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....
From my reading of "The Swerve," I thought Greenblatt credits Late Medieval papacy. Humanists are against labeling all of the Medieval Period as the "Dark Ages," including Greenblatt. Most say that the "Dark Ages" were in the early part of the Medieval Period. Greenblatt makes the distinction between the book-burning church and the book-seeking church. And I remember him saying that the later Medieval popes were in effect open minded. His central thesis was that the pre-Socratic philosophy that was sought out and destroyed during the Early Medieval Period, was sought out and translated during the Late Medieval Period, and because of the nature of the philosophy and the invention of the printing press, there occurred paradigm shift into modernity. (He does account for other reasons, like the Plague.) Greenblatt is more than aware of the Late Medieval tradition of "doubting in order to strengthen the faith." (I can't quite sum up the tradition in few words, but you mentioned it in the video.) I didn't pick up on the "Dark Age" caricature of the Medieval Period.
I just finished watching a PBS interview of Greenblatt and his book. It's thrilling to review the Roman world becoming the Middle Ages but throughout I felt uneasy. Father, you have uttered every single word I couldn't frame. "Will in the World," is one of my favorite books also.
Christianity has been "antagonistic to knowledge," eh? Augustine, Chrysostom, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Michelangelo, Mozart, Gregor Mendel, Bach, Fr. Georges LeMaitre (formulator of the Big Bang Theory)--all devout Christians. End game for you, I'm afraid!
I could just as easily name non-Christians who were protagonists of knowledge if so many of them had not been brutally wiped from history by "well meaning" Christians during the early middle ages. Although I do not recall mention of it within The Swerve, Greenblatt states in an online video (th-cam.com/video/mXqHOF1B808/w-d-xo.html) that Lucretius is the singular example of a complete Epicurean work, and that this is the case since Epicurean texts were specifically chosen out of existence by the contemporaries of your "devout Christians". In my view, the focus of your video is obscured since the "scholars" on your side of the debate have eviscerated any and all of the sources which were important to Lucretius', and by extension Greenblatt's, argument. The fact that 'De Rerum Natura' is currently in circulation is an anomaly because early medieval Christians would have found the ideas therein to be wholly intolerable. Perhaps if we had even a sizable fraction of Epicurean works there would be a list of thinkers as long as yours, but modern academia does not have access to this due to the negligence of people who wanted their own ideas proliferated and opposing ideas destroyed. The following statement must be emphasized: The act of removing texts from the collective lexicon are laid entirely at the feet of the religious. Secular thinkers prefer to be able to reference both sides of an issue, but it would seem that the religious are hell bent on removing the opposing position completely. And this is an idea expressed within Lucretius' work before the life and works of Jesus.
I'm afraid I can't agree with your opening statement. I'm on my third reading of the book and Greenblatt makes it very clear that many in the Church were not dogmatic but were Christian humanists, and that it was through intervention by a Catholic cardinal (later elected Pope) that Lucretius was removed from the list of forbidden books. I think Greenblatt painted a complex picture of the church at the end of the Middle Ages, and of the individuals in question. I'm wondering if it isn't perhaps difficult for you to see the balance in the book because hearing criticism of the things we love is painful, and painful experiences tend to stand out more for us.
@ndzoko But put yourself in the shoes of a three year old, contemplating the moves and decisions of his father. How many would he understand? How much real good would he interpret as evil? Now raise that to the infinite degree, and you'll have some sense of what it's like for us to witness and assess the moves and decisions of God.
@BeingItself Certain bad people, acting in the name of the church, did terrible things. At its best, and according to its ownmost nature, the Church embraces all expressions of the truth, precisely because the incarnation of the Logos (the Word) stands at the heart of our tradition.
I don't see Greenblatt has a simplistic approach. He is aware that religion is by its nature restricting a broad view of knowledge. Perhaps he is a little bit critical of Catholicism, but I believe he is not afraid to be honest. The honest exploration of knowledge should never be squelched. Some Catholic priests would say that some information is not good for the masses. In an information society, unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle. We can't control knowledge anymore.
My experience reading Greenblatt's book was similar to the Bishop's. I believe Jefferson was more Thomist than he was an Epicurean. Natural theology is Jefferson's concern, and the place of Lucretius's (nascent and undeveloped) theory in his thinking is minor. Atomism is subsumed in Jefferson's larger interest in studying nature comprehensively, and--more to the point--Jefferson's goal is Aristotelian: a quest for Happiness, the pursuit of Eudemonia.
I recommend "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E Woods. I suggest that the big enemy of intellectual curiosity today is the tendency to decide too quickly that we already understand. This seems to be especially true when people talk about Catholicism.
In any true curiosity-based inquiry lies a question: « What am I looking for when I am looking at? » Any form of « I’m right, they’re wrong » as an image capture radar is unable to produce a global picture sometimes filled with disturbing surprises. Shalom, Levis Shalom
Are you giving a literary critique of a book or are you trying reaffirm your world view through the critique of a book that offers an opposite point of view than the one you accept? It sounds more like you have complaints and condemnation for Lucretius just for having proposed ideas that would eventually through history,oppose catholic church dogma,and easily dismiss the subject matter of the book as invalid,a topic that has been dealt with before in centuries past. It is exactly this "shoving aside" of themes without church value the practice of past religious censors,whom,when at the climax of their ability to enforce,were more effective in crying out heresy,powers no longer these censors have and orders the church can no longer give.
Jaime Lagdameo I also think that it's a bit more than just a polemical defense on Fr. Barron's part. If you listen carefully past his simple disagreement is a genuine disappointment that the book COULD have been scholarly, but it's and is instead just sloppy propaganda when it could be a more factually derived and nuanced exploration without even changing sides. see that's the thing, there's positions, and then there's scholarly fairness, are you looking at as many and as broad a data set as possible or are you more concerned with scoring points and telling tall tales? He and I are both disappointed that this looks like it turned out to be the latter and not the former.
@TheHardout2005 "The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus. They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers." ~Experiment-Resources - History of The Scientific Method
Friend, I don't mind critiques of my world view. I just want them to be intelligent, balanced, nuanced, and well-informed. I'm afraid that Greenblatt's was none of those.
@ScottLG12 Not sure what your point is here? That there were smart people around during the Renaissance? Okay. My argument was with Greenblatt's totally caricatured presentation of the Middle Ages.
@ndzoko Yes, sometimes there have been problems where theology was thought to be at odds with science. It's a good thing our knowledge of both has improved, then.
@ndzoko CONT To be honest though, if God stepped in personally every time, if He answered every prayer, can you imagine the chaos? Can you see how life would be give-and-take with God (and thus not truly loving)? Or how there would not exist negatives at all? Or if there existed negatives but God would quickly aright them the moment you asked, life would be shallow, and so would our relationship with God. Think about the consequences of what you're asking.
@ndzoko An institution that includes over a billion people is "on its way out?!" Give me a break. We have our problems, as every religion does, but take a look beyond the pages of the New York Times. Catholicism is exploding in Africa, Latin America, and many parts of Asia. Priests are in fact leaving at a much lower rate than, say, 30 years ago, and seminaries are flourishing in our country.
@filthyswit Oh brother. Tell me how the capacity to read being limited in the early Renaissance has a thing to do with my argument against Greenblatt's simplistic account.
When you really think about it, how could a bishop feel any differently? Greenblatt's portrayal of the papacy in the early 1400's is extremely unflattering and I don't think there's any debate that the papacy of that era was in disarray and corrupt. But the thesis of "The Swerve" is that many works from ancient Greece and Rome didn't make it out of history because some subjects were deemed threatening and heretical to Christianity. He uses "On the Nature of Things" as an example, and you basically walk away feeling grateful for what was salvaged from the ancients, and disheartened at the sheer number of works that were lost. Of course there were brilliant minds in the church in the 1300s and 1400s, but there was a tremendous amount of corruption and violence as well. There was a lot of subjectivity in what was copied and what was allowed to deteriorate and much of that subjectivity was influenced by the religious thought of the time.
I took a Latin class on Lucretius earlier this year. That's some terrible philosophy in the De Rerum Natura! Definitely leads to an empty life, and only a shallow sort of happiness for people who could afford to live a comfortable lifestyle. Great commentary Father! I was considering reading this, but I'll probably steer clear of it.
@ndzoko It was actually never officially stated as Catholic doctrine (which is called a declaration ex cathedra). It was more - let's say - postulated.
I heard that part of priesthood studies back in the 1940's in America and Europe included lots of Shakespeare. Anyone knows or have experience with this?
@EspressoFan4Life It seems to me, that if the Church had any sort of special insight into what is right and wrong, they would not be burning folks to death. Regardless of the cultural context.
@BeingItself "Church had any sort of special insight into what is right and wrong, they would not be burning folks to death." And the Church does condemn the act of burning innocent folks to death. We have to realize also that people that make up the church are imperfect human people just like you and me. Those people that do that are undermining the end of the Church. Unfortunately, the argument against the Church of all the evil things people have done in its name has become tired lately.
@itslifeisall Yes, certain individuals at particular times during its history. No one denies that. Of course, to extend that to the the entire Church over all ages is the fallacy of (over)generalisation. In any case, you'll notice that what I said is that we have always "taught against" such things. I did not make the claim of the moral perfection of its members. Not once have we embraced these acts, or even excused them.
How do you rate the killing of Bruno ? Or the many others killed, tortured or silenced during those times for daring to speak scientifically or logically in ways deemed against doctrine ? More to the point, a philosophy that rejected gods, all gods, and monotheism as well ... sure that would have been really popular then ... there is no doubt that science was held back by the Catholic church ... that some christians had the ability to be scientists in no way makes the Catholic church the cause of, or even facilitator of, their scientific contributions .. you claim that which is not yours to claim whilst dismissing and diminishing the church's very real violent moves against those who dared to begin to think scientifically ...
@BeingItself I never said anything that stated that his execution was either rightous or wrong, actually. My point was that Bruno is often portrayed as a 'man of science' against 'the anti-science Church', which is quite a false depiction of both Bruno and the Church. Whether Bruno deserved his sentence or not is a whole different discussion, which I did not touch here.
I share your disappointment in this book, though not for the same reasons. I think that you probably know that Greenblatt was really referring to conjecture on the nature of divinity (nothing beyond faith) and also to a general wariness of contamination (see de Doctrina Christiana and various Jerome Epistles) from non-Christain sources when he was discussing both self-negating curiositas avoidance and to fear-of-the-inquisition self-denial which was a feature of post-Theodosian Europe. Also, I don't think that he really juxtaposes a pleasure-principle, sensual epicureanism with a grey, one-dimensional Christian morality. He presents the latter in all of its wonderfully human glory (admittedly he focuses rather predictably on the hypocrisy angle). It is the presentation of the former, though, that I found almost laughably absurd. I sort of guessed from the very start where he was going with his narrative after the first mention of Lucretius' "pursuit of happiness" principle. I chuckled as I read of Amerigo Vespucci, chortled upon reading his interpretation of the significance of Utopia; but it all died down into a sort of deflated disappointment with the final few lines quoting Thomas Jefferson. I looked back at what could have been a really good ripping yarn - something between Umberto Eco and Sophie's World - and thought how could such a transcendently excellent topic have been reduced to such nationalistic hogwash. I thought how could this win a Pulitzer prize. Then I remembered where the award takes place and I remembered that it was attempting to be popular (lucrative) in a specific geographical location. Then it all made sense. If only I had anticipated this before I began to read. Still, at least the scant elements of de rerum natura that found their way onto the page may encourage the less 'patriotic' types to broaden their minds by reading a bit more.
But the mainstream of the Catholic tradition never adopted this sort of anti-intellectualism! Augustine read Plato, Cicero, Aristotle, Plotinus, and many other "pagan" thinkers with great profit. I think, too, you're being way too easy on him when it comes to Christian morality. I found an obsession with Christianity's supposed repression of the sexual instinct--despite the counter-evidence in Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Chartres Cathedral, etc. etc.
Fr. Robert Barron Yes, I agree, he should have made much more of the Augustinian tradition (incidentally, I think Augustine is one of the most impressive figures of antiquity - any period). I think perhaps that he thought he had covered that base (the Augustine/Plato/Cicero/Aristotle angle) by his reference to the victory of Stoicism (and thus providence). I suppose we just have to remember that this is 'popular' humanities. We should perhaps be grateful for no other reason than that the book shows a sizeable chuck of the turba that our current Atheistic vs Theist debates are not new, and have been argued many times before by people using the same scientific/philosophical assumption. Plus ca change. Incidentally, if you were depressed by this book and wish to read a slightly more nuanced and enjoyable romp through the ancient providential vs random debate (and, of course if you have time), you should - if you have not already - have a look at Emma Gee's recently published book 'Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition' (OUP). It won't win the Pulitzer prize for non-fiction, but neither does it wear its scholarship too heavily.
@ndzoko Hey, come on - rude. Well the Bible is not some guide on how to live one's life! You can find that sort of info in there, but it's also more properly referred to as a library rather than a book. It is composed of many books of different types - history, poetry, saga, allegory etc. Well it's not silly if I don't know your background. I had somewhat of a conversion myself, mind you. What argument? I think I've answered everything you've presented.
@ndzoko Hmm I never got this one until now... Your response isn't reasonably comparable, because if you believed in God, the One in which I do, you wouldn't believe He created bad things. You'd believe that God is good, and that evil is a departure from good, and thus any departure from goodness is a departure from God. Any non-human-caused 'evils' are not the fault of God, as this is impossible, and questioning why He doesn't stop them can be answered in many ways, but what is clear is CONT
@ndzoko Even if you thought I was referring to Christians of the day (and I would probably contest that most of these are misunderstood), all of these but one are appealing to Jews.
As for material wealth, "The Catholic church,... is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The Vatican,..., has been increasingly orientated towards the U.S. The Wall Street Journal said that the Vatican's financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time. "The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars." ~ Avro Manhattan
Barron says he doesn't know "any period in our history more properly curious, when intellectual energy was more on display" than the Middle Ages? To illustrate, he scours a 1000-year period for a handful of scholars like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales, Henry of Ghent, Wm of Ockham, Albert the Great. Real tough for the misnamed "Renaissance" to beat that with its roster of slackers like da Vinci, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Kepler, Machiavelli, Shakespeare....
@TheHardout2005 CONT AGAIN For example, you'd then be claiming that the presence of evil disproves (or provides evidence against) God's existence, and God's non-existence implicitly disproves the non-existence of evil. And of course, that includes 'natural evils'. As Dr WLC says, the Problem of Evil is the largest emotional objection to God, but logically, it actually proves His existence. Apologies for the size and lack of syntax.
@itslifeisall Who, or what, is Avro Manhattan? Did you not notice the apparently deliberate confusion between the religious organisation the Catholic Church, and the sovereign state of the Vatican? Did you not see the fallacy of equivocation that attempts to unite them under a single definition? Is it not reasonable for a nation to participate in the global market? Do you think other first world countries have less wealth - or more?
@Entropy3ko Great strategy. When you are losing an argument, just call the other guy ignorant. Try to have a moment of deep self-reflection and be absolutely honest with yourself. Do you really believe Jesus rose form the dead? Do you really believe in heaven and hell?.
@BeingItself I was not really losing any argument: I just call it as I see it. Most atheist I know talk about religion but do not know anything about it . Most of them do not even know what 'substance' means, for example (which is not the same as the termi substance as meant in chemistry, for example). Yes I do believe the Resurrection and I think there are some pretty convincing arguments for it (look them up yourself, you might learn something).
@EspressoFan4Life So the Church burned allegedly guilty people to death, and also tortured thousands - yet the Church does not support burning people to death or torture? Explain that to me.
@ndzoko But do you understand that your emotional objection admits that evils exist, which requires God to exist for that to happen? And that the reason for this is that God is all good - and not evil? Your point, with this new information, becomes flaccid. God, if He exists (for your sake) is defined as a maximally great being (as per the ontological argument), and that those qualities include all-loving and all good. For this: /watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68&list=FLCsHeyLMowENiJ4yZxM7Rnw&feature=mh_lolz
Bishop Barron: Catholicism was just a friendly uncle in the Middle-Ages! Stephen Greenblatt: Nuh-uh, because I just made up a story about some people who lived there and they say it was really the Church on their necks making life so dull! Which one is right? Barf. When a guy who believes Angels brought on a Virgin Birth to redeem man's fall from the Garden of Eden wants to fight about HISTORY with a Humanities professor who fills his books with imaginary and invented events... (eye-roll) Shouldn't we also be asking what some pigeons in the parking-lot have to say on the subject?
@ndzoko It has happened and I won't defend the act. But you're confusing an 'is' with an 'ought'. The Bible does not condone slavery for Christians at all. It speaks of it in the cultural context in which the Jews experienced it, and it would be dishonest to divorce it of its context, or to judge the actions of the past by the standards of today. As a matter of fact, it was Christian sensibilities which put an end to slavery.
@ndzoko Haha, no it's just one of my own subtleties. Yeah, and it's probably false. I mean, we can't know, but there is a lack of reasons to believe it exists. I'm glad our understanding of theology is improving even today!
@ScottLG12 Bruno could have recanted and run away abroad... oops wait he managed to anger the British (while collaborating with them to actively persecute Catholics causing the deaths of many indirectly) and the German.... He was under the protection of Mocenigo in Venice (Mocenigo hated the Pope) but Mocenigo found out Bruno was a fraud and (probably) sleeping with his wife even... so Mocenigo gave him the boot as well. Bruno kicked himself in the nuts, sorry.
I think Greenblatt proposes that the curiositas is always already dependent on a paradigm of thought lady unquestioned which is the theological underpinnings of any philosophical work ranging from Aristotle or of any cosmic phenomena like comets and mete9rs- the latter pointed out by Carl Sagan. So that king of a master discourse is opposed to modernity and it's implications of curiositas
@ndzoko That's just dodging my entire point. Nowhere are Christians commanded, not even in the oldest and least enlightened parts of Scripture, to commit any evil whatsoever. That's antithetical to Christian orthodoxy, and I think it shows a lack of understanding of the Bible on your part. Of course, none of what you're saying matters if evil doesn't exist. For an atheist, what we call 'evil' is just an opinion of what's quite wrong. Isn't that right?
@ndzoko The Church has apologised for any wrong ever committed by the clergy or otherwise organisation. I've never heard of objections to cremation. I wonder if I should go into the dual nature of the Church - okay you've twisted my arm: The Catholic Church is of two natures: one divine, and one human. The divine part is what gives it authority and comes from when Jesus founded it etc. In such a sense it is referred to She, or Her. The human institution is the other part. This is the CONT
@BeingItself This is an unfair and sweeping over generalization of a rather complicated historical phenomenon. In most cases, such as in Spain, Catholic priests ran the trials, and they determined if a person was a heretic; however, this does not imply that the Catholic Church "burned people to death." On the contrary, particularly in the sixteenth century, heresy was a crime against the state. Those found guilty of heresy were executed under orders of the Crown, not the Church.
@EspressoFan4Life "was, or wasn't, the Church a friend of discovery?" Sometimes it was and sometimes it was not. And sometimes it burned people to death for believing the wrong things.
@ndzoko that Christianity as a concept, religion, or group of organisations never did. You'll notice that it was Christians, from within and without South Africa, who spoke out against it, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and the RCC itself. I happen to know this because I was born South African. Please be aware of the facts next time.
@ndzoko That philosophy, not theology. If you don't think that a self-defeating statement such as the one you've made is relevant, we have a problem. I've heard many an answer to your question. I could reproduce them, but I doubt you'd be convinced. Since many are largely speculative. I hope you don't think that not having concrete answers to every little thing is in some way proof against God - or even evidence.
Mr. Barron, anyone who comes to the defense of the catholic church should reconcile the historical role of this institution when human progress seem to have stopped, after Constantine, and resumed, after Martin Luther. Consider, for example, that there is 1370 years between Aristarchus of Samos and Johannes Kepler. There's a chance, Mr. Barron, that you are trying to defend the indefensible
@ndzoko Yeah I never understood this argument. I certainly don't believe that God controls absolutely everything. I think He intervenes - which means the world mostly just goes on with the rules He set out. I also believe in evolution, meaning those people unfortunately have faulty genes. At least for Catholics there is the comfort of knowing that the innocent one is in heaven. Moral laws never change, and certainly not due to the subjective whims of (perhaps CONT
@ndzoko I must say first, that logically your conclusion does not follow from your argumentation. Yes, we've always said that God is unchanging, and it is His nature which defines objective morality, and therefore objective morality does not change (or else it would not be objective). But I think what you're doing is interpreting that passage in your own way, and also deriving and ought from an is, which is something we should try to avoid doing, I think.
@ScottLG12 This shows how ignorant you are of Bruno's story. If Bruno would have just ' apologized' he would not have been burned at all. Show how little you know about the inquisition as well. He danced the merry dance with the Inquisition for 7 (not 8) years and in spite the ovewrseer of the trial, Bellarmine, even tried to protect him, yet Bruno REFUSED to cooperate in ANY way.
@ndzoko Well now I can't imagine how you got that idea. That's not what I'm saying in the slightest - I was just showing where your accusation failed. Of course, Christianity as a worldview does not incite any kind of evil, so it still wouldn't work even if I accepted it. But you appear to be an atheist, true? If you're going to make reference to it, can you tell me how evil exists at all? I mean, surely an atheist can't believe in evil! It's against an atheistic worldview.
@Entropy3ko Bruno DID recant in 1592, begging for mercy on his knees. If that's "how it worked," why wasn't he freed? Good & bad can be subjective at times, but I'm not so sure about horrific. Do you truly think that if a Catholic immolates a man for stating his beliefs it's not horrific, but if a woman has an abortion it is? It does sound terrible "to slaughter millions of unborn babies" (your wording, capitalizing on emotions) but so does burning people to death. What don't you get?
@ScottLG12 PS: your daddy and mummy must be proud you won the spelling bee, too bad this is just a red herring on your part. We are not discussing spelling or 'typo-free' comments on TH-cam. Sorry my man cheap tricks won't work. Although I’m not surprised Bruno’s supporters would use them after all.
@ndzoko I don't think that God created infertility. If you do, then you believe in God, and are just mad at him. Really, then, it would be your point of view which has to change. Well, God IS good. Literally. Thus the more he reveals of Himself, the more good is revealed. In terms of morality, some of it is innate, and some of it is revealed, I think. There will be reasoning processes with any complex moral problem, but that is always to arrive at the correct, objective position.
@ndzoko reasons I've given you (although I can prove with certainty that abortion, for example, is a moral evil because it always kills a human being - but that's for another day), and that's fine - I don't expect you to. But at least now you know why. Sorry for the number of posts, but I needed to do the justifications some kind of justice.
@ndzoko I think your logic is demonstrably fallacious here, because if we extend that same standard to any other membership, we can see how it fails. For example, we would not say that because some Americans in the past have embraced slavery, the United States of America must then bear the blame. It's obviously a huge and absurd generalisation, but people seem to bypass this type of logical standard when speaking of religion! Theologian: I'd have to know the context of what you're talking about
@TheHardout2005 CONT that if you believe in evils or wrongs, you quite simply have to believe in God, since evils cannot exist without good (being a privation of such), and objective good cannot exist without God, who is the source of the good. You see, if there is no God, then there is no evil - just your subjective opinion. And I've no reason to believe that your opinion disproves God, as that would be circular. CONT AGAIN
@ndzoko Well, imagine all the conflicting prayers. The prayers of selfish desire. No. God is not our servant, we are His. Do you imagine that God would affect the free will of his followers, however disordered their actions? Absolutely not. If He did, we would become robots, not moral agents. Only moral agents can make moral decisions and freely choose between God and evil. So it isn't reasonable to assume that this somehow is evidence against God.
@ndzoko So by your own admission you apply your own standards to God? If God exists, buddy, it's quite the other way around. There is no explicit contradiction b/w being loving and allowing evil to exist. That's why you require an assumption to contrive one. But I think rather than me try and explain it to you, Dr William Lane Craig can: /watch?v=EPqSrnR6VtI Please watch at your leisure. It's long but it's in parts.
@BeingItself The Church upholds the dignity of every human life, so no. Incidentally, the Church's courts were way nicer on people than the state's. It was the state that imposed an official religion and used the Church for political unity. You wouldn't believe how many things people were killed for in those days until you learned your history. Heresy wasn't really the most of their issues. Nowadays you have scientific criticism too. Just learn before you pass judgement man.
@Cottonmouth899 And I condemn them for it. Funny that no Catholic here is willing to say that when the Catholic Church burns someone to death it's wrong.
@ndzoko No I am not. Try reading it again. If you still come up with Christianity as being the thrust of my comment, you obviously have a serious comprehension problem.
@EspressoFan4Life That is harder to explain. Although when I have looked into this, the person merely traded one set of idiotic beliefs for another. The only detailed account I have found of a naturalist converting as an adult to a super-naturalist is that of Francis Collins, The arguments were stomach churning in their horribleness.
@ndzoko Uhh what? Your position is subjective: ours is not (as it is based on the objective source of good, God. You may not believe that, but no one's perfect). Who says we think those things? What silly things to say. And in vitro does not cure infertility, it bypasses it.
Gap in the front teeth, risk taker. Slash truncating the right eyebrow from the nose, work is separated from pleasure completely. Ears pinned to head, reclusive. Small nasal passages relative to the size of the nose, lack of taste. Full eyebrows, creative and tends to complete all projects in order. Thin upper lip, no romantic passion. Wide chin, you accept criticism often. Layers of dimples indicate sly and clever tactics. Your earlobes indicate few friends and they are like family.
@BeingItself I am sure that people like Greenblatt, who distort history are really helping 'the open and free exchange of ideas'... right.... Today if people have different ideas than the accepted status quo (which usually falls in the politically correct) are immediately put to burn on a metaphorical stake with 'flames' of ridicule and hatred, labelled as crazy or quaint or worse. Perhaps before you judge a culture you do clearly not understand, you should take a look at your own.
@EspressoFan4Life Condescending? In what way? I have not called anyone a name or insulted anyone. All I have done is point out an obvious fact: Catholics believe some things that are very very stupid.
@ndzoko I note that you're being irrational. First of all, my (alleged) inability to answer every question in the world to your satisfaction does not and cannot disprove the truth of a claim. That is logically fallacious. Secondly: there is not explicit contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being and the existence of evil. As I've said, it is the only framework that accurately explains the existence of evil. You have made a hidden assumption somewhere that I don't know about.
@wordonfirevideo To say as you do that no period showed more “intellectual energy” than the Middle Ages is hyperbolic. Yes, there were bright lights but few compared to other great ages of accomplishment. And the book is on Lucretius & Bracciolini, men at polar ends of that era. A chapter on Henry of Ghent would please you but stray from the point. A caricatured view? No, an appropriately cursory one. When he writes his book on the Middle Ages, then he can discuss the estimable Duns Scotus.
@ndzoko Oh. So you apply your subjective opinions and beliefs to what is the source of objective moral truth. Funny how often atheists never consider that. Actually I try to apply God in every area of my life, none the least morality! I can't imagine where you got your judgement of me from, however.
@Entropy3ko Yeah, that was cheap. I couldn't resist. I was always good at spelling bees. But, hey, I only took the low road because you made such an issue of claiming Bruno's captivity to be 7 years instead of 8. Not only wrong, but a rather pointless jab, n’est-ce pas? P.S.: I'm sure your Mum & Dad are proud of you too -- if the Church tells them it's okay, that is.
Nothing new under the sun, then... another book filled with clichés... and propaganda for a superficial lifestyle... SIGH! It's somewhat like those who think Giornano Bruno died "for science", while he scorned math and geometry and was obsessed with magick (he wrote two books on the magical arts) and had nothing to do with real science... On the other hand Bruno managed to irritate every person he came in contact with.
“All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher.”― Titus Lucretius Carus
From my reading of "The Swerve," I thought Greenblatt credits Late Medieval papacy. Humanists are against labeling all of the Medieval Period as the "Dark Ages," including Greenblatt. Most say that the "Dark Ages" were in the early part of the Medieval Period. Greenblatt makes the distinction between the book-burning church and the book-seeking church. And I remember him saying that the later Medieval popes were in effect open minded.
His central thesis was that the pre-Socratic philosophy that was sought out and destroyed during the Early Medieval Period, was sought out and translated during the Late Medieval Period, and because of the nature of the philosophy and the invention of the printing press, there occurred paradigm shift into modernity. (He does account for other reasons, like the Plague.) Greenblatt is more than aware of the Late Medieval tradition of "doubting in order to strengthen the faith." (I can't quite sum up the tradition in few words, but you mentioned it in the video.) I didn't pick up on the "Dark Age" caricature of the Medieval Period.
I just finished watching a PBS interview of Greenblatt and his book. It's thrilling to review the Roman world becoming the Middle Ages but throughout I felt uneasy. Father, you have uttered every single word I couldn't frame.
"Will in the World," is one of my favorite books also.
Christianity has been "antagonistic to knowledge," eh? Augustine, Chrysostom, Anselm, Aquinas, Bonaventure, Albert the Great, Copernicus, Descartes, Newton, Michelangelo, Mozart, Gregor Mendel, Bach, Fr. Georges LeMaitre (formulator of the Big Bang Theory)--all devout Christians. End game for you, I'm afraid!
Giordano Bruno
I could just as easily name non-Christians who were protagonists of knowledge if so many of them had not been brutally wiped from history by "well meaning" Christians during the early middle ages. Although I do not recall mention of it within The Swerve, Greenblatt states in an online video (th-cam.com/video/mXqHOF1B808/w-d-xo.html) that Lucretius is the singular example of a complete Epicurean work, and that this is the case since Epicurean texts were specifically chosen out of existence by the contemporaries of your "devout Christians".
In my view, the focus of your video is obscured since the "scholars" on your side of the debate have eviscerated any and all of the sources which were important to Lucretius', and by extension Greenblatt's, argument. The fact that 'De Rerum Natura' is currently in circulation is an anomaly because early medieval Christians would have found the ideas therein to be wholly intolerable. Perhaps if we had even a sizable fraction of Epicurean works there would be a list of thinkers as long as yours, but modern academia does not have access to this due to the negligence of people who wanted their own ideas proliferated and opposing ideas destroyed. The following statement must be emphasized: The act of removing texts from the collective lexicon are laid entirely at the feet of the religious. Secular thinkers prefer to be able to reference both sides of an issue, but it would seem that the religious are hell bent on removing the opposing position completely. And this is an idea expressed within Lucretius' work before the life and works of Jesus.
I'm afraid I can't agree with your opening statement. I'm on my third reading of the book and Greenblatt makes it very clear that many in the Church were not dogmatic but were Christian humanists, and that it was through intervention by a Catholic cardinal (later elected Pope) that Lucretius was removed from the list of forbidden books. I think Greenblatt painted a complex picture of the church at the end of the Middle Ages, and of the individuals in question.
I'm wondering if it isn't perhaps difficult for you to see the balance in the book because hearing criticism of the things we love is painful, and painful experiences tend to stand out more for us.
@ndzoko But put yourself in the shoes of a three year old, contemplating the moves and decisions of his father. How many would he understand? How much real good would he interpret as evil? Now raise that to the infinite degree, and you'll have some sense of what it's like for us to witness and assess the moves and decisions of God.
@EspressoFan4Life
Hello. Would, or would not, burning heretics to death tend to foster an atmosphere of curiosity and open exchange of ideas?
@BeingItself Certain bad people, acting in the name of the church, did terrible things. At its best, and according to its ownmost nature, the Church embraces all expressions of the truth, precisely because the incarnation of the Logos (the Word) stands at the heart of our tradition.
I don't see Greenblatt has a simplistic approach. He is aware that religion is by its nature restricting a broad view of knowledge. Perhaps he is a little bit critical of Catholicism, but I believe he is not afraid to be honest. The honest exploration of knowledge should never be squelched. Some Catholic priests would say that some information is not good for the masses. In an information society, unfortunately, the genie is out of the bottle. We can't control knowledge anymore.
My experience reading Greenblatt's book was similar to the Bishop's.
I believe Jefferson was more Thomist than he was an Epicurean. Natural theology is Jefferson's concern, and the place of Lucretius's (nascent and undeveloped) theory in his thinking is minor. Atomism is subsumed in Jefferson's larger interest in studying nature comprehensively, and--more to the point--Jefferson's goal is Aristotelian: a quest for Happiness, the pursuit of Eudemonia.
I recommend "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Thomas E Woods.
I suggest that the big enemy of intellectual curiosity today is the tendency to decide too quickly that we already understand.
This seems to be especially true when people talk about Catholicism.
Bang on, Father! I've often thought that the Middle Ages is the most unjustly neglected and casually dismissed period in intellectual history.
In any true curiosity-based inquiry lies a question: « What am I looking for when I am looking at? » Any form of « I’m right, they’re wrong » as an image capture radar is unable to produce a global picture sometimes filled with disturbing surprises.
Shalom, Levis Shalom
Are you giving a literary critique of a book or are you trying reaffirm your world view through the critique of a book that offers an opposite point of view than the one you accept?
It sounds more like you have complaints and condemnation for Lucretius just for having proposed ideas that would eventually through history,oppose catholic church dogma,and easily dismiss the subject matter of the book as invalid,a topic that has been dealt with before in centuries past.
It is exactly this "shoving aside" of themes without church value the practice of past religious censors,whom,when at the climax of their ability to enforce,were more effective in crying out heresy,powers no longer these censors have and orders the church can no longer give.
I'm trying to defend Catholicism, of course. This is an evangelical site. I use any occasion I can in order to evangelize.
Jaime Lagdameo I also think that it's a bit more than just a polemical defense on Fr. Barron's part. If you listen carefully past his simple disagreement is a genuine disappointment that the book COULD have been scholarly, but it's and is instead just sloppy propaganda when it could be a more factually derived and nuanced exploration without even changing sides.
see that's the thing, there's positions, and then there's scholarly fairness, are you looking at as many and as broad a data set as possible or are you more concerned with scoring points and telling tall tales? He and I are both disappointed that this looks like it turned out to be the latter and not the former.
The history of Catholicism is, hands down, as grotesque as human nature gets.
@TheHardout2005 "The early Islamic ages were a golden age for knowledge, and the history of the scientific method must pay a great deal of respect to some of the brilliant Muslim philosophers of Baghdad and Al-Andalus.
They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers."
~Experiment-Resources - History of The Scientific Method
Friend, I don't mind critiques of my world view. I just want them to be intelligent, balanced, nuanced, and well-informed. I'm afraid that Greenblatt's was none of those.
@ScottLG12 Not sure what your point is here? That there were smart people around during the Renaissance? Okay. My argument was with Greenblatt's totally caricatured presentation of the Middle Ages.
@ndzoko Yes, sometimes there have been problems where theology was thought to be at odds with science. It's a good thing our knowledge of both has improved, then.
@ndzoko CONT To be honest though, if God stepped in personally every time, if He answered every prayer, can you imagine the chaos?
Can you see how life would be give-and-take with God (and thus not truly loving)? Or how there would not exist negatives at all? Or if there existed negatives but God would quickly aright them the moment you asked, life would be shallow, and so would our relationship with God.
Think about the consequences of what you're asking.
@ndzoko An institution that includes over a billion people is "on its way out?!" Give me a break. We have our problems, as every religion does, but take a look beyond the pages of the New York Times. Catholicism is exploding in Africa, Latin America, and many parts of Asia. Priests are in fact leaving at a much lower rate than, say, 30 years ago, and seminaries are flourishing in our country.
@filthyswit Oh brother. Tell me how the capacity to read being limited in the early Renaissance has a thing to do with my argument against Greenblatt's simplistic account.
When you really think about it, how could a bishop feel any differently? Greenblatt's portrayal of the papacy in the early 1400's is extremely unflattering and I don't think there's any debate that the papacy of that era was in disarray and corrupt. But the thesis of "The Swerve" is that many works from ancient Greece and Rome didn't make it out of history because some subjects were deemed threatening and heretical to Christianity. He uses "On the Nature of Things" as an example, and you basically walk away feeling grateful for what was salvaged from the ancients, and disheartened at the sheer number of works that were lost. Of course there were brilliant minds in the church in the 1300s and 1400s, but there was a tremendous amount of corruption and violence as well. There was a lot of subjectivity in what was copied and what was allowed to deteriorate and much of that subjectivity was influenced by the religious thought of the time.
I took a Latin class on Lucretius earlier this year. That's some terrible philosophy in the De Rerum Natura! Definitely leads to an empty life, and only a shallow sort of happiness for people who could afford to live a comfortable lifestyle. Great commentary Father! I was considering reading this, but I'll probably steer clear of it.
"Without education we are in a horrible and deadly danger of taking educated people seriously" GK Chesterton.
@ndzoko It was actually never officially stated as Catholic doctrine (which is called a declaration ex cathedra). It was more - let's say - postulated.
I heard that part of priesthood studies back in the 1940's in America and Europe included lots of Shakespeare. Anyone knows or have experience with this?
What books might you recommend, as your favorite, on the history of the middle ages?
Modernity was initiated by mostly Ockham and Duns Scotus. By far was it something that the 15th century Humanists came up with.
@EspressoFan4Life
It seems to me, that if the Church had any sort of special insight into what is right and wrong, they would not be burning folks to death. Regardless of the cultural context.
@BeingItself "Church had any sort of special insight into what is right and wrong, they would not be burning folks to death." And the Church does condemn the act of burning innocent folks to death. We have to realize also that people that make up the church are imperfect human people just like you and me. Those people that do that are undermining the end of the Church. Unfortunately, the argument against the Church of all the evil things people have done in its name has become tired lately.
@itslifeisall Yes, certain individuals at particular times during its history. No one denies that. Of course, to extend that to the the entire Church over all ages is the fallacy of (over)generalisation.
In any case, you'll notice that what I said is that we have always "taught against" such things. I did not make the claim of the moral perfection of its members.
Not once have we embraced these acts, or even excused them.
How do you rate the killing of Bruno ? Or the many others killed, tortured or silenced during those times for daring to speak scientifically or logically in ways deemed against doctrine ? More to the point, a philosophy that rejected gods, all gods, and monotheism as well ... sure that would have been really popular then ... there is no doubt that science was held back by the Catholic church ... that some christians had the ability to be scientists in no way makes the Catholic church the cause of, or even facilitator of, their scientific contributions .. you claim that which is not yours to claim whilst dismissing and diminishing the church's very real violent moves against those who dared to begin to think scientifically ...
@BeingItself
I never said anything that stated that his execution was either rightous or wrong, actually.
My point was that Bruno is often portrayed as a 'man of science' against 'the anti-science Church', which is quite a false depiction of both Bruno and the Church.
Whether Bruno deserved his sentence or not is a whole different discussion, which I did not touch here.
Someone with the name Greenblaat hates Catholicism and Christ? Imagine my shock
I share your disappointment in this book, though not for the same reasons. I think that you probably know that Greenblatt was really referring to conjecture on the nature of divinity (nothing beyond faith) and also to a general wariness of contamination (see de Doctrina Christiana and various Jerome Epistles) from non-Christain sources when he was discussing both self-negating curiositas avoidance and to fear-of-the-inquisition self-denial which was a feature of post-Theodosian Europe. Also, I don't think that he really juxtaposes a pleasure-principle, sensual epicureanism with a grey, one-dimensional Christian morality. He presents the latter in all of its wonderfully human glory (admittedly he focuses rather predictably on the hypocrisy angle). It is the presentation of the former, though, that I found almost laughably absurd. I sort of guessed from the very start where he was going with his narrative after the first mention of Lucretius' "pursuit of happiness" principle. I chuckled as I read of Amerigo Vespucci, chortled upon reading his interpretation of the significance of Utopia; but it all died down into a sort of deflated disappointment with the final few lines quoting Thomas Jefferson. I looked back at what could have been a really good ripping yarn - something between Umberto Eco and Sophie's World - and thought how could such a transcendently excellent topic have been reduced to such nationalistic hogwash. I thought how could this win a Pulitzer prize. Then I remembered where the award takes place and I remembered that it was attempting to be popular (lucrative) in a specific geographical location. Then it all made sense. If only I had anticipated this before I began to read. Still, at least the scant elements of de rerum natura that found their way onto the page may encourage the less 'patriotic' types to broaden their minds by reading a bit more.
But the mainstream of the Catholic tradition never adopted this sort of anti-intellectualism! Augustine read Plato, Cicero, Aristotle, Plotinus, and many other "pagan" thinkers with great profit. I think, too, you're being way too easy on him when it comes to Christian morality. I found an obsession with Christianity's supposed repression of the sexual instinct--despite the counter-evidence in Dante, Chaucer, Aquinas, Chartres Cathedral, etc. etc.
Fr. Robert Barron Yes, I agree, he should have made much more of the Augustinian tradition (incidentally, I think Augustine is one of the most impressive figures of antiquity - any period). I think perhaps that he thought he had covered that base (the Augustine/Plato/Cicero/Aristotle angle) by his reference to the victory of Stoicism (and thus providence). I suppose we just have to remember that this is 'popular' humanities. We should perhaps be grateful for no other reason than that the book shows a sizeable chuck of the turba that our current Atheistic vs Theist debates are not new, and have been argued many times before by people using the same scientific/philosophical assumption. Plus ca change. Incidentally, if you were depressed by this book and wish to read a slightly more nuanced and enjoyable romp through the ancient providential vs random debate (and, of course if you have time), you should - if you have not already - have a look at Emma Gee's recently published book 'Aratus and the Astronomical Tradition' (OUP). It won't win the Pulitzer prize for non-fiction, but neither does it wear its scholarship too heavily.
@ndzoko Hey, come on - rude.
Well the Bible is not some guide on how to live one's life! You can find that sort of info in there, but it's also more properly referred to as a library rather than a book. It is composed of many books of different types - history, poetry, saga, allegory etc.
Well it's not silly if I don't know your background. I had somewhat of a conversion myself, mind you.
What argument? I think I've answered everything you've presented.
@ndzoko Hmm I never got this one until now...
Your response isn't reasonably comparable, because if you believed in God, the One in which I do, you wouldn't believe He created bad things. You'd believe that God is good, and that evil is a departure from good, and thus any departure from goodness is a departure from God. Any non-human-caused 'evils' are not the fault of God, as this is impossible, and questioning why He doesn't stop them can be answered in many ways, but what is clear is CONT
@ndzoko You're confusing (what you think are) God's actions with His commands for us.
@ndzoko Even if you thought I was referring to Christians of the day (and I would probably contest that most of these are misunderstood), all of these but one are appealing to Jews.
As for material wealth, "The Catholic church,... is the most formidable stockbroker in the world. The Vatican,..., has been increasingly orientated towards the U.S. The Wall Street Journal said that the Vatican's financial deals in the U.S. alone were so big that very often it sold or bought gold in lots of a million or more dollars at one time.
"The Vatican's treasure of solid gold has been estimated by the United Nations World Magazine to amount to several billion dollars." ~ Avro Manhattan
@EspressoFan4Life
What is the "cop-out"? There are some things I cannot explain. What's the big deal?
Origen said you don’t need to know about science because when you go to heaven god will teach you everything 😂
Barron says he doesn't know "any period in our history more properly curious, when intellectual energy was more on display" than the Middle Ages? To illustrate, he scours a 1000-year period for a handful of scholars like Aquinas, Duns Scotus, Alexander of Hales, Henry of Ghent, Wm of Ockham, Albert the Great. Real tough for the misnamed "Renaissance" to beat that with its roster of slackers like da Vinci, Michelangelo, Copernicus, Galileo, Bacon, Kepler, Machiavelli, Shakespeare....
@TheHardout2005 CONT AGAIN
For example, you'd then be claiming that the presence of evil disproves (or provides evidence against) God's existence, and God's non-existence implicitly disproves the non-existence of evil. And of course, that includes 'natural evils'.
As Dr WLC says, the Problem of Evil is the largest emotional objection to God, but logically, it actually proves His existence.
Apologies for the size and lack of syntax.
@itslifeisall Who, or what, is Avro Manhattan?
Did you not notice the apparently deliberate confusion between the religious organisation the Catholic Church, and the sovereign state of the Vatican? Did you not see the fallacy of equivocation that attempts to unite them under a single definition?
Is it not reasonable for a nation to participate in the global market? Do you think other first world countries have less wealth - or more?
@Entropy3ko
Great strategy. When you are losing an argument, just call the other guy ignorant.
Try to have a moment of deep self-reflection and be absolutely honest with yourself. Do you really believe Jesus rose form the dead? Do you really believe in heaven and hell?.
@BeingItself
I was not really losing any argument: I just call it as I see it.
Most atheist I know talk about religion but do not know anything about it . Most of them do not even know what 'substance' means, for example (which is not the same as the termi substance as meant in chemistry, for example).
Yes I do believe the Resurrection and I think there are some pretty convincing arguments for it (look them up yourself, you might learn something).
@EspressoFan4Life
So the Church burned allegedly guilty people to death, and also tortured thousands - yet the Church does not support burning people to death or torture? Explain that to me.
@ndzoko But do you understand that your emotional objection admits that evils exist, which requires God to exist for that to happen? And that the reason for this is that God is all good - and not evil? Your point, with this new information, becomes flaccid. God, if He exists (for your sake) is defined as a maximally great being (as per the ontological argument), and that those qualities include all-loving and all good.
For this: /watch?v=RQPRqHZRP68&list=FLCsHeyLMowENiJ4yZxM7Rnw&feature=mh_lolz
Bishop Barron: Catholicism was just a friendly uncle in the Middle-Ages! Stephen Greenblatt: Nuh-uh, because I just made up a story about some people who lived there and they say it was really the Church on their necks making life so dull!
Which one is right? Barf.
When a guy who believes Angels brought on a Virgin Birth to redeem man's fall from the Garden of Eden wants to fight about HISTORY with a Humanities professor who fills his books with imaginary and invented events... (eye-roll)
Shouldn't we also be asking what some pigeons in the parking-lot have to say on the subject?
@ndzoko It has happened and I won't defend the act. But you're confusing an 'is' with an 'ought'.
The Bible does not condone slavery for Christians at all. It speaks of it in the cultural context in which the Jews experienced it, and it would be dishonest to divorce it of its context, or to judge the actions of the past by the standards of today. As a matter of fact, it was Christian sensibilities which put an end to slavery.
Will in the world was history that did not criticize your world view. I am glad you enjoyed it but it is no surprise that you did not like this book.
Fantastic
@ndzoko Haha, no it's just one of my own subtleties.
Yeah, and it's probably false. I mean, we can't know, but there is a lack of reasons to believe it exists. I'm glad our understanding of theology is improving even today!
@mrx92mr2t Your analysis: utter nonsense.
@ScottLG12 Bruno could have recanted and run away abroad... oops wait he managed to anger the British (while collaborating with them to actively persecute Catholics causing the deaths of many indirectly) and the German....
He was under the protection of Mocenigo in Venice (Mocenigo hated the Pope) but Mocenigo found out Bruno was a fraud and (probably) sleeping with his wife even... so Mocenigo gave him the boot as well.
Bruno kicked himself in the nuts, sorry.
I think Greenblatt proposes that the curiositas is always already dependent on a paradigm of thought lady unquestioned which is the theological underpinnings of any philosophical work ranging from Aristotle or of any cosmic phenomena like comets and mete9rs- the latter pointed out by Carl Sagan. So that king of a master discourse is opposed to modernity and it's implications of curiositas
@Entropy3ko
Why are you afraid to answer? Seems to me you are adopting the position of a moral relativist.
@ndzoko That's just dodging my entire point. Nowhere are Christians commanded, not even in the oldest and least enlightened parts of Scripture, to commit any evil whatsoever. That's antithetical to Christian orthodoxy, and I think it shows a lack of understanding of the Bible on your part.
Of course, none of what you're saying matters if evil doesn't exist. For an atheist, what we call 'evil' is just an opinion of what's quite wrong. Isn't that right?
@TheHardout2005 Well said.
@ndzoko The Church has apologised for any wrong ever committed by the clergy or otherwise organisation. I've never heard of objections to cremation. I wonder if I should go into the dual nature of the Church - okay you've twisted my arm: The Catholic Church is of two natures: one divine, and one human. The divine part is what gives it authority and comes from when Jesus founded it etc. In such a sense it is referred to She, or Her.
The human institution is the other part. This is the CONT
@Entropy3ko
Let's grant that your description of Bruno is accurate. Does that make it right that he was burned to death?
@BeingItself This is an unfair and sweeping over generalization of a rather complicated historical phenomenon. In most cases, such as in Spain, Catholic priests ran the trials, and they determined if a person was a heretic; however, this does not imply that the Catholic Church "burned people to death." On the contrary, particularly in the sixteenth century, heresy was a crime against the state. Those found guilty of heresy were executed under orders of the Crown, not the Church.
@EspressoFan4Life
Thank you for demonstrating a fine example of how an otherwise reasonable person can believe silly absurdities.
@EspressoFan4Life
"was, or wasn't, the Church a friend of discovery?"
Sometimes it was and sometimes it was not.
And sometimes it burned people to death for believing the wrong things.
@ndzoko that Christianity as a concept, religion, or group of organisations never did. You'll notice that it was Christians, from within and without South Africa, who spoke out against it, such as Archbishop Desmond Tutu, and the RCC itself. I happen to know this because I was born South African.
Please be aware of the facts next time.
@ndzoko That philosophy, not theology. If you don't think that a self-defeating statement such as the one you've made is relevant, we have a problem.
I've heard many an answer to your question. I could reproduce them, but I doubt you'd be convinced. Since many are largely speculative.
I hope you don't think that not having concrete answers to every little thing is in some way proof against God - or even evidence.
Mr. Barron, anyone who comes to the defense of the catholic church should reconcile the historical role of this institution when human progress seem to have stopped, after Constantine, and resumed, after Martin Luther. Consider, for example, that there is 1370 years between Aristarchus of Samos and Johannes Kepler. There's a chance, Mr. Barron, that you are trying to defend the indefensible
@ndzoko Yeah I never understood this argument. I certainly don't believe that God controls absolutely everything. I think He intervenes - which means the world mostly just goes on with the rules He set out. I also believe in evolution, meaning those people unfortunately have faulty genes. At least for Catholics there is the comfort of knowing that the innocent one is in heaven.
Moral laws never change, and certainly not due to the subjective whims of (perhaps CONT
@ndzoko I must say first, that logically your conclusion does not follow from your argumentation.
Yes, we've always said that God is unchanging, and it is His nature which defines objective morality, and therefore objective morality does not change (or else it would not be objective). But I think what you're doing is interpreting that passage in your own way, and also deriving and ought from an is, which is something we should try to avoid doing, I think.
@ScottLG12 This shows how ignorant you are of Bruno's story. If Bruno would have just ' apologized' he would not have been burned at all. Show how little you know about the inquisition as well.
He danced the merry dance with the Inquisition for 7 (not 8) years and in spite the ovewrseer of the trial, Bellarmine, even tried to protect him, yet Bruno REFUSED to cooperate in ANY way.
@ndzoko Well now I can't imagine how you got that idea. That's not what I'm saying in the slightest - I was just showing where your accusation failed. Of course, Christianity as a worldview does not incite any kind of evil, so it still wouldn't work even if I accepted it.
But you appear to be an atheist, true? If you're going to make reference to it, can you tell me how evil exists at all? I mean, surely an atheist can't believe in evil! It's against an atheistic worldview.
@Entropy3ko Bruno DID recant in 1592, begging for mercy on his knees. If that's "how it worked," why wasn't he freed?
Good & bad can be subjective at times, but I'm not so sure about horrific. Do you truly think that if a Catholic immolates a man for stating his beliefs it's not horrific, but if a woman has an abortion it is?
It does sound terrible "to slaughter millions of unborn babies" (your wording, capitalizing on emotions) but so does burning people to death. What don't you get?
@ScottLG12 PS: your daddy and mummy must be proud you won the spelling bee, too bad this is just a red herring on your part. We are not discussing spelling or 'typo-free' comments on TH-cam.
Sorry my man cheap tricks won't work. Although I’m not surprised Bruno’s supporters would use them after all.
@ndzoko I don't think that God created infertility. If you do, then you believe in God, and are just mad at him. Really, then, it would be your point of view which has to change.
Well, God IS good. Literally. Thus the more he reveals of Himself, the more good is revealed.
In terms of morality, some of it is innate, and some of it is revealed, I think. There will be reasoning processes with any complex moral problem, but that is always to arrive at the correct, objective position.
Bad take Father Bob...did you even read the book?
@ndzoko Tell me one where I'm commanded to go out and do evil. Please.
@ndzoko reasons I've given you (although I can prove with certainty that abortion, for example, is a moral evil because it always kills a human being - but that's for another day), and that's fine - I don't expect you to. But at least now you know why. Sorry for the number of posts, but I needed to do the justifications some kind of justice.
@ndzoko I think your logic is demonstrably fallacious here, because if we extend that same standard to any other membership, we can see how it fails. For example, we would not say that because some Americans in the past have embraced slavery, the United States of America must then bear the blame. It's obviously a huge and absurd generalisation, but people seem to bypass this type of logical standard when speaking of religion!
Theologian: I'd have to know the context of what you're talking about
@TheHardout2005 CONT that if you believe in evils or wrongs, you quite simply have to believe in God, since evils cannot exist without good (being a privation of such), and objective good cannot exist without God, who is the source of the good.
You see, if there is no God, then there is no evil - just your subjective opinion. And I've no reason to believe that your opinion disproves God, as that would be circular.
CONT AGAIN
@ndzoko Well, imagine all the conflicting prayers. The prayers of selfish desire. No. God is not our servant, we are His. Do you imagine that God would affect the free will of his followers, however disordered their actions? Absolutely not. If He did, we would become robots, not moral agents. Only moral agents can make moral decisions and freely choose between God and evil. So it isn't reasonable to assume that this somehow is evidence against God.
@ndzoko So by your own admission you apply your own standards to God? If God exists, buddy, it's quite the other way around.
There is no explicit contradiction b/w being loving and allowing evil to exist. That's why you require an assumption to contrive one. But I think rather than me try and explain it to you, Dr William Lane Craig can:
/watch?v=EPqSrnR6VtI
Please watch at your leisure. It's long but it's in parts.
@BeingItself The Church upholds the dignity of every human life, so no. Incidentally, the Church's courts were way nicer on people than the state's. It was the state that imposed an official religion and used the Church for political unity. You wouldn't believe how many things people were killed for in those days until you learned your history. Heresy wasn't really the most of their issues. Nowadays you have scientific criticism too. Just learn before you pass judgement man.
@EspressoFan4Life
I have a great job, thanks. I have a moral obligation to try and counter the superstitious nonsense on this channel.
@Cottonmouth899
And I condemn them for it. Funny that no Catholic here is willing to say that when the Catholic Church burns someone to death it's wrong.
@ndzoko No I am not. Try reading it again. If you still come up with Christianity as being the thrust of my comment, you obviously have a serious comprehension problem.
@EspressoFan4Life
That is harder to explain. Although when I have looked into this, the person merely traded one set of idiotic beliefs for another.
The only detailed account I have found of a naturalist converting as an adult to a super-naturalist is that of Francis Collins, The arguments were stomach churning in their horribleness.
@ndzoko Uhh what? Your position is subjective: ours is not (as it is based on the objective source of good, God. You may not believe that, but no one's perfect).
Who says we think those things? What silly things to say.
And in vitro does not cure infertility, it bypasses it.
Gap in the front teeth, risk taker. Slash truncating the right eyebrow from the nose, work is separated from pleasure completely. Ears pinned to head, reclusive. Small nasal passages relative to the size of the nose, lack of taste. Full eyebrows, creative and tends to complete all projects in order. Thin upper lip, no romantic passion. Wide chin, you accept criticism often. Layers of dimples indicate sly and clever tactics. Your earlobes indicate few friends and they are like family.
@BeingItself
I am sure that people like Greenblatt, who distort history are really helping 'the open and free exchange of ideas'... right....
Today if people have different ideas than the accepted status quo (which usually falls in the politically correct) are immediately put to burn on a metaphorical stake with 'flames' of ridicule and hatred, labelled as crazy or quaint or worse.
Perhaps before you judge a culture you do clearly not understand, you should take a look at your own.
@EspressoFan4Life
Condescending? In what way? I have not called anyone a name or insulted anyone.
All I have done is point out an obvious fact: Catholics believe some things that are very very stupid.
@ndzoko I note that you're being irrational. First of all, my (alleged) inability to answer every question in the world to your satisfaction does not and cannot disprove the truth of a claim. That is logically fallacious.
Secondly: there is not explicit contradiction between an omnipotent, omnibenevolent Being and the existence of evil. As I've said, it is the only framework that accurately explains the existence of evil. You have made a hidden assumption somewhere that I don't know about.
@EspressoFan4Life
It seems to me the essence of the RCC is wickedness.
(If I believed in "essences", which I don't.)
@wordonfirevideo To say as you do that no period showed more “intellectual energy” than the Middle Ages is hyperbolic. Yes, there were bright lights but few compared to other great ages of accomplishment. And the book is on Lucretius & Bracciolini, men at polar ends of that era. A chapter on Henry of Ghent would please you but stray from the point.
A caricatured view? No, an appropriately cursory one. When he writes his book on the Middle Ages, then he can discuss the estimable Duns Scotus.
@EspressoFan4Life
"What are the obvious falsehoods you're speaking of?"
Adam and Eve, virgin birth, resurrection . . . it's a very long list.
Antiquated ideas deserve to be strawmen sometimes.
@ndzoko Oh. So you apply your subjective opinions and beliefs to what is the source of objective moral truth. Funny how often atheists never consider that.
Actually I try to apply God in every area of my life, none the least morality! I can't imagine where you got your judgement of me from, however.
@TheHardout2005 As for the church's involvement in bodily pleasures, well, that's a story all too sad, and very well known.
@Entropy3ko Yeah, that was cheap. I couldn't resist. I was always good at spelling bees. But, hey, I only took the low road because you made such an issue of claiming Bruno's captivity to be 7 years instead of 8. Not only wrong, but a rather pointless jab, n’est-ce pas?
P.S.: I'm sure your Mum & Dad are proud of you too -- if the Church tells them it's okay, that is.
Nothing new under the sun, then... another book filled with clichés... and propaganda for a superficial lifestyle... SIGH!
It's somewhat like those who think Giornano Bruno died "for science", while he scorned math and geometry and was obsessed with magick (he wrote two books on the magical arts) and had nothing to do with real science... On the other hand Bruno managed to irritate every person he came in contact with.