many times I became a Catholic lmao
@@randumgaming love it! Praise be to God.
I'm Catholic, I hope you had a wonderful easter and God bless you and your family! :)
It should be mentioned that Alex claimed that a return to faith is still very much on the table, and we should pray for his return to faith in Christ and His Church. If not only for his soul then also to have such a thoughtful and brilliant intellect as a defender of our Lord. Be blessed by faith, Alex. And thanks for this great little review, Matt.
Very similar to my story. I spent nearly two years as a searching atheist, and came to Greek Orthodoxy.
Yes. I was thinking the same thing. He is my favourite atheist because he makes well thought out arguments in a non arrogant tone. It would be so inspiring to see his conversion. I do believe though that intelligent atheists are important to God's revelation to the world. Imagine a world where we blindly believed without delving deeper into those religious beliefs. Atheists force us to do just that. Revelation is a process. They are important to that process. 😊
I agree. That would be a big win.
It is perhaps for this reason that our teaching on invincible ignorance exists. It may be that God consigns some men to ignorance until their end for His purposes. Just as He hardened the heart of Pharaoh or sent the Assyrians to destroy Israel and Judah.
@@blumusik9572 I personally have a more respect for an atheist that is open minded than a Baptist or Muslin that is closeminded.
Atheist here. I am loving the increasingly deep and respectful conversations now taking place on youtube between those of faith and those without faith; an exchange of ideas rather than people clobbering each other.
🙏💞🙏
Thank you for talking about not throwing the baby out with the bathwater at the beginning. As someone who likes both Bishop Barron and Taylor Marshall a lot, it drives me crazy how people completely despise either of them because of one position they might hold.
I think Bishop Barron is very wrong on the “Dare we hope?” Issue, but it’s not like he thinks this needs to stop us from evangelizing, he’s one of the only bishops even doing evangelization in the first place!
Likewise, I agree with Marshall about the infiltration and the horrible abuses after the council, but he does hold some problematic positions about the council itself that I would not endorse. Regardless, it’s not then okay to lie and say he’s some sort of sedevacantist or something like so many people do.
You don’t have to agree with someone 100% of the time to like them!!
Same here: we shoundn't discount Bishop Barron, as he's a smart and kind man. I disagree with him on some things, but he can speak and explain many things in a very simple yet brilliant way. I love the traditional movements in the Church, but many of them end up being a tad too...maybe arrogant? Not sure how to describe it; plus, ngl...at times they misquote or misrepresent the Pope's words (and that's quite...low, to say the least).
Couldn’t agree more!
can you fill me in on the “dare we hope” thing?
@@ItsChrisFtw Because the devil is getting the drop on us and sewing division. I recently decided for the sake of peace in my own marriage that we would go half time to a charismatic Novus Ordo and then half time at Divine Liturgy. Same Eucharist. Same Faith. Unity in diversity is what makes Catholicism so great.
@@thehausen5054 it comes form a Von Baltashar's book 9sorry if I butcher the surname!) where he "dares to hope" all souls may be saved by God, if I recall right. Bishop Barron even became sort of a meme being called "the empty Hell man" for a while. I think it was a misstep on his side, but on many things he has spoken with enlightening words, so, like Folofus pointed out as well as Matt Frad, we should not "throw out the baby with the bathwater", as on many things our Bishop has been and is able to speak with very clear and orthodox messages. He has his flaws, but we should not insult or belittle him (as laypersons, we should of course pray for him).
Maybe you should try to get Taylor Marshall and Bishop Barron on your show to have a healthy dialogue. After all we are all Brothers in Christ.
I would love to see that. Taylor Marshall would be up for it, not sure about Bishop Barron.
That’s the problem. B Barron will not engage... seems to be too good for dr Marshall.
@@daniellennox8804 he'd be up for that but not a discussion with Tim gordon. Funny how that works.
Yes!
Marshall would never do it. He doesn't debate and never has anyone on his show who disagrees with him. He's a one-way spin-meister and RUclips is his megaphone.
I gave op YT and podcasts for Lent... This was SUCH a good way to come back!
I fasted from Facebook for Lent and now I have no desire to ever go back.
That's a really good thing to give up I would find it difficult these days
Yes, lovely intro, I am on board with you , about not throwing the baby out with the bath water. The good and true remains a light in spite of the darkness.
@@traceyhackett3741 Me too, I just deactivated my Fb account . I had given it up for lent. No desire to go back to it.
@Pints With Aquinas... The thing about Bishop Barron is he plays the "puck not the body," meaning he looks at what people are saying word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, realizing that people are a mix of good and bad. So when endorses a book like Fr. James Martin's book on prayer he is looking at what Fr. James actually wrote on prayer rather than judging Fr. James' character and launching ad hominem attacks. This is what Saints do, play the puck, not the body.
Great analogy. Understood by a old hockey mom.👍
As much as I think (and know) Catholics should stay away from Father James, I agree in terms of the defense of Bishop Barron. Bishop Barron is amazing, and it seems like only the radical conspiracy theory type Catholics don't like him. The WOF books are amazing and so rich. And as you said, he's endorsing his writing on prayer. I just hope and pray Bishop Barron doesn't go further than that, because most likely, other than prayer, James Martin is off the rails. Anyways, I'm not trying to make this negative. Just finding the balance.
You need to get Bishop Barron on this show.
Yes. So much yes.
Long time coming and still hasn't happened yet. Their teams should reach out!
Hearing Bishop Barron speak here brings me back to the early days of first reverting back to my faith, before everything became complicated by problematic statements, debates, etc. It's quite nice
I come from a family that is not super knowledgeable on deep Catholic doctrine and Bishop Barron has helped us a lot. I know that he is not perfect but he is great for the reasons you talked about. Thanks for defending Bishop Baron even though he is not perfect.
Forget the stein; where do we buy the beer that keeps pouring for two minutes?
It must be live stream beer.
@@petrasant5495 FloMaxx infused beer!
XXXX
Love that intro music, feels like something from an early Rocky movie
Totally should have Bishop Barron on and talk about anything that he would like to talk about!
Finally, Pints with Aquinas got pints again. All this Lent had been just " with Aquinas" XD
Bishop Barren is wonderful resource to the Church! While I may disagree at times with him, his apologetics to bones is wonderful
Thank you for recognizing that one doesn't have to agree with everything a person says in order to still find good in what they have to say. I like Bishop Barron.
By that standard, I would not like anyone at all.
Audio cut out @ 17:47 :) [edit] - you noticed straight after.. my bad!
Love the video Excellent summation & insights.
Chat was going absolutely bonkers when that happened, it was hilarious
Would be great to pin this comment.
Oh my gosh that's a lot of beer
That wasn't even half of it !
@@rachelpops9239 So there is 4042 of them?
And the cup never gets full!!😂
I’m so confused haha. What part of the video are people talking about. I watched the whole thing and just saw him talk about the Beer Cup at beginning and end. Am I missing something?
@@spaceapes6978 LOOOOL😂 They're talking about the countdown portion at the beginning before the debate actually began
There is another dimension to faith that transcends reason - TRUST. I can give ascent to doctrinal statements, but I can only put my trust in another person - so this is the takes me a step further than rational ascent to specific statements.
I’ve been waiting for this to drop! Thanks for doing this. Go Bishop Barron!
Yes, Matt! One person, cannot be everything to all people (except Christ). Bishop Barron brought in into the Church. His intellectual approach made it easy for me accept very basic and philosophical ideas about Christianity. The way he engages the culture helped me connect the missing links between my brain and heart that closed me off to Christianity in the beginning. As I have grown in my faith, and disconnected from the culture in that way, his message doesn't resonate with me as much. Now I find people like you, Fr. Goring and even T Marshall more edifying. T Marshall's tone can be off putting, but he has a ministry that is important, ie. call out the wolves, and reawaken the traditions and beauty of the church (almost like BB used to do).
JennBull--and your post rresonates with me. B. Barron is in the ditch when it's highly informed Catholics talking together; he's great out where it's Mere Christianity.
I almost feel the opposite of you. The intellectual tradition of the Church continues to be foundational to my practice of the faith, and I still do not care much for the private revelations of the Saints, but only insofar as they agree with the scriptural tradition rather than being agnostic to it.
To take the classical example of "dare we hope all men be saved?", I maintain an agnosticism proper to the subject. There are Saints who believed that all men will be saved eventually, and there are some who believed few will be. The scripture gives indications of both being possibilities in a contradictory way without settling the matter. And Mother Church has never settled the matter either.
Therefore I find Grace and peace in the Divine Mercy chaplet, in which I'm not called to hold any position but I am called to pray for God to show his mercy upon all men.
I think there is a failure to appreciate how awful it is that Barron and others follow von Balthasar. v Balthasar is favored as a counterweight to "progressive" theology. But his principles followed to their conclusions yield not only the novelty view that Hell may be empty, but also that Christ did not experience the beatific vision (an idea outside Christian thought), that Christ had the virtue of faith, He experienced ignorance, and He even experienced positive error. So many intellectual paths are tried in the attempt to dump Aquinas/Aristotle yet keep Catholicism.
@@pmlm1571 I actually have a campus minister who gave me a copy of "Dare We Hope?" and has been working for months to get me to embrace Balthasar. So far, I have not, but since you seem more knowledgeable on Balthasar, could you elaborate on those problems in his theology, ideally also pointing to where he wrote of these ideas? I'd very much like to understand the Balthasar phenomenon in people of Bishop Barron's generation who are otherwise orthodox, but I'd like to be able to hold my own in actually understanding what is being said.
@@williamcrawford7621 Sure, I'll try. Christ refers to Judas as lost and the son of perdition. The great saints all echo Him that Judas is in hell: that hell is populated (as the Mother of God showed the Fatima children, by the way). What moves those of the von Balthasar school such as Bishop Barron to assert it is a Christian's positive duty to hope that hell is empty?
Ideas Have Consequences. In this case they are the ideas of German eighteenth-century philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, who claimed that no religious statement or concept is absolutely true. All are false or relative in some way. Because only God is absolute truth. Concepts contain their own contradiction and only find their resolution or synthesis in God who is Absolute Truth. Hegel said that every concept contained a "Negative, which it carries within itself." For Hegel this positive-negative opposition within an idea is the dialectic and "a necessary procedure of reason." Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary defines "dialectic" as "the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite." Thus, Hegel maintained "the Necessity of Contradiction" for all thought to develop toward the Absolute, which is God.
Similarly, Balthasar believes that contradiction is a part of truth (this reminds me of how fond the pope is of confusion). As he explained in Word and Revelation, Balthasar believes that expressions of' "worldly truth," like "worldly Being," can be "contradictory" and even expressions of scriptural truths can be opposites or "contrary." Balthasar agreed with Hegel that "only God is 'the absolute truth'" and "'all truth is not, negation itself is in God' ". Thus, statements in the Bible are not absolutely true but each is relative and in some way negative or false, and these statements will find their synthesis only when we come in heaven to the Father who is absolute truth. But, for now, one cannot have complete confidence even in the words of Christ. Balthasar stated: "The word of Christ, who spoke as no other had spoken, who alone spoke as one having power, is nonetheless an insecure bridge between the wordlessness of the world and the superword of the father"
BUT: hoping that all will be saved -- when Scripture says that some are lost -- is like hoping that no one ever sins when we know that Adam and Eve sinned. The hope is an absurdity. More importantly, Balthasar's philosophy of truth violates the first self-evident principle of Logic, the Principle of Non-Contradiction: it states that the same thing cannot both "be" and "not be" at the same time and in the same respect. One cannot say that Judas is "lost" and that Judas is "not lost" (saved) at the same time, without equivocation. And to "hope" that Judas is saved when Scripture says that he is already lost is to hope for a contradiction in Scripture and in the Church's teachings. But, this violates the Church's defined teaching that "God cannot... ever contradict truth with truth" (Denz. No. 1797), which guarantees that the meaning of Jesus' teachings in the New Testament and the Church's dogmas can never be different but always remain the same (Denz. No.1818).
This results in other errors such as vBalthasar's teaching that though the "Son of God" has "omniscience," His "omniscience" is nonfunctional when He comes to earth on a "mission." In fact, vBalthasar's "hope" is logically based upon his theory that Christ did not speak with omniscience and infallibility.
This opinion, that there was ignorance in Jesus, was already rejected during the fourth-century Arian heresy. This error was refuted even more thoroughly in A.D. 600 when Pope Gregory I (St. Gregory the Great) rebutted the Monophysite sect known as the "Agnoetae" who also held that Mark 13:32 ("neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour") indicated that Christ was ignorant (Denz. No. 248). Pope Gregory taught that Christ knew by means of two natures, and what He did not know "from" His human nature, He knew "from" His divine nature
God's self-knowledge is intrinsic to His divine Being, for St. Thomas Aquinas says that, "God understands Himself through Himself." And, he says: "the act of God's intellect is His substance" and "His act of understanding must be His essence and His existence" (Summa Theologica, 1a, q. 14, art. 2).
Statements to the contrary have papal condemnations.
I took these few bits from a good article on the subject: www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=3344
Hope this helps! (Thomas Aquinas, though less trendy and sparkly, is the way to go.)
"the context provided by reason" is a very elegant phrase but the implication is very simple: you believe in spite of your lack of evidence.
"we don´t have inmediate access to it", i mean... yeah, that´s the point, you don´t have access to the evidence, you believe, based on context, that you are right.
Context is important, it can lead to good hypothesis, but if you don´t have the evidence it doesn´t matter how beautiful your idea might be, it`s not "reasonable" to claim it to be true. This happens in science too, you can have an amazing idea (that makes sense), but it becomes a theory only when the evidence is consistent with it.
Your opening statement on not throwing out the bathwater is exactly what we as Catholics and all peoples in general need to be mindful to combat the scourge of cancel culture. Even our Catholic faith teaches us that all can be redeemed. Something we should always keep forefront in any discussion. God Bless!
And yes, Bishop Barron is a blessing even if you don't always agree with him! Such a wonderful gift to Christ's Church!
This guys review gives 90% attention to Baron's argument and 10% to Alex's argument. Cheesy and bias
I felt that if you’re going to argue that god will always be beyond our horizon of understanding then you’ll never be justified in any assertions about him. It’s the very definition of the god of the gaps criticism. Not once was there an argument not made from ignorance and from question begging.
I agree with you. Barron often retreats into the realm of "god is a mystery."
Thank you Matt for the analysis of the debate between Bishop Barron and Alex, always important to support the work we do for our Catholic faith!🙏🏼❤️
I’m so grateful to God that acceptance of Him came easily.
That’s what having “Faith” means to me.
Love Bishop Barron and you as well.
I was born and raised as a Jew, accepted Jesus in my early 30’s.
Not a fan of denominations, I attend a Southern Baptist church, also been attending a Catholic ladies Bible Study group for over 20 years!
I do believe in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, took quite some time for me. Southern Baptist’s do not see that at all. Yet they believe all of scripture is the inerrant word of God, save for those few verses.
I pray for your conversion to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church of Christ our Lord
@Nancy Barry do you have a blog? I love what you said about denominations. Do you believe the Real Presence of Christ is in the communion at Baptist Churches too? How do you respond to the Catholic views about praying to Mary?
@@sarahdiana8934 We ask Mary to intercede for us, the same way I ask my neighbor to pray for me.
Technically and historically speaking the Catholic Church and Orthodox are not denominations. Denominations started with Luther.
Great to hear that you are going to make videos in spanish! A lot of people in south america does not have access to all this content because of the language barrier and there is not much material in spanish, so great news!
The spanish catholic church does not make apologetics cause they dont have too. The people is so ignorant and the church so big there was never the need
Reflecting a bit on what you said about some of the traditionalists. I'm probably quite liberal in some ways, but resolutely obedient to the doctrines of the faith. I used to be annoyed by some of the more traditionalists, but after watching a number of videos about the disintegration of our Episcopal sisters and brothers, I now realize what a gift they are. The episcopal church leadership did not respond to the elements that were eroding the faith and the laity appeared quite unable to respond-- truly sad. The recent protests of the traditionalists to the German bishops ("we're not going anywhere'), and the hilarious throwing of the pagan statues in the river in Rome was quite prophetic and worthy of an Isaiah.
I am not a traditionalist but the last years have made me have sympathy for them. When the Church is in shambles, when the Pope is saying anti-Christian statements once and again, when sin an disrespect is promoted by some bishops, when the Vatican makes cerimonies and issues coins for a pagan goddess (Pachamama)...there are people who are calm about all this while criticizing the traditionalists to death. It's like people criticizing Jesus because Jesus was not nice with the Pharisees. “When a wise man points at the moon the imbecile examines the finger.” (Confucius)
I love how you started this podcast -we need more voices like this in the church. A forgiving and inclusive tone open to the gifts that the traditionalists are giving us as well as figures like Bishop Barron. The Gospel is a hard road, and it is very easy to go too much to either extreme. Thank you for this hopeful and intelligent perspective.
As an agnostic I still struggled to make sense of Bishop Barron's final definition as given. It's often said that one believes in the existence of God on faith, but with faith being 'a response to the revealing God', this definition is revealed to be begging the question on the existence of God in the first place.
In other words, saying that one's faith is a response to the revealing God presupposes the existence of said God, meaning that faith cannot itself be the justification given for belief. To put it in the form of a question: ' what is the mechanism used by the theist to ascend to the view that that which is revealing itself, is in fact 'God'? It seems that the answer cannot use 'faith' by the Bishop's definition because it presupposes the very God which is being sought.
3:14 That opening remark was very insightful. I think I've always sensed this in a way but never quite had the words to materialize it. Definitely an eye opening way of discussion that I'll try to thoughtfully consider in the future.
Also another thing I noted when you said that atheists say call it "reason" and not faith, a personal issue I have with it is one can have reason yet no faith. I have reason in Catholicism, and yet my faith is quite low, and I've been told that's quite common. It's very easy to find reason, and yet very difficult to find faith
Faith means to my understanding that you may have reason to trust the person, but no direct logic to understand what they propose.
Faith is in contradiction of fideism because we have reason to trust God whereas the fideist trusts explicitly in contradiction to reason.
@@HolyKhaaaaan Faith can be contrary to reason. In fact, Abraham, Noah, and Moses all had faith contrary to reason. This is not a one and not the other argument. Abraham BELIEVED God that he would have a son by Sarah, CONTRARY to reason, and this was granted to him as righteousness. Faith that waits for understanding is still faith, but of a lesser kind. Not being able to have children, walk over dry ground from the sea being divided, or surviving a global flood with a mission to save the animals... where can you pull reason from this? And where do you pull reason out of a man rising from the dead?
Thank you Matt for the videos in Spanish. Being one of the most important languages in the world, it's amazing the lack of apologetics material in Spanish. Unlike with other topics, there is some of this material but very few compared to English. I have problems to reach my family and friends because I cannot translate everything.
Try reading about spanish saints like San Francisco de sales, san Juan de la Cruz or Santa Teresa de Ávila. These and others of the many spanish saints are very good resources that can help you.
I’m an atheist but Bishop Barron missed out on an important point during the problem of evil debate. Alex kept implying that because Christians believe that God permits evil so that more good may come about (or to prevent even worse evils) that therefore they should celebrate the occurrence of evil. However, just because good may eventually arise out of something bad or evil, doesn’t mean that the bad or evil action/event was itself good. For instance, if at some point in the distant future (or perhaps after the resurrection) we finally see and understand the greater good that came about from God permitting the Holocaust to happen, it won’t therefore mean that the Holocaust wasn’t a terrible thing, nor do I think God would see it that way. After all, if your wife cheats on you and you end up with someone else later down the line who makes you happier, you don’t think “Oh what my wife did was morally right.” You might be grateful such a bad thing happened because it led to something better, but it doesn’t mean the action itself was right, no matter what good comes from it. This is important. Failing to take this position, or something like it, leaves Christians sounding rather like moral subjectivist/relativists. If you go around saying, “Hey, hey, who are we to say the Holocaust is morally evil? We don’t know God’s plans!” it sounds an awful lot like a moral relativist who says “Hey, hey, who are we to say anything is morally evil? We don’t have access to absolute knowledge about morality!” The problem here is that Christians do make objective moral claims, such as about homosexuality, abortion, etc. The only way you can say those things are bad is if you do in fact believe God has revealed to some extent things that are objectively morally right/wrong or good/bad. Otherwise, if you take Bishop Barron’s position in the debate, you’d have to be committed to saying that perhaps homosexuality is a good thing since it’s always possible some greater good may come from it that we’re unaware of may be apart of God’s plan.
I feel like Bishop Barron dropped the ball a little with Alex's insistence on a difference between reason and faith.
Definitely a false dichotomy
@@jackdaw6359 a difference between two things isn't a dichotomy. The two things are already agreed upon. Alex is asking for a distinction of the two.
@@scottlafleur4148 you are correct, however an insistence of two things being falsely opposed to one another is a dichotomy. I thought that was what Zeraph meant.
That distinction you mentioned at the beginning is so important. We tend to create ‘narratives’ out of public figures rather than dealing with the specifics of what they say and do in specific situations. If we create narratives out of people rather having the intellectual humility to acknowledge the good and the bad, and which outweighs which, then that’s the death of public discourse.
Viva Cristo Rey!!!
Once I asked an atheist, if he would like that a Loving God, all just but also all merciful exists. His answer was a blunt no.
Watched the debate as an atheist. The bishop was good at the flowery rhetoric that talks vaguely around the topic. Stopping 10 minutes in on this video, I am not seeing a good definition of faith other than belief in the absence of reason. As now a non-believer, I feel immune to flowery word salad rhetoric and are looking for those that talk succinctly and clearly about their faith. Theists need to understand that is how you reach us.
Exactly. Want to convince an atheist to believe in god? Then don't say anything except clear, strong evidence proving a god exists. That would do it. Yet strangely even in _prolonged_ conversations with theists you can't pry that out of them. It's almost like they don't actually have a good basis for believing in god...
Thats awesome your expanding to spanish speaking audience!! God bless Matt
I did feel like Alex started to be less charitable in his takes at the end once he started his appeal to emotion about the problem of evil. Otherwise this was a great one to watch. Praying that Alex does come back to the faith if he finds the answers he needs.
@@mmeyerdc I felt the same. 😃
Nothing fails like prayer
@@zapkvr Prayer isn’t a spell.
Bishop Barron was like a prosecuting counsel who argued for God's existence as his starting point, while Alex was like a defense counsel who tried to punch holes into the argument to create reasonable doubt.
Alex is a skeptic or agnostic on matters of religion. He created doubt but it is far from reasonable. There is hope that he will change his mind. He has done it before.
@@winstonbarquez9538 He is still a kid from what I understand. Speaking from experience it almost seems natural for young people to go though phases of doubt or skepticism (I did), I think it can be healthy in a way. I can't speak for him because I don't really know too much about him, but if he is truly open to it, he could easily change his mind at some point.
I would love to see Alex converse with Fr Gregory Pine, both insanely intelligent people
If in this day and age, if you still believe in the existence of a god, the you're not insanely intelligent.
Happy Easter!
I think the problem is that theists justify too much using faith. The context of reasons is still problematic, but even after granting that, it is simply not enough to justify all the extraordinary claims that Christianity makes. It's as David Hume puts it, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Faith is simply not even close to that.
When I hear atheist claim that, I got to proof my belief. And They dont because they dont believe in a Creator. And they say science dont prove Gods existance, so whats my proof.
I often think to myself of the Allegory of the Cave, where the cave is The modern project.
For ME! Science science has always been part, and born out of the great Church traditions. Every diacovery science uncover from reality is my proof for the existance of God.
I think that the discussion must talk a few steps back. And we must analyse our own time, culture and era. For me, saying its no creator sounds unreasonable. From a scientific, philosophical, moral and historical point of view.
And at a point in my reasoning faith comes in, but I think my faith is reasonble. Atheism, and its beliefe in a universe without a creator, seem to me unreasonable.
It baffles me, that Atheist are often so ignorant about this, it amazes me. It is really an error of our time.
So I am SO glad to see the shift in conversation and discussions between the two belief systems.
And if we dive in my faith, my faith in the God revealed in the Judeo-Christian tradition, thats another discussion. About why evil etc. (Thats waaaay out in the horizon in the discussion).
Do you understand my reasoning, or where I come from.
I dont want to discussion with you, I am just telling you my view.
Have a good day mister, take care!
Peace!
I could give you some very specific items for you to consider as proof. Question is, would you accept them? Sorry if I'm bit late in responding here...
@@sondre9056 what scientific discovery makes your faith stronger? You're welcome to elaborate at length, listing many, if you like.
[Edit] as it happens, atheism isn't the belief that a god doesn't exist; rather, it's a rejection of the claim a god exists. Those ideas are not equivalent.
@@dalanology what scientific discovery makes my faith stronger... I will say every diacovery of the truth, be it through Philosophy, art og the scientific methode, show the Glory of God the Creatore.
So its not every discovery through the scientific method, that are as apealing to me. Because, we are different in that regard.
And not every so-called "discovery" using the scientific method is a truth. One can use the method, And discover something. But that something is not allways the truth, or maybe one draw conxlusions And develope theories from a diacovery. And the theory and the conclusions might be flawed. But get presented as the final truth. Sometimes it might not be.
I am sorry I did answer your question so broadly.
But listing discoveries:
Micro evolution
Thermodynamics
And all they discover in the animal kingdom really fasinates me. You know, how the birds operate in different ECO system. How different species operate in relation to eachother and the sesons. Its so much creativity in creation. You know. And how the planets swing through space. And the BEST! ALL that we DO NOT KNOW. And kind of the Joy that we really dont know that much more. Its really more of an ego trip of the human part.
Yes, that is my thoughts sine you asked. I am probably not going to go into a discussion about this.
Pax!
Matt, please have Alex on your podcast with Gregory Pine 🙏 that would be a beautiful discussion!!
I like Alex a lot; he seems like a bright, thoughtful young man. I can't help but sense some pain in him and his morphism into a young Christopher Hitchens. It would be interesting to know more about Alex's childhood. In particular, how old was Alex if he was even born when his grandfather died and his father lost his faith? He said he was devout as a young boy. My guess is his mother had influenced him as a young boy, and as he matured, his father had a stronger influence. That is the typical progression. In "Faith of The Fatherless, The Psychology of Atheism," Dr. Vitz argues that disappointment in one's earthly father, whether through death, absence, or mistreatment, frequently leads to a rejection of God. Although, as Alex pointed out, it can go the other way, it is more common for loss.
Agreed. He really does seem to be the heir-apparent (at least rhetorically) to Christopher Hitchens. He is also a philosopher who (as Bp Barron described) wants to be 'in control'. 'Faith is the response of someone who is addressed by God' - I liked that explanation! - and is probably why anyone who 'deifies' reason, might find faith a scary prospect!
@@NickOeffinger The English accent certainly helps him with his emotional arguments I agree. Hitches definitely used to his advantage with his American audience
@@NickOeffinger I agree. I'm not convinced that Alex is as brilliant as some people are led to believe, especially in this comment section. If anything, his calmness falsely lends to his credibility given that keeping calm is half the battle of debate and that, in fact, he's British. I suppose it's that accent like how women are easily impressed with a French accent.
@@WhyCatholicdotCom and Sam Harris uses little quips and humor. ultimately all their arguments boil down to “God is mean tho”
Well.. The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.
@@TickleMeElmo55 I didn't mean to imply he is brilliant as it has been said "Wisdom begins with fear of the Lord" but for a young guy he has a lot of academic knowledge and I think he has some pain to work through and will ultimately come back to his roots. Many others his age aren't even thinking about things
Utterly useful video, thank you.
I might be in the minority here, but I think Alex / Cosmic sceptic came out on top in the debate. It was a nice conversation!
They are both classy.
The boy doesn't show any joy. It seems he's always unhappy. I think he's an atheist not because of arguments, that could go either way, but because he hasn't found the Christian joy.
@@inglesrapido6967 I assume you don't believe in the Greek god Zeus. Why not? Have you not found the joy of the Greek gods?
Your statement adds nothing to the debate. It is a meaningless platitude.
As a Catholic and a former scientist I have two objections to arguments used by atheists.
1) to claim that an actual or potential infinite exists in the physical realm, the case is made for a finite piece of string or unit of time. They claim it can be divided into an infinite number of ever decreasing divisions. But as each purely hypothetical sub division is added they must get smaller and smaller. Moreover, an actual infinite consists of an infinite number of FINITE parts like hotel rooms, mathematical sequences 1,2,3 or units of time e.g. seconds, hours days etc.
2) nothing in the physical universe including a yellow chair can remain potentially or actually the same. The universe is expanding, stars are imploding, rocks, meteors are continually subjected to forces like heat and weathering. Overtime, igneous rocks can become dust or sedimentary rocks and vice versa. As mathematician Dave Hilbert said the infinite exists nowhere in reality. It remains solely an idea in abstract mathematics.
No atheist like Krauss, or Hawking suggest that past time is eternal, thus the need to explain something from nothing, aka creation ex nihilo. Hawking then fantasizes that a "law such as gravity created the universe out of nothing". But laws don't stand in causal relationships, nor does gravity exist in the absence of mass.
Alex is brilliant and a really good listener! Of course Bishop Barren is an amazing and has a gentle way of explaining ( at least to me ) the facts and both sides of everything! Thanks Matt ! Hope you’re loving Steubie 🙏
OMg in Spanish! God Bless You Matt. I pray you get really good people and content. Please God let it be as solid, intellectual, AND appealing, without egos as is your show.
That’s the longest pour I’ve seen! 🤣🤣
Looking good, Matt!
Hi, whoever reads this, autistic atheist here. There's a part of this video that I don't understand and I was wondering if anyone is willing to discuss and clarify it? 18:50 to 19:13
"Context provided by reason for the claim that God has spoken" - "so its not mere reason because I don't have immediate access to it, and it not faith in the sense of believing without evidence. Its, Rather, I have good reasons for believing what God now reveals to me which I accept by faith". he has good reasons and accepts them by faith is what I'm getting out of this? Not sure what he means by faith here, so I imagine that has impact on what is meant.
Thanks in advance :D
Traditionally, faith refers to having a degree of trust in something or someone. We use the word faith in that sense in our normal speech too, for example saying that we "have faith in someone". It can also mean being loyal to someone, like when we would describe someone as faithful. In Christianity, it means both of those things simultaneously, it is just applied to the context of God and the revelations of prophets and the like.
When figures like Barron talk about faith in ways that can seem more esoteric, it's because they're getting at an important and somewhat more subtle element in Christianity: having enough faith (that is, trust) in God to believe in Jesus and his claims should naturally lead to having faith in other things as well. For example, miracles ascribed to Jesus are treated as signs of things God will do in the future, because he did them once on a small scale, and we believe he is God, we believe him when he says that he will do it again on a much larger scale. The most significant of these is the resurrection, as Christians like myself treat Jesus' return from the dead as a precursor to all of us being raised up and united with God, and so it affirms our trust in that particular religious claim.
Hey Matt- This video was really helpful. Thanks for making it! I watched the Barron/O’Connor discussion and while I really enjoyed it, admittedly some of the deeper philosophical concepts they covered went over my head. You honing in on this distinction Bishop Barron makes here cleared this up for me!
Alex reminds me of the period between when I gave up 13 years of public atheism/antitheism during the "Four Horsemen" movement, and during the 18-month period between when I dumped antitheism to search through world religions, and when I eventually came to general Theism and closed in on Taoism, Sufism, Judaism or Ancient Christianity. I was still technically an atheist, but I - or rather God - weeded out the seething hatred in my heart for anyone who believed in God, from Christian to Mason (except he's smarter). I'm Greek Orthodox today.
So you were an atheist my friend
Wow. You've had quite a journey. Have you heard of Jonathan Pageau /the Symbolic World? Great YT channel. He is an orthodox christian. I find him fascinating.
@@blumusik9572 Yes, he is fantastic.
@@diegofuentes6639 Yes, rabid atheist.
@@ourdictatorship You were open minded my friend and you Gound the alord. Hopefully the FFRF was open minded
I really enjoyed this discussion
Seems to me that Alex misses the point about the "reasonable context" thing as examplified in the friend revealing a personal fact. He says it's either reason (which it isn't entirely) or a hunch (but the initiative to bridge the gap doesn't come from you). It's not entirely reason because you do NOT have *all* the reasons to make the definitive statement (in fact you can totally imagine a million scenarios where the friend is lying - some very unlikely, but still possible) but it *seems* reasonable enough. So it's not entirely reason that's at play here, as it is insufficient on its own, though necessary and helpful. But there comes the leap of faith, to which you are drawn by something outside of yourself.
Yeah. St Augustine references this in his Confessions when he asks ‘how can I know my parents are truly my parents?’
I paraphrased.
If your friend makes a supernatural claim, the most reasonable inference is that the claim is not true, though.
I think one of Bishop Barron's tactics is "meeting his interlocutor where they are at". If a person is doubting the very existence of God, starting with deep, theological orthodoxy may not be the best tactic. By meeting them where they are at (including many hundreds of people who may be watching), as long as the response isn't heretical, it plants a seed. Over time, if faith is established and matures, additional clarifications can be made. If Bishop Barron isn't supported in this process, we could create unnecessary confusion in the minds of the faithless.
bishop Barron made my day
Alex has a very shallow Philosophy and ephemeral Reasoning .
I am very sorry for Alex Soul . . . I Pity him . . .
His Life nowhere has no colorful meaning . . .
Intellectual Arrogance . . .
We cannot separate Reason and Faith . . .
Alex is not Open to the Totality of Reality . . .
His face is sad. There's no joy. Hope he gets it one day.
I just hear circular arguments in this discussion, which is what I think Christianity has done from its founding as the way to keep itself around.
How so, sir? I'm honestly interested in hearing a little more about your point of view.
Christianity uses the concept of “faith” at its foundation as a way to conveniently dismiss the lack of evidence and reason for the religion to be seen as true from a logical or reasoned POV. The religion basically says you have to have faith to believe in it, but that’s just another way of saying you have to have belief to believe. This is circular thinking to me because it just basically says that something should be believed in because it’s believed in. Not sure if I explained myself well, but that was an attempt. I rejected Christianity eventually because I just couldn’t make sense of the thinking of Christians. They just seemed to believe because someone told them to believe and that their belief would feel more real if they double-down on believing. My brain is too logic based for this kind of mushy thinking IMO.
o connor was very rationally sharp. bishop was very philosophically pastoral. an estranged son/father encounter. deep argument. reason is stronger now, faith is stronger now, Christ clearer now. top class.
Alex O'Connor said that when author od a book makes a character suffer we cannot say that's good for the character and I think that's just wrong. I mean Simba suffered death of his father and became a better king through that experience. Raskolnikov suffered battling with his concience and that made him realize what horrible evil he has done and that penance for that is due.
I appreciate your opening remarks about a certain 2 Catholic speakers that have good things to say. I have read good about each but only follow one. I think it’s important to be well catechized in order to watch any religious youtuber ;)
Alex seems to be wanting the answer to be ‘faith is knowing what you know ain’t so’ (Mark Twain) unfortunately it’s not that and it a a little more complicated.
Could be more complicated, or it could be just baloney.
@@shankz8854 fair play 😂👍
Faith is not believing in something against your will
@@rooster555555 baloney
Never watched you before, your nuanced take between Barron and Marshall earned you a sub.
I love the Holy Mother Church, I don't want to be a sede. But I do have reservations about Vatican II and what it caused. Nor do I want to be a modernist.
People like Barron are incredible evangelisers- which is crucial. I don't see this as much from the SSPX laypeople, who (sometimes) seem less charitable and inward-focussed.
But likewise, Barron- a Thomist and certain defender of truth- seems (again only sometimes) too interested in the modern spirit of compromise.
Where is the middle line? And the truth? The figure of Christ of course; who loved without end, who evangelised to crowds, but who suffered no fools; but I guess you just mentioned it.
We have to be careful of people who gear their public face against people, though. I have seen a few channels geared in this direction, including one channel featuring rather surprisingly vicious personal (nonideological) attacks on traditional Catholics from a sort of bizarre Novus Ordo-onlyism and obedientism. The big trad channels, OTOH, spend a majority of time attacking ideas, though the sin against attacking hierarchs in a "beating a dead horse" sense should be avoided and is part of why I don't watch these as much today.
Hey Matt, thanks for you comments at the beginning. I thought that what you said was a good example of Catholic holistic thinking. Even though I would say I have more of a left-wing temperament myself I appreciate a lot of your content. That's all from me. God bless you.
Good point. If I had to agree with everything a person says in order to appreciate them, I would never visit this particular channel.
Or have any friends.
Looking forward to the spanish channel. I've learned tons with you. It is great news because latinamerican audiences need this kind of teachings. God bless.
I agree. That's also what I dislike from Hallow app. Spanish content is by far too small. I also think this will benefit Latin America, since the bar on reasoned Faith feels pretty low here too. And now we are paying a high price.
Bishop Barron did a good job here. Unfortunately I will never forget these 4 things regarding bishop Barron:
1. Suggesting to Ben Shapiro that Jews don't have to convert to be saved.
2. His cowardly response to requests of the faithful to protect statues of the saints from BLM/Antifa.
3. Kind words towards James Martin's book.
4. His unchristian "reasonable hope" that the Hell is empty.
Matt when is @Taylor Marshal coming on the show?!! You've had Timothy Gordon on, why not Taylor? I think you guys would have a great discussion.
Unfortunately Marshall pretty much sticks to being by himself these days
He won't come on anyone's show. He probably has a standing invitation anyway.
@Prasanth Thomas Based!
@Prasanth Thomas I'm very curious as to why? lol
@@volusian95 He seems to have a lot of great guests on no?
Matt!!! How are you changed so much since July 2020? I went on watching the Trent's debate and you look like a different person there! both great, just so different!
Asking an atheist what they think is the best argument for god is akin to asking which piece of garbage looks most appetizing. It's all already been dismissed as rubbish
I think Alex wins the discussion on the definition of faith. Bishop Barron reverts to his obscure academically-infused, opaque definition, an analogy on a long-time friend revealing something, and then a "context of reason" or whatever, but Alex cuts through the muddy waters and states it clearly: You either have sufficient reason to believe something or you don't. (paraphrased).
With all due respect, I still don't understand the good bishop's definition of faith, and I daresay 98% of Catholics do not either. Barron's definition seems to be that faith is a promise to never entertain any serious challenges to your belief system after committing to it. Bad epistemology.
Good debate. But. I still find Bishop Barron disappointing. After years as a rabid anti Catholic Protestant, Bishop Barron’s videos on the Church helped me as they were winsome, well produced and edifying... to a point. But as thenI went deeper into Church history,, the great encyclicals and early catechism, councils, lives of the saints, Church Fathers- I was shocked at how squishy and cowardly our modern Catholic Church is. Matt FraddI love your podcasts but I must take issue, dear brother, when you put on the same par someone who has what you describe as the wrong “tone” in expressing timeless Church teachings and someone substantive twisting or confusing doctrine : these are
two very different levels of harm. Bishop Barron has many gifts, but the fame and praise he receives hasn’t helped him. He seems to fear offending anyone with the potency of the Gospel, it might lessen his popularity. in modern subjectivity as religion culture. You can be respectful, well reasoned, gentle while speaking with unwavering clarity on the very moral and theological truths that are so sorely needed to be said RIGHT NOW to save souls. Truth may sting. Only truth saves. It was winsome words that brought me home, it was people who possessed the charity for my soul who told me the whole truth and helped me grow so much more. Courage to tell the undiluted Catholic teaching IS charitable. Truth stings. Truth heals. Truth alone saves. We don’t need our ears tickled. We need pierced in the heart by charity and truth-two sides of the same substance! Thank you, Matt!
Get Marshall and Barron on together!!
Well said. Easter Blessings to you!
Matt Fradd is awesome
Alex takes the time to understand what religious people believe. I've heard him talk to muslims and others. He's respectful despite being told that all these gods are real. Just presuppositional apologetics laughing at the other religions. As nice as this discussion was, there was no evidence except, "I believe it, therefore it's reasonable to believe it.
I think they both missed the point. If someone you know says god revealed to him, it's completely fine to accept the fact that this person had an experience, but you're not justified in accepting his interpretation of what that experience actually was without any evidence.
Other than that, this proposed "context" the bishop offers as justification, is nothing but confirmation bias.
Alex actually didn't show himself to be a "super thoughtful guy" in the debate with Bishop Barron. Toward the latter part, he emotionally demanded that the Bishop define what he means by "Faith." Well, if he didn't understand what the Bishop meant, why didn't he ask for clarification earlier? One just has the uncomfortable feeling watching this young fellow that he is a rather smug Oxford student. Hopefully, he will mature as he gains more age and experience.
Hello Matt. I enjoyed the debate between the Bishop Barron and Alex, so thank you for your review. This was the first time I've watched any of your videos so I wanted to address the question that you posed to atheists. In general the most difficult questions to answer are the ones that we must answer with "I don't know". Among them I believe the teleological argument for theism is the strongest. This argument basically attempts to demand that God is the answer since the Universe's properties are so precise, so ordered, and so seemingly fine-tuned that nature could not over come the statistical boundaries. In a nutshell ,the reason I dismiss this argument is because we have no numerator to make such a calculation. For example , when we roll a standard die we know we have 1 in 6 chances of rolling any particular number. How would one even begin to calculate the odds of a particular universe with these particular properties and parameters coming into existence ? is there any such limitation equivalent to the six possible results of the die roll when considering these odds ? I hope this answers your question and I'm willing to address any further questions you might have.
As far as faith is concerned, it seems to me that to create this context of which the Bishop spoke, one must presuppose the existence of this God, thereby expecting him to "speak", as the Bishop puts it, and then somehow concluding that this couldn't be of one's own making but could only be a mystical communication from this presupposed God. Does that sound reasonable?
"when that person speaks her heart to you, your reason is not in control... but accepting what she says, has to be an act of real belief", you said this was a great point, I find it patently absurd. When someone tells you some 'truth' about themselves that you previously knew nothing about, you use reason y necessity. Your acceptance is based on experiences with the person, facts you know about them, facts about reality that may conflict with their 'truth' etc.
For example, your best friend tells you they were abducted by aliens. You know that person, you know they aren't crazy, they've never made up crazy stories before, they seem sincere etc. Can you reasonably believe their story. Of course not. Alien abduction flies in the face of everything we currently understand about reality, this person cannot demonstrate anything about the abduction other than their story, maybe they drink or take drugs, maybe they were medicated, maybe they lucid dream or had sleep paralysis etc. You use reason. Conversely, you accept their story on their word alone, despite the lack of evidence, simply because you trust them, that's faith.
The same applies to some kind of religion which said that there is a revelation from God asking then to kill, rape, hate others ecc. We can directly rejected such of idea even if it is said that God revealed such kind of thing. But when the revelation says something about love, self sacrifice for the good of others, to endure patiently difficulties of our life, I think it's acceptable than the first one. So, I just want to say that Bishop Barron gave us an illustration which help us to understand his point. He used B to explain A. But you used C to confute B. Peace. God bless you.
@@palma23adi The same does not apply because in every case you have no evidence of God that you can demonstrate, whereas with a friend, you could.
As far as rejecting revelation from God that says to kill, rape etc. I'm glad that you do and would, however I'm not sure how you can since that claim is contradicted in the bible.
@@bigtomivan that's why I said bishop Barron used B to explain A. But you made the case for B by introducing C. So A: trying to explain relationship with God in faith. B: using relationship with a friend as comparison to better describe A. And you introduced C: by changing the example with the story about alien, which of course doesn't fit to this comparison. Just like when Chrysostom explained the Trinity (A) using comparison of Sun, radiant, and heat (B). Then comes C : "but God is not a sun". Of course not. It's only a way of comparison which is used to explain A. You changed the propositions in B, that's why the example became problematic, as you said.
@@palma23adi my comparison was not about aliens, it was about evidence. The faith the bishop was arguing for is a perversion of faith as described in the bible and the faith believers use to affirm God.
You cannot demonstrate God, in the same way as my example cannot demonstrate his alien abduction, but you can demonstrate your friend. One is evidence based and one has no evidence.
Faith is belief WITHOUT evidence, when the bishop talks about the faith he has in his friend, he is using evidence and reason, he cannot do the same with God. That's the difference. Feelings, intuition and faith are not evidence.
@@bigtomivan So I misinterpreted your statement. Ok. In this case, I think bishop Barron said that those things you mentioned are not "stricto sensu" evidences, but a kind of "context" or "condition" which makes us decide or assent to something not out of the blue.
Whilst in your context I agree that having justified reasons to belive one thing provides you with context to accept another on faith, but i see others use this mechanism, of justifying faith by connecting it to a context supported by reasoned belief, to defend beliefs that i dont agree with. I dont know how to reconcile with the idea that this mechanism effective, as i use it to defend what i believe, whilst it seems to also support claims that i find uncomfortable.
Fr Barron helped me with my reversion but since learning more and more of the faith I can now see the deficiency in his theology and philosophy.
As for the Dave Rubin interview. If he received accolades from atheists or others who don't hold to all the truths of the faith what good is it if they are left with feeling as though they are justified in their objection of the truths of the faith.
Here is the distinction: does reason inform me that the object of testimony is believable or that the witness giving the testimony is believable? In the latter case, belief in the object of testimony is irreducible to reason alone.
Alex seems like he is really sincere in his search...as he matures he will grow in wisdom.
we venerate the martyrs who broke (man's) law in order to practice their faith. in the eyes of the world they were criminals. yes, you can say disobeying an unjust law is in fact the right thing to do. man's law is not synonymous with God's law. its important not to take things Bishop Barron says out of context to misunderstand him. this is a good rule of thumb when we're talking about anybody, period, but also for Pope Francis (and any Pope). the protestant tendency to "proof text" is not a problem for protestants alone, as it seems many Catholics fall into this tendency as well, using a sound byte in place of an argument. watch the dialogue (it's not really a debate) on Justin Briley's Unbelievable Show, it's worth it
I would put it another way: Alex is confusing "the stuff of reason" (i.e. facts) with "the reasoning process". Now of course, the reasoning process is involved in everything we do and it always goes beyond the facts that we have - sometimes further beyond them and sometimes less.
For example, when I walk out the front door, I assume the steps are there without looking at them - because they were there yesterday, the day before, etc.
So, the idea of defining Faith as being on the far side of reason makes perfect sense. Alex was simply blurring definitions.
No, not really. Alex was making sense. "The far side of reason" is a nonsensical way of rationalizing what psychologists call "motivated reasoning."
So excited about PWA español 🙌🏻
I think Taylor Marshall is a negative influence.
Trusting Australia exists is for me an act of faith but entirely rational and one in which the object is grasped by me fairly well. To get the "beyond reason" bit one needs the rational distinction of physical and spiritual. Without that Alex is right that the "beyond" is a "distinction without a difference". It's the rational concept of spritual communion which Alex needs to be shown. Barron and Fradd confuse this with the further specification of "faith" which concerns the transcendent God.
The simple point that is not getting addressed is that faith is very often used as a synonym for "trust" with respect to our relationship with God. We trust in Him based on our experience, that of others, and His revelations to us so when He makes things more and more personal and challenging for us as individuals and as a church we will submit our trust to Him and do as He asks and requires.
Heard it said before that it's like climbing a tree with another person being your visual guide. Since you trust them, you have faith in what they tell you but you can not see on your own. Jump up two feet and there is a branch that will support you so you can continue without falling. Same could be said for mountain climbing.
So by substituting the word faith with trust the problem is solved for the rational and reasonable person who appreciates the subtleties of language and it's variances instead of turning all words into the word "reason" because they're not honest enough with themselves or anyone else to admit that God exists. Alex is being difficult to support his position and Bishop Barron is missing the obvious association to trust with faith. Got that from a 1982 missal when I had to work this out years ago for myself with the Lord.
In Christ, Andrew
Appreciate your opening statement. Other than Christ, I don't think I agree 100% with anyone. Even Aquinas was wrong about the Immaculate conception. Point is, that doesn't need to detract from the truth other people do say. As a Catholic, I don't think Protestants are 100% wrong - I agree with them on certain things and disagree on others. As opposed to throwing away people like William Lane Craig, why can't we just appreciate the truths they do share?
Taylor Marshall is a whiney sensitivity man-child. Tim Gordon is much better and I'm very glad he is no longer working with Marshall.
If an atheist has a responsibility to understand arguments for theism (I agree). Does a Christian have an obligation to understand arguments made by atheists? Does a Christian have a responsibility to understand arguments for other faiths?
In my personal experience, I have spoken to many Christians about my lack of faith. I have rarely met one that didn't assume high ground/superiority, never met one that didn't assume my beliefs instead of asking, and never met one that understood arguments made by Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins etc... I would suspect a much higher number of atheists are familiar with the Kalam and the watchmaker, compared to theists that are familiar with thinkers outside of their own tradition. It takes very little energy to go along with whatever you're brought up with.
If “God” wanted to use organized religion as proof of “his” existence, it was a really dumb decision.
As an atheist the theist argument that has most resonance with me is that there are billions of people who believe they have a personal relationship with God. They are neither stupid or deluded so I have to consider they are feeling something that I don't feel and I cannot just dismiss it. It leaves me still an atheist because it's a knowledge that I don't have access to and leads onto Divine Hiddenness. But it's something that gives me sleepless nights whereas the Kalam doesn't seem to lead to any God let alone the God of the Bible.
Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life." If you are seeking the truth. You will find Jesus there waiting. All Christians are bound by Jesus's marching orders. Love your neighbour as yourself. Let all you do be in Love. Pray for your enemies. It takes alot of courage to be a christian. But the joy you will find there is worth it. The clarity of thought. The clarity you see in others. God Bless and keep searching.
Same, more or less. But consider everything that's happening in their experience is occurring in their brain. I can believe a person is having an experience, even a spiritual one, without believing their experience is a manifestation of some otherworldly power. We know even healthy brains hallucinate in various ways just as we all hallucinate our own experience of reality.
I thought the best part fo the debate was the section on evil, where Alex actually came up with some very poor arguments about the problem of evil, which perhaps revealed his lack of life experience when it comes to tragedy.
My thoughts exactly. I was surprised that Bishop didn't press him harder on that. Suffering seems to be the end all be all for Alex, yet I wonder why it is an issue for him at all? Why care about suffering in an atheistic worldview? Why the unchallenged notion that suffering is a problem ipso facto? I''ve never heard an atheist give a valid explanation of why they care at all about evil and suffering. I would genuinely like to understand this, it seems like an enormous problem for the atheist.
@@momoffive5606 Yes, the pantheist sees suffering as a part of the illusion of realty that needs to transcended, just as the good things need to be transcended. Non-attachment to the flow of karma. That is implicitly what the atheist wants to teach us but when it comes down to it, they're still pissed off with God about suffering.
@@momoffive5606 "I''ve never heard an atheist give a valid explanation of why they care at all about evil and suffering" empathy and the understanding that your conscious experience is also present in other beings.
The problem of evil/suffering is not a question about why we should care about suffering but rather about pointing out that the suffering that exist in the world is in contradiction with a loving and caring being who is also all powerful.
Like Matt says. I may disagree with Bishop Barron on some things, but he certainly has a gift for debating atheists and agnostics