Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire....
Fr. Barron is AWESOME! Love it! I share the Catholic and Christian Life with everyone I possibly can and in doing so be the leader of Christ like behavior every chance I can. Take up your Cross Daily and Follow Me! Peace and Good to you all!
Dear Fr Barron I am so grateful for your talks. They are absolutely what Catholics need today. You are able to share you erudition with us. Your style is easygoing and you speak the truth. What I don't understand is that people fight back. I suppose that is God's plan & it shows that they are thinking about the most important subject of all. Jesus died to save every human being not just those who say "Lord Lord". God bless you and happy Christmas. Mary
Father Barron, you are a wonderful priest and a wonderful person. During moments when I experience Spiritual darkness and doubts, I watch your videos and feel so inspired and empowered to speak the Truth and live my life doing God's will. I will pray for you and your ministry that you may continue to touch the hearts of all Catholics and all those longing for God.
Just talking to a friend this afternoon about this very subject. I recently moved back east and expected to find the liberals out in the streets waving their banners declaring their mantras of secularism. But there are faithful Catholics out here and churches that are taken care of and in good repair. There is not, outside of the city, as many opportunities for confession, adoration, etc. but I am so grateful to have a fellow Catholics to journey with during this Lent. I have to say this, God provided me that. Help me Lord to focus on you.
You are like a modern Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Different but similar in your entertaining, concise, and honest answers to many of the faithfuls questions. Fr. Sheen used radio and then television which were new and emerging mediums when he first started his public ministry. You have used video and the internet to help bring the faith to many others in a tangible and intelligible way. May God bless you, your ministry, and your efforts which are no doubt a manifestation of the New Evangelization.
You have a very hardcore Muslim fan in me, Father Barron. Over the last year or so, I've really come to appreciate the Church's intellectualism and spirituality. In the end, in America, we're going to end up divided into believers and non-believers, and religions taking a secondary division. Lots of love :)
I was the worst kid ever. Got kicked out of Public school and Catholic school. One day at 13 or 14yrs old I was at an assembly at a Catholic Church. St Louis de Montfort Orcutt CA. The priest said “As long as u pray everyday, u will be Catholic When u stop praying everyday, u will stop being Catholic.” I’m now 60 and still pray and still go to mass and confession
There is a huge difference between saying that government should officially sanction no particular religion and saying that a society should function without a reference to the transcendent. I have no quarrel with the first. I have a major quarrel with the second. The ideology behind that second scenario I am terming "secularist."
I would not call Newon THE father of modern science, though he was certainly one of them. And it is true that he was deeply religious, though it was his rationalism and dedication to enlightenment principles which lead to his advances in physics and mathematics, not his Christianity. The great advances which have occurred as a direct result of the Enlightenment argue that it is, in fact, distinct among philosophies, and above most of them in many ways.
Brent, in determining what makes an act right or wrong, what would you accept as evidence? In determining whether a movie is of high or low quality, what would you accept as evidence? In determining what constitutes epistemological assent, what would you accept as evidence?
What is very interesting to me -- is not only the condesension towards religion in our society -- but also a severe amenesia of basic philosophical concepts in natural reason (potentiallty vs. actuality, primary vs. secondary causes, correlation vs. causation, same vs. other, etc.). Two of the best (and most accessible) books read on the subject "10 Philosophical Mistakes" and "6 Great Ideas" by Mortimer J. Adler. Another delightful read is "Socrates Meets Jesus" by philosopher Peter Kreeft.
As I investigated the history of religions more deeply, I realized that I was not so much smarter than believers, in fact, many believers had thought more and questioned more and reasoned more about these questions than I had. It was arrogant of me to think the answer was so easy. Moreover, many believers shared all the same scientific views that I did, they believed in necessaity of logical discussion, the need for experimentation, the value of investigation. They had everything I had and more.
A hyper-rationalism that excludes non-rational ways of knowing. A deep anti-supernaturalist prejudice. A tendency to reduce all paths of knowing to the empirical-scientific path. An aggressiveness toward nature.
Pt. 1 Excellently done, as usual! If he hasn't done it already, I would welcome a video expanding on the final point about Christians bringing their point of view into the secular marketplace of ideas. In order to do this, Christians must be familiar with secularist views and their philosophical underpinnings in order to address them from the biblical worldview. This assumes we know what WE believe and why we believe it. (Cont.)
My point is this: I don't want you making these decisions for me! You've been saying for weeks that religious and philosophical ways of knowing are to be ruled out of court. Like many rationalists, you just don't see how beholden to an authoritarian system you are. And how willing you are to impose your point of view on everyone else.
Well, I agree that there are relatively benign forms of secularism, those that accept, as you say, a certain least common denominator that can bring everyone together. But there are also, as I clarify in the video, some very aggressive ideological forms of secularism that want actively to remove religion from the public conversation. That's the enemy that I'm targeting here.
I agree with Barr when he has written' " The materialist is in a straight jacket of his own making. NOTHING is allowed by him to be beyond explanation in terms of matter and the mathematical laws that it obeys. If, therefore, he comes across some phenomenon that is hard to account for in materialist terms, he often ends up denying its very existence. The materialist lives in a very small world, intellectually speaking. It is a universe of huge physical dimensions, but very narrow."
Naturalism Forever mate, you tell people to "think" but automatically assume that someone who is religious must be mentally blind. As an ex-nihilist myself i used to think that same way, come into these videos open minded and you might be surprised.
I admire your passion for truth Larry and I share it. I used to think atheism was the truth too. The turning point for me was the simple recognition that Reality is much bigger than my ability to reason. For example, time and space becomes irrelevant at the quantum level, photons exist in two places at once and can send information backward or forward in time. Other examples from physics are black holes which absorb light, or the "big-bang." ...next post...
Don't know. I think Barron does quite well on his own. What I would LOVE to See Fr. Barron do, however, is a commentary on society and history on the same level as the well-produced "Catholicism" series! (Sort of what Francis Schaeffer attempted to do in the 80s with the "How Shall We Then Live?" documentary)
Catholicism doesn't say that. Take a look at the Documents of Vatican II. We know that there are rays of truth in all of the great religions and philosophies of the world.
Let me just ask you a question: if you watch TV and movies, listen to ordinary conversations, and read newspapers, which group is it perfectly okay to criticize? The question, sadly, answers itself.
Let's see, Robert. Thinking back over the last few days, I've heard intense criticism of the following: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, ISIS, Angela Merkel, those who favor the eradication of mosquitoes, those who oppose the eradication of mosquitoes, members of the LGBTQ community, those who kneel at football games during the national anthem, scientists who invented GMO crop plants, Putin, those who oppose the use of vaccines, those who favor the use of vaccines, those who voted for Hillary Clinton, those who voted for Donald Trump, the Iranians, Muslims in general, Hispanics in general, the CEO's of several different banks, hedge fund managers, Monsanto, Pfizer, Exxon, the Federal government in general, all sorts of billionaires, .....the list goes on and on. Your self-serving, paranoid, and frankly immature notion that the Roman church is more criticized than any other institution is simply not based upon the verifiable evidence and it actually implicitly denies that the Roman church has done anything for which it ought to be intensely criticized, when indeed it has.
That the American understanding of Freedom is inspired by religious views is beyond question. But as you point out, not everyone has the same concept of freedom. The point being made here is that, regardless of your personal conception of freedom, the version that influenced the Founders was generally one that was intimately entwined with (mostly Protestant, but some Catholic) Christianity.
I welcome your non-violent resistance to secularism. It is much preferred to earlier religious means of resistance that featured burning people to death for disagreeing, convicted of being a witch, etc.
You see That is why I believe. When you put all the pieces together, pursuant to an overall investigation it, as you say "hangs together" as you say "there is a certain consistency and coherence about all of the evidence gathered together"
We do not understand these things, not because we have not figured it out yet, but because they are beyond our capacity to comprehend. Our minds require time and space to operate, yet other things in the universe are clearly governed by laws outside of time and space. This simple humble recognition made me realize that if God existed my mind would not be able to comprehend Him either. The question I had to ask myself then was: Why don't I believe? ...next post...
I'd love to have philosophical discussions with Father (Bishop) Barron. I am an atheist (former Catholic). But I strongly defend Western civilization and its values of reason and individual rights which arose and were realized through a long struggle. I appreciate the intellectual and artistic traditions of the Catholic Church which I hold originate through Thomas Aquinas unleashing Aristotle on the Christian west. It is through this understanding of intellectual history that you realize that Christianity became a melding of religion and rational ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle).
Thank-you, it is not often that I see atheists that are willing to see the merits and gifts that Catholicism brings to the table that is western civilization. Again, thank-you.
Also, many of the things he identified as violence, were not violence, but exercises of justice. While we may have improved our capacity to administer justice without physically damaging a criminal, that doesn't mean we have to identify all past instances of killing as "violence", if they were the only means available to satisfy justice. All it means is that we now have the technology that makes such killing unneeded. We aren't less violent thereby; we are just better equipped.
Once again, "science" might tell you how physical objects are perceived, but it can't begin to tell you what the good and the beautiful are. Every time you make this "argument," you are caught on the horns of the scientistic dilemma.
I don't like how Father Barron is engaging in the same sort of mischaracterizations about secularism and the Enlightenment as the new atheists make about religion. As a catholic I really want to move past the old arguments about Science vs. Religion, but in this video Father Barron seems too eager to fight old battles. Just because someone might question the Aristotelian worldview of Aquinas doesn't mean they think he was an idiot like Fr. Barron implies in the video.
adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".. Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (continued)
Father Barron can certainly answer this question better than I, but I'll just give one example that he touched upon in the video: during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century, religious revivals spread throughout the United States (especially in the South and West) like wildfire. It was precisely this rapid dissemination of Christian beliefs that inspired many of the reform efforts that followed, including women's rights (though unsuccessful for several decades) and abolition.
The question is about what moral philosophy you have, as to how people are treated. Religion is not needed to provide a standard of moral philosophy, that is practical, and effective, but we need a sense of value, purpose, and meaning on the moral philosophy we subscribe to. Adding a transcendent source to the origin of it is not necessary, as legal consequences are more effective in violating basic human rights, than laws subscribed by the gods.
It's not splitting hairs when Baron compares totalitarianism to secularism (which you yourself describe as "just separating religious institutions and government and nothing more". This is exactly my point. Its an attempt to tarnish the concept of secularism with an athiest/totalitarian brush. I have flagged this in another video of his but he has done it again here...(cont)
Fr, I'd like to thank you for helping me through a crisis of faith. I'm fairly new to your videos, but I'm wondering if you've discussed Soren Kierkegaard before. I know he's sort of the theological opposite of Thomism, in that he aligns himself with fideism, but I think his critique of religion is important to consider. Thanks!
one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. Any inference you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case. You may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.” Direct evidence is proof that does not require an inference,such as the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of a fact. (continued)
Pt. 2 But this takes time and effort, a willingness to read and study and think and learn how to express our views intelligently. Sadly, my experience has been that few Christians are willing to put forth that level of effort. How can we encourage our fellow brothers and sisters about the importance of this?
You're nowhere near determining the real question. Why does it matter whether your neighbor be harmed or not? Why is harming someone a bad thing? Brent, no amount of "evidence" from physiology or psychology is going to settle that question.
It matters from a natural standpoint because harming others of the same species isn’t exactly beneficial to the continuation of that species. People such as yourself say “morals can’t exist without god.” But, the problem is, they _can._ It’s evolutionarily selected for to discourage murder.
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact, or a series of facts, that tends to show that some other fact is true. As an example, direct evidence that it is raining is testimony from a the witness who says, “I was outside a minute ago and I saw it raining.” Circumstantial evidence that it is raining is the observation of someone entering a room carrying a wet umbrella. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. (continued)
I spent a week in a religious ashram in india with people who devote all there lives to God, there are saints there who have the gift of discernment but have no affiliation to the bible . they tell us that God gives us an experience while staying there and i certainly had one. I felt spiritual emotion while meditating on Jesus. Anyway everything they told us is written in the bible such as heavan and hell , sins , problems with gay relationships and the biggest one was the coming tribulation with is very close followed by 1000 years of the kingdom of God. We have been warned so many times this century by saints. My point is i came away knowing the truth and my belief in the bible is stronger than before.
To be fair, I would agree with the notion that simply having a secular society isn't the same as "radical secularism" or "aggressive anti-theism" as you label it. So, I acknowledge there CAN be a distinction, but that line seems to be crossed very easily. Also to clarify, above I said "Secularism" IS an attack on Religion. To be more accurate I should say, is OFTEN (not always) an attack on religion. That brand of secularism is what Fr. Barron was speaking about.
2) . . . and he outright rejected atheism. Rousseau was a very religious person, and it shows in his philosophy, whereas Mme de Stael was a Protestant (apparently non denominational). A few Enlightenment figures were atheist, but not the majority. Furthermore, a lot of ancienne regime scientist, including the afore mentioned Voltaire, Emilie de Chatelet, and the XVIIth century mathematician Blaise Pascal, saw science as a way to PROVE the existence of God.
Being Catholic requires the use of reason to have faith: From the Catholic Catechism: So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, (continued)
My problem is that Fr. Barron is using a bad column written by Neil Steinberg as a stand in for Habermas. I've only read part of After Virtue by Macintyre, but this discussion doesn't rise to that level. I probably misspoke when I used the word "old" as I'm commenting more about the style. Here on youtube Father Barron plays the role of popularizer and in that role I think its best not to make caricatures of the other side of the debate. Using Steinberg as a foil doesn't do the debate justice
I agree with almost everything you say, but giving your own religion credit for inventing the university system ignores the crucial role that Islam had in its growth, not to mention Plato's Academy. But yes, it was not secularism that invented it.
The high rates of young people who claim to be unaffiliated is not surprising, and I attribute most of this to the abysmal state of catechesis these days. Good, solid, and faithful teaching of the Church's truths is hard to come by now, and the lack of decent philosophy courses in most schools is also a culprit. Too often I find that someone my age has adopted a styled atheism because of their utter ignorance of classical thought and basic philosophical/theological concepts/precepts.
I don't think that secularism is desirable at all! By that term, I mean an ideology that systematically excludes any reference to the transcendent. Since we human beings are ordered toward transcendence, secularism is a deadening and deeply anti-humanist philosophy. I don't see how you could deny that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were radical secularists, as I'm using the term. And yes, I do indeed think that secularism has an inevitable trajectory toward totalitarianism.
As a retired attorney, I come from the legal use of the term evidence. Here is what federal jury instructions say about evidence and what people can use to decide what is a fact in a case: The evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses[,] [and] the exhibits admitted in evidence [, and stipulation[s]] You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.In our lives, we often look at (continued)
It begs the question doesn't it: IS the Bible intended to describe the nature of physical reality at ALL? I think most serious scholars (as well as the interpretive tradition of the Catholic Church, Orthodox, and to some extent -- Anglican) would say "NO". The Biblical narrative is ultimately about God, the ground of all being, and his salvation story for us. We have to avoid the reductionism of seeing the Bible as merely one, monolithic "BOOK". Rather, it is to be understood as a "LIBRARY".
Fr. Barron, I am Catholic, but was curious as to your thoughts on (what I see as) a rising "trend" of many people (especially young familes) attending non-demoinational places of worship. I'm not referring to those snake handlers either, but large centers with thousands of familes as members that seem to want to no longer be "labeled."
I agree with this. Ultimately, God has to confirm what we believe about Him Himself. However, we have to have some measure of what we consider to be most God-like, and for me it has to be Self-giving Love. As far as religions go, no other offers better grounds for this belief than the Trinity revealed by God Incarnate. Also, to make an absolute out of Self-giving Love is essentially proof itself of transcendence, since it intrinsically seeks the good of the 'other' above the self.
Thanks for the pep-talk! I'm actually going to be dusting off my MTS to do a public lecture at my church on, basically, the roots of the debate over God's existence in the conflict between Rationalism and Romanticism (and advocate for the latter). This is a good bit of inspiration to help see it through! That said, I'm not sure I disagree with the atheist guy insofar as the USA was founded by violence on Enlightenment philosophy.
This is a very odd reaction, to say the least. You seem to have watched a different video than I did. He doesn't simply "drop names", blindly. He provides a very clear context for each one. Barron knows what he's talking about. "Patronizing"? Well, it certainly pales in comparison to the FAR more condescending, arrogant secular mindset we see coming from society and media today. I think Barron's tone is quite proportionate.
God did for us what we couldnt do for ourselves. We are in a hole, dug by original sin (our flawed nature) & we needed someone outside the hole to pull us (our shared human nature) out. When Christ died for us, and resurrected. We assimilate his glorified body into ours throught the Eucharist, reconnecting humanity with God, body, blood, soul and divinity. The Doxology of the mass expresses this "through Him, with Him, In Him, in unity with the Holy Spirit all glory and honor is yours..."
It is not a matter of psychological need, it is a matter of logic. To the question, "Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?" Barr initially states:Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn't provide an argument for the existence of God. But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or “physicalism”), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today’s world." Is you mind open enough to research his argument-cont
Secularism does not lead to totalitarianism, that is a matter of political philosophy. Religion is a private matter, and rather you believe in the gods, or not, it is your political philosophy that determines where, and how we lead toward the state of politics. Secularism is humanist by default, as it enables one to pursue the universe with a focus on mankind's knowledge, instead of the gods.
Brent, in our discussions so far, I've never appealed to authority; I've appealed to reason. What I resent is your flippant dismissal of my point of view as "superstitious" and "irrational" just because I wear a roman collar. And as I've said a thousand times, there is nothing in the world wrong with "science," but not everything is subject to scientific analysis.
How come not everything is subject to scientific analysis? Science is pretty damn good at figuring out pretty much everything, so why should we exempt beliefs that people such as yourself build their entire lives around?
@@alt8791 Religion is not subject to being proven or unproven by the scientific for the same reason the validity of a syllogism or the truth value of a mathematical equation is not subject to the scientific method. Only falsifiable claims about the empirical world are subject to the scientific method, while religion makes metaphysical claims.
God loves us so much that he gives people like steinberg the free will to deny religion. That’s why the Fathers and all the religious figures like Bishop Barron obviously show us that there is a God and religion is good. If there was not a God you would not be able to deny God or religion.
The point is this: God didn't cause the "blood and gore;" we did. As St. Peter put it, "The Author of Life came and you killed him." The cross is what divine love looks like in the midst of a fallen world. God took the violence of humanity upon himself and transformed it from within, precisely through forgiveness.
Your god supposedly caused a flood that killed everyone in the world except for one family. That is his and only his fault. Sounds pretty evil to a rational person. We know though for a fact that this never happened because there is only enough water in the atmosphere to cover the entire planet in 1 inch of water, but don't let scientific facts get in the way of your sky fairy overlord fantasy.
Very good and interesting post. I appreciate the way you take note of the values that did come from the Enlightenment and yet refuse to be cowed by this secularist absolutist nonsense.
Inaccurate, the idea of rights and liberties was very much alive in the middle ages and one of the prime reasons why the majority of Europe adopted a feudal system rather then of the county level despotisms of the former Roman Empire. Yes serfdom was widespread but the idea of freedom was active even on the level of the common peasent who could petition his lord (or in some cases straight up ask his king) for redress of wrongs done. In truth medieval serfdom was very much a contractual agreement
And of course, who's gonna be merciful to you if you're not merciful? Treat people just as you would like that they treat you. It's the golden rule, and around that you build everything, but with God.
I agree that religion has influenced the development of science. Kepler, one of the founders of modern science, believed that the laws of the universe were mathematical in nature (possible the single most important idea of science) and came to this conclusion due to his belief in God. However, the actual method he used to construct his laws of planetary motion were not religious in nature- they were the pure product of empiricism. Though religion may have inspired scientists, it was rationalism
I acknowledged that religion played a role in getting us to where we are. But this doesn't add a thing to its truth claims. I'm happy to concede that Religion played an important role in the development of civilisation if Fr Baron acknowledges that secularism is desirable (and thus is desirable even if aggressive) and if he promises not to draw parallels between atheistic totalitarianism regimes and Secular governing again.
Not really. The Academy and the Lyceum were just philosophical schools under one teacher. They were not part of a systematized network of degree-granting institutions like modern universities, which developed out of early medieval monastic schools.
my opinion (not that of the poster) is that it existed in the beginning and esp. after the reformation. The beginning necessitated it because not a majority were christian (just look at "the city of God") the reformation necessitates the idea of religious freedom because of the staggering number of denominations that resulted, though the acceptance of the necessity of freedom was pretty bloody. The reformation itself allowed for the rise of this current trend in secularism, imo.
Catholic interpretation of the bible is not just ideologically convenient, It is based on the poetic, symbolic, and (sometimes) historical, themes which are clearly embedded in the scripture from a literary standpoint.
Since we are just a bunch of atoms, why do we have a desire to live? Why do we have a desire to procreate? How do I personally benefit from the continuation of the human species? What good will pro creation do me in 200 years?
Fr. Barron is AWESOME! Love it! I share the Catholic and Christian Life with everyone I possibly can and in doing so be the leader of Christ like behavior every chance I can. Take up your Cross Daily and Follow Me!
Peace and Good to you all!
Dear Fr Barron
I am so grateful for your talks. They are absolutely what Catholics need today. You are able to share you erudition with us. Your style is easygoing and you speak the truth. What I don't understand is that people fight back. I suppose that is God's plan & it shows that they are thinking about the most important subject of all. Jesus died to save every human being not just those who say "Lord Lord".
God bless you and happy Christmas.
Mary
We want, finally, the fullness of truth, the fullness of goodness, the fullness of beauty. And none of those is available through ordinary experience.
Father Barron, you are a wonderful priest and a wonderful person. During moments when I experience Spiritual darkness and doubts, I watch your videos and feel so inspired and empowered to speak the Truth and live my life doing God's will. I will pray for you and your ministry that you may continue to touch the hearts of all Catholics and all those longing for God.
Bless you, Fr. Barron! I wish you well as you move to serve in the Diocese of LA!
stem cells
Just talking to a friend this afternoon about this very subject. I recently moved back east and expected to find the liberals out in the streets waving their banners declaring their mantras of secularism. But there are faithful Catholics out here and churches that are taken care of and in good repair. There is not, outside of the city, as many opportunities for confession, adoration, etc. but I am so grateful to have a fellow Catholics to journey with during this Lent. I have to say this, God provided me that. Help me Lord to focus on you.
Thank you Fr. Barron for doing this. God bless you and please, please continue to share your thoughts and spread the Truth.
You are like a modern Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Different but similar in your entertaining, concise, and honest answers to many of the faithfuls questions. Fr. Sheen used radio and then television which were new and emerging mediums when he first started his public ministry. You have used video and the internet to help bring the faith to many others in a tangible and intelligible way. May God bless you, your ministry, and your efforts which are no doubt a manifestation of the New Evangelization.
Wonderful talk Bishop Barron, you inspire us to be more involved.
Well said, Thank You for the blessing of enriching our lives.
You have a very hardcore Muslim fan in me, Father Barron. Over the last year or so, I've really come to appreciate the Church's intellectualism and spirituality. In the end, in America, we're going to end up divided into believers and non-believers, and religions taking a secondary division. Lots of love :)
Thanks to record this kind of commentary in 1080 HD. Thanks to Father Barron for his ministry. Gino - Canada
I was the worst kid ever. Got kicked out of
Public school and Catholic school.
One day at 13 or 14yrs old I was at an assembly at a Catholic Church.
St Louis de Montfort Orcutt CA.
The priest said
“As long as u pray everyday, u will be Catholic
When u stop praying everyday, u will stop being Catholic.”
I’m now 60 and still pray and still go to mass and confession
"and by the way invented the university system" oh. drop that bomb father.
There is a huge difference between saying that government should officially sanction no particular religion and saying that a society should function without a reference to the transcendent. I have no quarrel with the first. I have a major quarrel with the second. The ideology behind that second scenario I am terming "secularist."
God bless you bishop for your intellect and your way of wording!
I would not call Newon THE father of modern science, though he was certainly one of them. And it is true that he was deeply religious, though it was his rationalism and dedication to enlightenment principles which lead to his advances in physics and mathematics, not his Christianity. The great advances which have occurred as a direct result of the Enlightenment argue that it is, in fact, distinct among philosophies, and above most of them in many ways.
Brent, in determining what makes an act right or wrong, what would you accept as evidence? In determining whether a movie is of high or low quality, what would you accept as evidence? In determining what constitutes epistemological assent, what would you accept as evidence?
I really enjoy these videos. You remind me of Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institute. Very thoughtful and deliberate.
What is very interesting to me -- is not only the condesension towards religion in our society -- but also a severe amenesia of basic philosophical concepts in natural reason (potentiallty vs. actuality, primary vs. secondary causes, correlation vs. causation, same vs. other, etc.). Two of the best (and most accessible) books read on the subject "10 Philosophical Mistakes" and "6 Great Ideas" by Mortimer J. Adler. Another delightful read is "Socrates Meets Jesus" by philosopher Peter Kreeft.
When God is moved out something very bad replaces him and moves in.
Thank you Bishop Barron for highlighting this .
GOD bless you Fr Barron.
Thank you Father. God bless.
Another beautiful video. Thank you!
Thanks Bishop! Right on the mark.
As I investigated the history of religions more deeply, I realized that I was not so much smarter than believers, in fact, many believers had thought more and questioned more and reasoned more about these questions than I had. It was arrogant of me to think the answer was so easy. Moreover, many believers shared all the same scientific views that I did, they believed in necessaity of logical discussion, the need for experimentation, the value of investigation. They had everything I had and more.
Fr. Robert...i would love hear from you giving us a teaching sometime in canada
A hyper-rationalism that excludes non-rational ways of knowing. A deep anti-supernaturalist prejudice. A tendency to reduce all paths of knowing to the empirical-scientific path. An aggressiveness toward nature.
Pt. 1
Excellently done, as usual!
If he hasn't done it already, I would welcome a video expanding on the final point about Christians bringing their point of view into the secular marketplace of ideas. In order to do this, Christians must be familiar with secularist views and their philosophical underpinnings in order to address them from the biblical worldview. This assumes we know what WE believe and why we believe it.
(Cont.)
Thank you, Father Barron!
My point is this: I don't want you making these decisions for me! You've been saying for weeks that religious and philosophical ways of knowing are to be ruled out of court. Like many rationalists, you just don't see how beholden to an authoritarian system you are. And how willing you are to impose your point of view on everyone else.
THE MIND CANNOT SEE GOD... THE HEART CAN
Hearts pump blood, hears can't see !
Figure of speech
Him Bike a stupid one
Praise the Lord Jesus Christ 🙏 Mother Mary Pray For Us 🙏Abba Father Bless us and we Adore You 🙏
Well, I agree that there are relatively benign forms of secularism, those that accept, as you say, a certain least common denominator that can bring everyone together. But there are also, as I clarify in the video, some very aggressive ideological forms of secularism that want actively to remove religion from the public conversation. That's the enemy that I'm targeting here.
God bless you for that!
I agree with Barr when he has written' " The materialist is in a straight jacket of his own making. NOTHING is allowed by him to be beyond explanation in terms of matter and the mathematical laws that it obeys. If, therefore, he comes across some phenomenon that is hard to account for in materialist terms, he often ends up denying its very existence. The materialist lives in a very small world, intellectually speaking. It is a universe of huge physical dimensions, but very narrow."
we are a sad, sad people to reject the Truth that Fr. Barron's delivers
No, David, you are a "sad, sad" person not to THINK!
Naturalism Forever mate, you tell people to "think" but automatically assume that someone who is religious must be mentally blind.
As an ex-nihilist myself i used to think that same way, come into these videos open minded and you might be surprised.
I admire your passion for truth Larry and I share it. I used to think atheism was the truth too. The turning point for me was the simple recognition that Reality is much bigger than my ability to reason. For example, time and space becomes irrelevant at the quantum level, photons exist in two places at once and can send information backward or forward in time. Other examples from physics are black holes which absorb light, or the "big-bang." ...next post...
Don't know. I think Barron does quite well on his own. What I would LOVE to See Fr. Barron do, however, is a commentary on society and history on the same level as the well-produced "Catholicism" series! (Sort of what Francis Schaeffer attempted to do in the 80s with the "How Shall We Then Live?" documentary)
Catholicism doesn't say that. Take a look at the Documents of Vatican II. We know that there are rays of truth in all of the great religions and philosophies of the world.
Excellent video Father. God bless your work.
Let me just ask you a question: if you watch TV and movies, listen to ordinary conversations, and read newspapers, which group is it perfectly okay to criticize? The question, sadly, answers itself.
Let's see, Robert. Thinking back over the last few days, I've heard intense criticism of the following: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, ISIS, Angela Merkel, those who favor the eradication of mosquitoes, those who oppose the eradication of mosquitoes, members of the LGBTQ community, those who kneel at football games during the national anthem, scientists who invented GMO crop plants, Putin, those who oppose the use of vaccines, those who favor the use of vaccines, those who voted for Hillary Clinton, those who voted for Donald Trump, the Iranians, Muslims in general, Hispanics in general, the CEO's of several different banks, hedge fund managers, Monsanto, Pfizer, Exxon, the Federal government in general, all sorts of billionaires, .....the list goes on and on.
Your self-serving, paranoid, and frankly immature notion that the Roman church is more criticized than any other institution is simply not based upon the verifiable evidence and it actually implicitly denies that the Roman church has done anything for which it ought to be intensely criticized, when indeed it has.
That the American understanding of Freedom is inspired by religious views is beyond question. But as you point out, not everyone has the same concept of freedom.
The point being made here is that, regardless of your personal conception of freedom, the version that influenced the Founders was generally one that was intimately entwined with (mostly Protestant, but some Catholic) Christianity.
I welcome your non-violent resistance to secularism. It is much preferred to earlier religious means of resistance that featured burning people to death for disagreeing, convicted of being a witch, etc.
You see That is why I believe. When you put all the pieces together, pursuant to an overall investigation it, as you say "hangs together" as you say "there is a certain consistency and coherence about all of the evidence gathered together"
We do not understand these things, not because we have not figured it out yet, but because they are beyond our capacity to comprehend. Our minds require time and space to operate, yet other things in the universe are clearly governed by laws outside of time and space. This simple humble recognition made me realize that if God existed my mind would not be able to comprehend Him either. The question I had to ask myself then was: Why don't I believe? ...next post...
Which is what I said. It doesn't matter if it is a twisted form of Christianity, my point was that they were inspired by religion.
I'd love to have philosophical discussions with Father (Bishop) Barron. I am an atheist (former Catholic). But I strongly defend Western civilization and its values of reason and individual rights which arose and were realized through a long struggle. I appreciate the intellectual and artistic traditions of the Catholic Church which I hold originate through Thomas Aquinas unleashing Aristotle on the Christian west. It is through this understanding of intellectual history that you realize that Christianity became a melding of religion and rational ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle).
Thank-you, it is not often that I see atheists that are willing to see the merits and gifts that Catholicism brings to the table that is western civilization. Again, thank-you.
Agnes Philomena I discovered Ayn Rand.
Also, many of the things he identified as violence, were not violence, but exercises of justice. While we may have improved our capacity to administer justice without physically damaging a criminal, that doesn't mean we have to identify all past instances of killing as "violence", if they were the only means available to satisfy justice. All it means is that we now have the technology that makes such killing unneeded. We aren't less violent thereby; we are just better equipped.
Once again, "science" might tell you how physical objects are perceived, but it can't begin to tell you what the good and the beautiful are. Every time you make this "argument," you are caught on the horns of the scientistic dilemma.
I don't like how Father Barron is engaging in the same sort of mischaracterizations about secularism and the Enlightenment as the new atheists make about religion.
As a catholic I really want to move past the old arguments about Science vs. Religion, but in this video Father Barron seems too eager to fight old battles.
Just because someone might question the Aristotelian worldview of Aquinas doesn't mean they think he was an idiot like Fr. Barron implies in the video.
adapted to the intelligence of all"; they are "motives of credibility" (motiva credibilitatis), which show that the assent of faith is "by no means a blind impulse of the mind".. Faith and science: "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth." (continued)
Great video Bishop barron :D
Father Barron can certainly answer this question better than I, but I'll just give one example that he touched upon in the video: during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century, religious revivals spread throughout the United States (especially in the South and West) like wildfire. It was precisely this rapid dissemination of Christian beliefs that inspired many of the reform efforts that followed, including women's rights (though unsuccessful for several decades) and abolition.
Well, just to be fair, what do you think about ideological secularism's brutal attacks on religion? There was plenty of violence on both sides.
The question is about what moral philosophy you have, as to how people are treated. Religion is not needed to provide a standard of moral philosophy, that is practical, and effective, but we need a sense of value, purpose, and meaning on the moral philosophy we subscribe to. Adding a transcendent source to the origin of it is not necessary, as legal consequences are more effective in violating basic human rights, than laws subscribed by the gods.
It's not splitting hairs when Baron compares totalitarianism to secularism (which you yourself describe as "just separating religious institutions and government and nothing more".
This is exactly my point. Its an attempt to tarnish the concept of secularism with an athiest/totalitarian brush. I have flagged this in another video of his but he has done it again here...(cont)
Fr, I'd like to thank you for helping me through a crisis of faith. I'm fairly new to your videos, but I'm wondering if you've discussed Soren Kierkegaard before. I know he's sort of the theological opposite of Thomism, in that he aligns himself with fideism, but I think his critique of religion is important to consider. Thanks!
one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. Any
inference you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case. You may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.”
Direct evidence is proof that does not require an inference,such as the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of a fact. (continued)
And I suppose that you decide what's sane, rational, and superstitious.
Pt. 2
But this takes time and effort, a willingness to read and study and think and learn how to express our views intelligently.
Sadly, my experience has been that few Christians are willing to put forth that level of effort. How can we encourage our fellow brothers and sisters about the importance of this?
Mic 🎤 drop. Crushed it Father
You're nowhere near determining the real question. Why does it matter whether your neighbor be harmed or not? Why is harming someone a bad thing? Brent, no amount of "evidence" from physiology or psychology is going to settle that question.
It matters from a natural standpoint because harming others of the same species isn’t exactly beneficial to the continuation of that species. People such as yourself say “morals can’t exist without god.” But, the problem is, they _can._ It’s evolutionarily selected for to discourage murder.
Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact,
or a series of facts, that tends to show that some other fact is true.
As an example, direct evidence that it is raining is testimony from a the witness who says, “I was outside a minute ago and I saw it raining.” Circumstantial evidence that it is raining is the observation of someone entering a room carrying a wet umbrella. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. (continued)
I spent a week in a religious ashram in india with people who devote all there lives to God, there are saints there who have the gift of discernment but have no affiliation to the bible . they tell us that God gives us an experience while staying there and i certainly had one. I felt spiritual emotion while meditating on Jesus.
Anyway everything they told us is written in the bible such as heavan and hell , sins , problems with gay relationships and the biggest one was the coming tribulation with is very close followed by 1000 years of the kingdom of God. We have been warned so many times this century by saints.
My point is i came away knowing the truth and my belief in the bible is stronger than before.
To be fair, I would agree with the notion that simply having a secular society isn't the same as "radical secularism" or "aggressive anti-theism" as you label it.
So, I acknowledge there CAN be a distinction, but that line seems to be crossed very easily.
Also to clarify, above I said "Secularism" IS an attack on Religion. To be more accurate I should say, is OFTEN (not always) an attack on religion.
That brand of secularism is what Fr. Barron was speaking about.
2) . . . and he outright rejected atheism. Rousseau was a very religious person, and it shows in his philosophy, whereas Mme de Stael was a Protestant (apparently non denominational). A few Enlightenment figures were atheist, but not the majority. Furthermore, a lot of ancienne regime scientist, including the afore mentioned Voltaire, Emilie de Chatelet, and the XVIIth century mathematician Blaise Pascal, saw science as a way to PROVE the existence of God.
Being Catholic requires the use of reason to have faith: From the Catholic Catechism: So "that the submission of our faith might nevertheless be in accordance with reason, God willed that external proofs of his Revelation should be joined to the internal helps of the Holy Spirit."29 Thus the miracles of Christ and the saints, prophecies, the Church's growth and holiness, and her fruitfulness and stability "are the most certain signs of divine Revelation, (continued)
My problem is that Fr. Barron is using a bad column written by Neil Steinberg as a stand in for Habermas. I've only read part of After Virtue by Macintyre, but this discussion doesn't rise to that level. I probably misspoke when I used the word "old" as I'm commenting more about the style. Here on youtube Father Barron plays the role of popularizer and in that role I think its best not to make caricatures of the other side of the debate. Using Steinberg as a foil doesn't do the debate justice
I agree with almost everything you say, but giving your own religion credit for inventing the university system ignores the crucial role that Islam had in its growth, not to mention Plato's Academy. But yes, it was not secularism that invented it.
Finally! High Definition Video!
The high rates of young people who claim to be unaffiliated is not surprising, and I attribute most of this to the abysmal state of catechesis these days. Good, solid, and faithful teaching of the Church's truths is hard to come by now, and the lack of decent philosophy courses in most schools is also a culprit. Too often I find that someone my age has adopted a styled atheism because of their utter ignorance of classical thought and basic philosophical/theological concepts/precepts.
I don't think that secularism is desirable at all! By that term, I mean an ideology that systematically excludes any reference to the transcendent. Since we human beings are ordered toward transcendence, secularism is a deadening and deeply anti-humanist philosophy. I don't see how you could deny that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were radical secularists, as I'm using the term. And yes, I do indeed think that secularism has an inevitable trajectory toward totalitarianism.
As a retired attorney, I come from the legal use of the term evidence. Here is what federal jury instructions say about evidence and what people can use to decide what is a fact in a case: The evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses[,] [and] the exhibits admitted in evidence [, and stipulation[s]] You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.In our lives, we often look at (continued)
It begs the question doesn't it: IS the Bible intended to describe the nature of physical reality at ALL? I think most serious scholars (as well as the interpretive tradition of the Catholic Church, Orthodox, and to some extent -- Anglican) would say "NO". The Biblical narrative is ultimately about God, the ground of all being, and his salvation story for us. We have to avoid the reductionism of seeing the Bible as merely one, monolithic "BOOK". Rather, it is to be understood as a "LIBRARY".
Would love to see Fr. Barron debate Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins and company.
Fr. Barron, I am Catholic, but was curious as to your thoughts on (what I see as) a rising "trend" of many people (especially young familes) attending non-demoinational places of worship. I'm not referring to those snake handlers either, but large centers with thousands of familes as members that seem to want to no longer be "labeled."
I agree with this. Ultimately, God has to confirm what we believe about Him Himself. However, we have to have some measure of what we consider to be most God-like, and for me it has to be Self-giving Love. As far as religions go, no other offers better grounds for this belief than the Trinity revealed by God Incarnate. Also, to make an absolute out of Self-giving Love is essentially proof itself of transcendence, since it intrinsically seeks the good of the 'other' above the self.
Thanks for the pep-talk! I'm actually going to be dusting off my MTS to do a public lecture at my church on, basically, the roots of the debate over God's existence in the conflict between Rationalism and Romanticism (and advocate for the latter). This is a good bit of inspiration to help see it through!
That said, I'm not sure I disagree with the atheist guy insofar as the USA was founded by violence on Enlightenment philosophy.
Not that we're presenting crude caricatures of religion or anything!
This is a very odd reaction, to say the least. You seem to have watched a different video than I did. He doesn't simply "drop names", blindly. He provides a very clear context for each one. Barron knows what he's talking about. "Patronizing"? Well, it certainly pales in comparison to the FAR more condescending, arrogant secular mindset we see coming from society and media today. I think Barron's tone is quite proportionate.
God did for us what we couldnt do for ourselves. We are in a hole, dug by original sin (our flawed nature) & we needed someone outside the hole to pull us (our shared human nature) out.
When Christ died for us, and resurrected. We assimilate his glorified body into ours throught the Eucharist, reconnecting humanity with God, body, blood, soul and divinity.
The Doxology of the mass expresses this "through Him, with Him, In Him, in unity with the Holy Spirit all glory and honor is yours..."
very clearly explained, well understood.
It is not a matter of psychological need, it is a matter of logic. To the question, "Does Quantum Physics Make it Easier to Believe in God?" Barr initially states:Not in any direct way. That is, it doesn't provide an argument for the existence of God. But it does so indirectly, by providing an argument against the philosophy called materialism (or “physicalism”), which is the main intellectual opponent of belief in God in today’s world." Is you mind open enough to research his argument-cont
Secularism does not lead to totalitarianism, that is a matter of political philosophy. Religion is a private matter, and rather you believe in the gods, or not, it is your political philosophy that determines where, and how we lead toward the state of politics. Secularism is humanist by default, as it enables one to pursue the universe with a focus on mankind's knowledge, instead of the gods.
Brent, in our discussions so far, I've never appealed to authority; I've appealed to reason. What I resent is your flippant dismissal of my point of view as "superstitious" and "irrational" just because I wear a roman collar. And as I've said a thousand times, there is nothing in the world wrong with "science," but not everything is subject to scientific analysis.
How come not everything is subject to scientific analysis? Science is pretty damn good at figuring out pretty much everything, so why should we exempt beliefs that people such as yourself build their entire lives around?
Religion is not excused to scientific analysis. There is zero evidence that a god or any for of super-natural exists.
@@alt8791 Religion is not subject to being proven or unproven by the scientific for the same reason the validity of a syllogism or the truth value of a mathematical equation is not subject to the scientific method. Only falsifiable claims about the empirical world are subject to the scientific method, while religion makes metaphysical claims.
God loves us so much that he gives people like steinberg the free will to deny religion. That’s why the Fathers and all the religious figures like Bishop Barron obviously show us that there is a God and religion is good. If there was not a God you would not be able to deny God or religion.
I define my well being as maintaining my loving relationship with God, which precludes deception.
The point is this: God didn't cause the "blood and gore;" we did.
As St. Peter put it, "The Author of Life came and you killed him." The cross is what divine love looks like in the midst of a fallen world. God took the violence of humanity upon himself and transformed it from within, precisely through forgiveness.
Your god supposedly caused a flood that killed everyone in the world except for one family. That is his and only his fault. Sounds pretty evil to a rational person.
We know though for a fact that this never happened because there is only enough water in the atmosphere to cover the entire planet in 1 inch of water, but don't let scientific facts get in the way of your sky fairy overlord fantasy.
Very good and interesting post. I appreciate the way you take note of the values that did come from the Enlightenment and yet refuse to be cowed by this secularist absolutist nonsense.
Inaccurate, the idea of rights and liberties was very much alive in the middle ages and one of the prime reasons why the majority of Europe adopted a feudal system rather then of the county level despotisms of the former Roman Empire. Yes serfdom was widespread but the idea of freedom was active even on the level of the common peasent who could petition his lord (or in some cases straight up ask his king) for redress of wrongs done. In truth medieval serfdom was very much a contractual agreement
And of course, who's gonna be merciful to you if you're not merciful? Treat people just as you would like that they treat you. It's the golden rule, and around that you build everything, but with God.
I agree that religion has influenced the development of science. Kepler, one of the founders of modern science, believed that the laws of the universe were mathematical in nature (possible the single most important idea of science) and came to this conclusion due to his belief in God. However, the actual method he used to construct his laws of planetary motion were not religious in nature- they were the pure product of empiricism. Though religion may have inspired scientists, it was rationalism
I acknowledged that religion played a role in getting us to where we are. But this doesn't add a thing to its truth claims.
I'm happy to concede that Religion played an important role in the development of civilisation if Fr Baron acknowledges that secularism is desirable (and thus is desirable even if aggressive) and if he promises not to draw parallels between atheistic totalitarianism regimes and Secular governing again.
The book has flaws, but I do not think that was one of them. He calculated the risk of violent death for the individual and addressed your criticism.
Not really. The Academy and the Lyceum were just philosophical schools under one teacher. They were not part of a systematized network of degree-granting institutions like modern universities, which developed out of early medieval monastic schools.
my opinion (not that of the poster) is that it existed in the beginning and esp. after the reformation. The beginning necessitated it because not a majority were christian (just look at "the city of God") the reformation necessitates the idea of religious freedom because of the staggering number of denominations that resulted, though the acceptance of the necessity of freedom was pretty bloody. The reformation itself allowed for the rise of this current trend in secularism, imo.
I really like this guy!
Catholic interpretation of the bible is not just ideologically convenient, It is based on the poetic, symbolic, and (sometimes) historical, themes which are clearly embedded in the scripture from a literary standpoint.
Since we are just a bunch of atoms, why do we have a desire to live? Why do we have a desire to procreate? How do I personally benefit from the continuation of the human species? What good will pro creation do me in 200 years?