I'm an Orthodox Christian and a physics and engineering college student and I've been waiting with bated breath for this second episode to come out! Bishop Barron, why don't you and Brandon do a third episode? I'm sure there's more clips to go over...Joe Rogan's podcasts are not known for brevity. We would love a third episode if you have the energy for it! Thanks again for all you do and for the Word on Fire show, Bishop Barron!
@AT Complete SS , I am a person of faith who has chosen to study science, and in my free time I am interested in philosophical implications. Why is there anything wrong with that? Anyways, thanks for keeping me humble and have a great day :)
@ljit ljam We are His children and He has sent His own son to us to understand His purpose on earth, BUT He does not want to interfere with our free will or destroy us. All these martyrdoms were done by MAN and for MAN. If everyone would hear His word and do His will, we would be LITERALLY in His kingdom, because the kingdom of God is among us, as Jesus brilliantly taught us (Tolstoy has a beautiful book on this subject as well).
ljit ljam I heard a great joke once: A Jewish WW2 death camp survivor dies and goes to heaven. When he meets god he tells him a joke about the Holocaust. God replies: that’s not funny and quite offensive - you shouldn’t tell jokes about the Holocaust. And the man replies “I guess you had to be there.”
Bishop Barron you got to get on Joe Rogan's podcast. It would be a HUGE moment to evangelize. Don't underestimate how far reaching Rogan's influence is!!
Basilica If Rogan took it seriously, it would be great. I have a feeling he would make a mockery of the whole thing and light up a joint in the middle of it or something
@Jin p Rogan might be atheist but I think he would be open to have Bishop Barron on his show.They would probably disagree on almost everything but I think it would be civil. Rogan doesn't come across to me as real hardcore antithestic atheist/agnostic.
Austen Stokes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bishop Barren is certainly not above critique, but he has done amazing work to evangelize in the modern world...and he’s definitely not a traitor of the faith.
Bishop Barron, you're literally one of my favorite people of all time and I really regret having not surrendered my life to Christ in my youth so I would have aspired to be a priest, still, you're such a role model to me!
I am glad for you relying on another religious leader to lead sheep like a good shepherd. Whatever path you feel you need. Churches can do good works when it comes to charity at times.
Jonathan Gil Santillan Don't think there can be impediments becoming a Priest. It's from God's side. You are a receiver of a gift from Him. He calls knowing ALL about you. 'No conditions' apply.
@@petercarlson811 i agree. Priesthood is a sacrifice, first and foremost. It can bear rewarding fruits, of course, but that would be earned through the effort entailed in earnestly being a priest.
@@Nimbereth Definitely, It's just another religion that doesn't care for anyone if their views differ from theirs. They think they have moral authority over everyone and they think because they're using "critical thinking" they're correct about absolutely everything lol I realised it was a cult and a bad one at that when Christians were being persecuted in other parts of the world and churches were being burned to the ground throughout Europe and when I spoke about it saying this is concerning, all these people would do is make jokes and laugh about it, talking about "where's your God now". I was in a bunch of atheist groups on facebook and when I made a post telling them I was seeing a major change in attitudes from atheists, that they were losing their humanity and that I was leaving atheism as I had become nihilistic... the response I got was unbelievable, non stop abuse... I don't want to be part of anything that acts the way they do, I care about all human beings regardless of their beliefs, none of us have the answers and we should be free to live life the best way we can unless it has a negative effect on others and if religion helps you through life or you find meaning in it then who are these people to try bully those people round to their way of thinking? It's evil at its core. I urge anyone to join an atheist group on facebook and show them bad things that have happened to our fellow human beings and mention what they believed and just sit back and watch the evil flow by your face, it's sickening.
Dawkins says he "doesn't get" why people put so much energy into their faith, but he's a tireless champion of atheism, writing books, producing documentaries, debating believers, appearing on panel shows, etc. I've heard a lot of religious criticism from him and very little discussion of science. He's practically a professional atheist.
You're quite uninformed, Lee. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606/ref=sr_1_2?crid=Z8DZH0U4IBLH&keywords=the+selfish+gene+by+richard+dawkins&qid=1575244381&sprefix=The+Selfish+Gene%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-2 This was a pivotal book in our thinking about mutation and the natural selection of all life forms. Dawkins will be well remembered for his scientific insight, though his contributions to the dissolution of superstition and his brilliant criticisms of supernaturalism as silly are undoubtedly even more important.
A 55 yo physician, psychiatrist, born and educated in the Soviet Union…quietly baptized by my mother in Russian Orthodoxy, but brought up to be an atheist by the communist regime. At 23 yo immigrated to the US…and gradually transformed into an open minded agnostic…and by my middle age feel stronger and stronger what I think to be a call from my God…I am not there yet…but in my clumsy way I pray to arrive to the destination…
Wonderful episode! I've learned more about Catholicism from Bishop Barron in the last year than in all of my years of CCD and faith formation as a young child and teen. God bless you, Bishop Barron and the WOF team!
It is amazing how biblically illiterate Dawkins is. How can you devote your life to proving something wrong and only ever manage to have an elementary, superficial understanding of it.
it is shocking how incredibly stupid Dawkins is when it comes to philosophical argument -- I guess that's what happens when you only study natural science with seriousness
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. But I love listening to Bishop Barron. If more like him represented Christianity, perhaps it wouldn’t be slowly receding in western culture.
It would continue to recede, that’s no doubt true. It’s the very reason I am no longer a theist. I’m sure I could have stated that better. What I meant was some people do leave their faith because of the asinine behavior of some of the right wing Evangelicals. It’s not necessarily a good reason (it’s not based on whether or not their claims are true) but it’s not a non zero percentage. I can respect the way Barron argues for his faith, and still find his reasons lacking.
Bishop Robert Barron Thank you for taking the time to respond, Bishop Barron. I find myself in a constant state of not being convinced by the available evidence. Thing is, I’m also finding myself wanting to be convinced. So, how can that bridge be constructed? I haven’t yet found an answer. I’m finding it near impossible to make that final step.
I said it once in part 1 and so i'll say it again, The Bishop should appear on Joe's podcast, it would put such a big smile on my face to see the Bishop and Joe together.
I absolutely love that the Bishop so unabashedly suggests protestant Theologians. N.T. Wright is one of my favorite, and there is no reason we Catholics should discount our protestant siblings when they have so much to offer.
@@toninobelimussi296 It's WONDERFUL when silly supernaturalists argue and neither has the least bit of verifiable evidence for his position. So revealing of the fundamental nature of superstition.
There's no need for us to belittle them, but we must remember the Catholic Church has the fulness of Truth and we do not need to look outside the Church for doctrine.
@@johnnybrahms6591 'Silly supernaturalists" - yeah, you've just demonstrated you have nothing whatever to say. Your anti-intellectual guff is pathetic really.
An atheist cannot be a "good moral person" a believer spends a lifetime trying to get anywhere near that themselves. An atheist, CAN be a "reasonably ethical person". Two different things.
@@shankz8854 - NO-one can be a "good moral person" - because, that would LITERALLY mean, they are PERFECT! I'm NOT a "good moral person" I'm a sinner! An atheist, by definition has no basis for seeking ANY moral position. They MAY seek a measure of ethical standing - but nothing they do is "moral" period!
mmmail1969 ok so you have an unusual definition of a “good moral person”. I agree no one is perfectly moral 100% of the time. And even if they were, who could judge that? You seem to have your own definitions of these words and I have no desire to get bogged down in semantics. Having said that, I think morality is no different regardless of what you believe. I don’t think morality comes from God (of course). Morality clearly changes over time, which is a pretty stark reminder to me that it was not set out in the beginning by a single omniscient perfectly moral being.
I don't think Joe Rogan would want to talk to a Catholic priest, let alone a Bishop. He is not as "open mind" as he'd like to think. Plus he can be callous and inappropriate at times, so I don't think it would be a good environment for the Bishop anyways. I am all for productive conversations between people with opposing views, but I think that this would be one of the few unproductive ones.
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 Agreed. Joe has interesting guests and is pretty good at interviewing most people but he has a bad habit of shoehorning drugs into every conversation and isn't particularly deep thinking when it comes to religion
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 I wouldn't have thought that Joe would want to talk to a lot of people that he has talked to, like I know he doesn't agree with some of the political youtubers that he has had on, but they were still able to have conversations. Not all of Joe's podcasts are inappropriate either. The one with Snowden and Bob Lazar were both very respectful. Lastly, I don't think Joe's show is typically productive, especially when it involves guests that agree non stop. Usually those devolve into mutual bootlicking.
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 he says awful things about the Catholic Church but Bishop Barron is an evangelizer and if that means being offended here and there, so be it. i think it would do a lot of good for Rogan (and potentially his listeners) if Bishop Barron came on the show because Rogan seems so ignorant of the religion he came from, and he's open minded enough to hear the other side.
@@pootnannies I agree that an evangelizer is bound to be on the wrong end of insults and offense, but that doesn't mean that he should actively look for that, if there is nothing to gain. And with Rogan I think that there is nothing to gain. Would I like to see him convert? Sure. But I don't think that it will happen anytime soon, and the good Bishop could use his energy elsewhere. Besides, for him to go to Rogan's show, he has to be invited first. And we all know that's not going to happen from Joe "I hate the Church almost as much as I love weed" Rogan.
Holy Trinity, thank you for your illuminating and respectful rebuttals presented by Bishop Barron and Brandon. Please shower Richard and Joe with your infinite love, compassion, and mercy. By your boundless grace, open their eyes to the truth and protect them from their resistant and controlling selves (as you once did for me). Give them a hunger for faith, as it is understood to be an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the command of the will, according to your faithful servant, St. Thomas Aquinas. May all the glory be yours forever. Amen.
There was this video from around a year ago where Brett Weinstein and Richard Dawkins had a debate regarding a few different subjects, and when it came to the topic of the utility of religion, Brett noticed that Dawkins became almost completely unreasonable. Brett is also an atheist, IIRC, but he had a much more nuanced approach in his analysis and acknowledged the value of religion; while Dawkins stuck with his gross generalizations and stereotypes, even suggesting that religious people were mentally ill. I don't read much of Dawkin's stuff, but that interaction alone made it hard for me to take him seriously when it comes to this topic.
LOKITYZ Since when did “nuanced” become synonymous with “holds a similar position to me?” While Dawkins doesn’t have the most nuanced view of religion or theology, I wouldn’t say Weinstein does either. His perspective, agree or disagree with it, is pretty simple and straightforward. I know a number of anti-theists who hold more detailed views though.
I strongly feel that Richard Dawkins is a damn idiot . all his arguments are almost next to void. all he has to give as an argument against religion goes like this:- ' We need religion to justify morality? That's ridiculous'. Now 'that's ridiculous' - is that an argument?
@@angelicdoctor8016 I consider slander and ad hominem to be subsets of the strawman argument. But, true, very true. Have you seen Lutheran Satire's cartoon about Conall and Donall meeting Dawkins? It's funny.
Oh Anna: My goodness. Bleak? You're kidding me, right? When science shows clearly that we humans are made in our essence from star dust? When science shows us that we are the product of 3.5 billion years of mutation followed by natural selection to give rise to conscious beings who can perceive a Cosmos 100 billion light years across? When the very poetry of our lives is unquestionable? When we need no superstitious nonsense at all to make sense of the Cosmos? Really? Bleak?
If Dawkins is such a "light weight," you might want to view his TH-cam debate with convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell. That should help you not to make such absurd comments.
Religious conversion often goes with experiencing The Love of God. It's an Experience . Therefore it is valid proof of God in the Convert. The atheist cannot argue this experience away. I believe because I have experienced God's Love. All the proof I need.
Honest question: how do you feel the love of god? What do you have to do for this? Praying? Going to the church? And how fo you know its christ and not the god of judaism or islam
@@lenar.1691 "what do you have to do for this" Apply this question to any kind of love. It's a nonsensical question one might joke about a robot or alien asking people: "Yes, my fellow humans, I too enjoy feeling this LOVE, how do you feel your love? Is it absorbed like the carbohydrates?..." Yes prayer plays a role. Prayer is communication. You can't have a relationship without communication. "And how do you know it's Christ and not the God of Judaism or Islam" Have you researched the difference? Jesus, as understood in Christianity, is "the word" of YHWH. YHWH is the God of Judaism. Islam has Allah. Allah is similar in concept to YHWH, and is clearly MEANT TO be thought of as exactly the same person. But the way Islam thinks about Allah rejects certain personal aspects of YHWH, and Islam and Judaism both reject that Jesus "is God" or is "the son of God". Jesus taught his disciples to pray to "the father", and the church taught us to pray "in Jesus's name". So for all intents and purposes the entity you're praying to when you pray "to God" is one... it's YHWH, called Allah in Arabic. And a Christian prays to YHWH as their "heavenly Father" (relational role) by way of Christ because of our faith in Christ, because Christ is his son (again, roles). Christians sometimes also directly address Christ, or the Holy Spirit, these are the other "persons" of the trinity, they're all THE GOD, called YHWH. Love is a sort of relational state that incorporates selflessness, emotions of compassion and empathy, and valuation and dedication. To define love more broadly look at the Greek words for love in the NT. It's not as narrow as the teenager infatuation type emotion we venerate in pop culture in the west. It's not just "feeling nice things about someone when around them". It's more like "a profound sense of the value of a person or thing that transcends mere quantitative glibness and comparisons".
Peter Jongsma experiencing the love of God may be a wonderful thing but is really not a reliable proof of God’s existence. A proof by its nature is something that can be examined and experimented with. The mentally ill person might say they feel love from a tree but it doesn’t make it true. There exist many reasonable arguments for God’s existence that don’t rely on subjective experiences. As Catholics we embrace the truths of philosophy and science because God is the ultimate author of everything and all existence bears his mark
@Bishop Robert Barron I preface that while i am not Catholic I am a Christian scientist. I have a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology and am aspiring to become a physician's assistant and possibly a doctor myself one day. On the matter of science "debunking" religion I put forth that just the opposite is in fact the case. In my own experience, as I have dug deeper and furthered my understanding of how the world and, more specifically, life functions in the realm of science it strengthened my belief that at the very least the world is not random. Something had to have given it order and purpose. Even looking at a simple cell, let alone an entire organism, one sees an intricacy and intent of design that laughs at the idea of random generation. For every question answered by science another rises. One can ask "Why?" ad infinatum and never find the answers to every question.Science is an amazing field and should be supported and observed but everyone but at its most basic points and its most intricate points it can never answer the question of "Why?". Science is good at finding the answer to "How?". Every scientific theory and postulation is an attempt the explain the functioning of some part of the universe. I can understand why some could see an overlap between religion and science, and indeed to a degree there is, but the two function in tandem rather than opposition or competition as most atheists I've come across try to put them. To summarize this monstrosity of an essay, science and religion, at least to me, answer to fundamentally different questions. Science can answer the "how" and religion the "why".
The order in the universe doesn't tell much, as there is no reference to know if it could be more or less orderly. It is not enough to answer why, there must be evindence that the answer is correct. Religion makes up answers, that is why it is incompatible with science.
@@Mantis858585 if you genuinely think that then you've never actually listened to Bp Barron. It wouldn't take very long for any person of good will to see that he promotes the Saviour of all humanity, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@ironymatt really? Did you hear his prayer before Congress last week? He never mentioned Jesus. No sign of the cross before or after the prayer. Standing 5 feet from Nancy Pelosi he can't pray to end abortion? Revelations 3:16 "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."
@@Mantis858585 If you want to critique the form and substance of the Bishop's prayers, aside from the other calumnus aspersions you cast, then do so to him directly, in line with Mt: 15-17. Otherwise you sew division in Our Lord's house and you appear more than intelligent enough to realize that TH-cam is not the place for it.
I respect Dawkins as a scientist, but there’s no getting around the fact that he’s a cheerleader more than anything, peddling unsophisticated arguments to even less sophisticated people.
Tonino Belimussi the Catholic Church is rich because they are old?! Hahahahaha Tonino you’ve outdone yourself - that is the DUMBEST thing you’ve ever said. “Show me a 2000 year old institution that’s poor”. Like the church has just been really careful with their money - they aren’t greedy. What about the Vatican seems greedy? Hahahaha. Imagine if Greenpeace or Amnesty International are around in 2000 years they’ll be strutting around in palaces and dressed in golden cloaks. Hahaha
Tonino Belimussi it’s not about accumulating wealth!! It’s about spending it on fine clothes and jewels, on palatial cathedrals and unrivalled opulence. Have you been to the Vatican? It really is astonishing. If you believe in Jesus, I can’t imagine how you could think he would be in favour of that. Utterly ridiculous. Matt 19:17-21 if you want to be perfect sell your possessions and give to the poor. Luke 18:22 sell everything you have a give to the poor. And again Luke 12:13. Luke 14:33 those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples. Luke 20:46-47 beware the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats and places of honour at banquets and for a show make long prayers. These men will be punished most severely.
Tonino Belimussi finally we agree on something! I’m not really against cathedrals either perse. They are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world and are open to everyone (even filthy atheists such as myself). I just feel that Jesus would’ve been against building these incredibly grand buildings in favour of housing and helping the poor. I realise the Catholic Church has done a huge amount of charity work over the years, but poverty and famine still remain an issue. Thank you for your blessing.
I think a better title for Dawkins book might have been: "Abandon hope all ye who enter here A new collection of particle's guide toward the path of nihilism in a dead mechanized world"
@@johnnybrahms6591 can't you come up with something better than a childish quip please? If you want a debate put on the gloves and say something with more substance.
@@davex444 go to Matt dillahuntys channel, look in the comments for Tracy Beckett 103 replies, and (if you can find a new rebuttal), put your gloves on and get back to me after you read it. I just debated this same comment a few days ago. th-cam.com/video/JJuLQ0ZD4JA/w-d-xo.html
I’m a Christian who has a simple question: if Jesus wasn’t the son of God, then what of all that comes after. When the disciples who died for him, and the hundreds of Saints who died after them? What of Paul and his turning to Christianity on the road to Damascus? Does one just brush off these accounts? These sacrifices made by those powerful Christians who would die for the faith? That martyrdom is nothing but a lie? I like to ask an atheist these just to see what happens (That’s not a shot at atheists, just a thought of mine)
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._* And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position. 1. I personally have never observed a god. 2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god. 3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity. 4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist. 5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises. 6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon. 7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._ 8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event. 9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity. 10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable. ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is, *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods. I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones. I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
No one can come to God or know God through reason alone. Believing in God is an encounter with Him that leaves you in no doubt that He is real. If you have never had that experience does not dispute those who have. And therein lies the problem. You think you can boil down God to human reason alone and that is in and of itself irrational and a form of scientism, i.e., God is not an entity which can be observed or measured, in fact, he surpasses all human senses/sciences in that He lies outside the realm of the tangible/material.
Love your respectful tone. To answer your #1, God cannot be physically observed since the things we observe are in motion, and God is unchanging. The arguments you want to get familiar with to know that God exists come from St. Thomas Aquinas, who shows by reason alone not only that God exists, but that God has certain attributes that could only properly belong to a person, not an abstract force. God's existence is known by reason - faith happens "after reason", and real faith can have nothing unreasonable about it. Faith helps us know beyond what reason can know, but humans need help in this regard - hence the ongoing public miracles of Jesus, so we can know what he is saying is true. For starters Google this "Summa Contra Gentiles" or "Summa Theologiae" and look up questions you're interested in concerning God including proving God's existence. Here is a Bishop Barron video to help: th-cam.com/video/bdjjqFSEJ_Y/w-d-xo.html Peace, Mike
@@G8rfan61 If you had had such an encounter you would not be disputing God's existence or asking for a rational reason to believe in Him. Such experiences are life-altering and defy human reason as we know it, i.e., how do you logically explain the supernatural or the workings of the supernatural in one's own life?? It is seeing with the eyes of faith (and reason to a degree) that makes all the difference.
@@josieposie9969 -"No one can come to God or know God through reason alone." A lot of the Catholics here will disagree with that. They are big fans of Aquinas who thought it's possible to get a lot of traction out of reasoning from daily experiences. I don't see how that counts as "scientism" either. It seems like a pretty rational enterprise to me. -"If you have never had that experience does not dispute those who have." I guess. Although I do find the accounts given of those experiences to be unconvincing and by my imagining wouldn't convince me if I were to have experienced them. But this raises a larger theological question: why does God only reveal himself to some people and not others? What are the soteriological consequences of that? -"God is not an entity which can be observed or measured, in fact, he surpasses all human senses/sciences in that He lies outside the realm of the tangible/material." Then how does one know they have experienced God? If God is so ineffable, wouldn't the appropriate response to any divine experience be something along the lines of "wow, that was really weird! I have no idea what just happened?"
Yes because Dawkins is destroying atheism through his extremely poor understanding of religion and philosophy and so sounds like a petulant child rather than an esteemed biologist.
Caroline Norman i mean we will never know but unless hitchens was a super low key Catholic then his chances of heaven were pretty slim. Most of the souls in hell were non believers.
@@f22fighterjet I don't believe that. God is a just and loving God full of Grace. He knows that people may not believe in him for perfectly reasonable reasons all though he wants them to find him and the truth during their lives. Romans clearly states that some who do not know the law and God still abide by the law as it is written on their hearts while some of those who know the law do not abide by it. The new Covenant is written on our hearts.
@Ben Grimm As moderator of replies to my comment I'm reporting you for any further replies which aren't constructive in accordance with my totalitarian judgement.
@Albert Schmalbert I reject Nietzsche's assertion in its entirety. It's obvious nonsense. And you can pretend all you want, just don't expect me to be obliged to pretend along with you.
@Albert Schmalbert You're making the claim on Nietzsche's behalf that you can't perceive truth without god. It's up to you to prove what you've asserted. It's always up to the claimant to support the claim WITH EVIDENCE, otherwise it's just another baseless assertion.
@Albert Schmalbert It's ALWAYS up to the person making a positive claim to support the claim with evidence. It's NEVER up to the respondent to attempt to prove a negative. You assert there's a god yet provide absolutely no evidence. I've never been presented with sufficient evidence that would cause me to believe the claim. Repeating the same claim over and over is not evidence. You need to prove your assertion before you can even get out of the starting blocks.
Human morality is far older than any religious text. Humans displayed love and compassion towards family and other tribe members long before any religions originated. It was evolution that gave humans their morals and then humans tried to codify these morals in religious texts. Then other humans came along afterwards and read these texts thinking that they needed these texts to know what moral behavior is without realizing that this knowledge is instinctual
I have a question on the first part of the video. Why do you assume that we have our morals from the bible? Even before the existence of the bible there were many societies who had almost the same moral codes. Also in places were christianity spread very late (japan, etc,...) they had similiar ones.
Maybe I'm not the best to answer this, and it's very late, but I'd say a couple things 1) There is a difference in the morality systems of each religion. Of course there are similarities, but Catholicism didn't demand things like human sacrifice, or from other religions in Europe at the time, imply that there was many gods of different things. 2) The "small" differences lead to massive shifts over thousands of years. I might be just ignorant about this, but I don't think Catholics were gutting themselves like the Japanese did when they would commit sepukku. What I would also say is that the moral system we in the west use is in large part based on the Bible, which is another way to put it. Sorry if I'm wrong on anything, not like I'm some expert theologian
Listening to Dawkins express his simple points proves he has no interest in listening to the other side never mind refuting them. He's created a strawman out of religious people and uses his time and efforts to debate the strawman. The problem for him today however is that religious people and thankfully us Catholics especially have picked up where we slacked off in the intellectual discussion and are now back defending and evangelizing the faith with a rich intellectual tradition. Richard Dawkins is ignoring how many non believers are being exposed to these intellectual arguments which reduces all his points to being nothing more than strawman arguments. These pop culture new atheists don't have the upper-hand they used to, Christians are just as visible in the media especially the internet as these militant secularists.
Paddy234 you call them straw men, but in reality the majority of the faithful hold these positions. Dawkins is not addressing theologians most of the time. He spends most of his time attacking fundamentalists like young earth believers and evolution deniers, which is quite reasonable.
@@shankz8854 Fundamentalists are certainly not the majority of believers. There are 1.2 billion Catholics alone who make up the biggest majority of Christians and most others still come from main denominations who wouldn't subscribe to fundamentalist positions. The reason why Dawkins likes to focus on the fringe minority i believe is for two reasons. To elevate these people as to holding what most Christians believe in order to make it seem all Christian's think this way and secondly so he doesn't have to debate more rational points of view which he does his best to ignore most likely either because he doesn't understand them or finds them too rational to rebuke.
Paddy234 I totally agree and apologise for writing in a confusing way - I didn’t mean to say that fundamentalists were the majority. You are totally wrong about Dawkins unfortunately. It is crystal clear From listening to Dawkins over the years as I have that he focusses on the fundamentalists for the sole reason that they are the most at odds with science and are the most problematic for a successful enlightened society. Dawkins has friends who are christians but he would never (I don’t think) have a friend who denies evolution because he sees this as an egregious act of intellectual dishonesty. That is, he has far less of an issue with sophisticated christians and has said as much on numerous occasions. Further, he often quotes the stats on fundamentalism and repeatedly affirms they are not the majority, but a troublingly numerous minority. So you are completely wrong about that.
@@shankz8854 All good mate. I have heard Dawkins over the years and even limitely with this interview and his points are pretty consistent. He sees religion as damaging to human flourishing and progress and even dangerous which he states in this interview, he doesn't clarify that it's just a fundamentalist view that is harmful but religion full stop and he ironically states it's immoral to get one's moral structure from the bible which is funny from a man who was given his moral structure from a society built on christian truths. He even describes bringing children up with religion as indoctrination which he aims to combat by indoctrinating them with secularism. He clearly has a problem with religion in general not just fundamentalism however he uses fundamentalism as a weapon to bash moderate religious people with. He clearly states in this interview that his qualms are about ALL religion in general and the arguments he gives are adolescent at best. Arguments like Christian's are atheists of every other God apart from one etc are just cringy. These people who talk like this are only interested in giving cliche half arsed phrases to make themselves feel ridiculously intelligent. Any serious seeker for truth wouldn't fall for such rubbish. The greatest minds in history believed/believe in God their creator, cliche phrases just don't work to undo that. This subject requires deep searching
@@shankz8854 I've realised evangelizing through intellectual arguments will only go so far. I feel the Pope is very correct when he asks us to build bridges with our neighbor rather than be indifferent. Sometimes debating to the point where it becomes about exerting ones ego can end up creating larger rifts. Christianity expanded by the virtues of those who lived by it and give their all for it. It will do so again only in this way. The intellectual debates are there to rational this love as best we can so as to invite others into it. If we cannot do so then at least we can be friendly with one another and live in peace
The argument from a first unity/simplicity (going back from composed beings to a oneness) cannot work unless its causation is understood as contemporaneous. But the example of Bishop Barron does not lend itself to that understanding, at least if it is taken in the direction of a "proof". The problem is, as Bishop Barron rightfully explains elsewhere when speaking of the first mover, that it is perfectly reasonable to hold that an animal for example receives matter and form through his parents and imagine an infinite regress in an infinitely old world (such a world is possible in terms of a reasoned position according to Thomas Aquinas [STh I, q46, a1] but just happens not to be true according to revelation which posits creation). So as an argument from reason it does not work unless your example illustrate that the all links in the chain of causation exist in the here and now. What is valid is his Excellencies point about simplicity being metaphysically more fundamental and basic than complexity as attested also by the entire philosophical tradition which never imagined the ultimate fountain of everything as infinitely complex but simple.
Rogan is super anti Catholic and Lukewarm Bishop Barren would probably just act embarrassed to be Catholic. Did you see Bishop Barren prayer in Congress? Never mentioned Jesus, not sign of the cross.... 😒😢
Does an atheist like Dawkins even engage with philosophical arguments like the ones laid out here? My guess is that he doesn’t at all. I don’t mean in his books, I mean in his own head. My honest thought is he is cynically pumping out these books for money and acclaim. I don’t think he is really perusing “truth” as even an atheist would see it. If he were really after truth, he would try to engage with these deeper arguments and quit knocking down straw men.
Can you explain the trinity doctrine in light of Isaiah 9:6 "For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government will be upon his shoulder, and his name will be called “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”"
Who is "god"? We capitalise proper nouns in English. I bet if you were talking to a Muslim, you would capitalise Allah, which is the right thing to do, it's a proper noun, in fact Christians use it that speak Arabic. I refuse to believe that you can't find the shift or the caps lock button on your keyboard.
@@BishopBarron While I am ignorant on those authors, and I've not done an analysis of the two figures historical authenticities, Julius Caesar has his face minted on ancient Roman currency. This is undoubtedly something an empire would not do if he were not a real individual. I will admit I'm not going to look into this further because to me it's a complete non-issue. I'm not worried about authenticity claims between a supposed supernaturally gifted human and a ruler of one of the worlds most dominant historical empires as to even entertain the comparison seems ludicrous. I'd much rather talk about a point you made earlier in the video regarding morality and you saying an atheist would have a hard time justifying their moral structure apart from God. Not only is this false, I find it completely irrelevant to anything. I don't expect a reply on this because it's simply a TH-cam comment and you are undoubtedly busy with other things! But thanks for the reply! Take care!
@@metashadow3924 I'm sincerely curious: how do you justify the objectivity of your moral claims? No appeal to society or psychology or evolution will do, since all of these give rise, finally, to a relativistic morality.
@@BishopBarron I am not claiming that morals are objective and by inserting the word "objectivity" into your question, I feel like you're trying to tie me down to an argument that you know I will lose. I'm also wondering why you're immediately dismissing moral relativism other than to further tie me down to the idea of objective morality. As far as I can tell, looking at the general morals of different generations going back and how the general moral landscape changes, I see no reason to disregard moral relativism because it seems very much a reality. You seem to think there is a connection between morals and God and without God, you cannot be justifiably moral. What makes you think that connection exists? Yeah, I get that its in the Bible, but aside from that... How in the world can you be sure of that claim? You can see for yourself how morals have shifted over the generations. I think your side of the argument has an obsession with the word "Objective" in the morality debate with a purpose to tie it to the divine. I very much subscribe to Sam Harris's moral argument, that morality can be gauged by suffering, and it is justifiably objective that it is not in one's best interest to be murdered. That seems very objectively moral, but you certainly don't need God to figure that out if you want to build a functioning society.
@@metashadow3924 You're absolutely right: I'm trying to fix you on the horns of a dilemma. If you maintain, as you seem to, that morality is utterly relative and subjective, it's finally impossible for you to say that Hitler's holocaust is truly wrong or that slavery is definitively immoral. One could easily say that each represents the consensus of a given culture at a given moment. And the appeal to Sam Harris won't get you off the horns of the dilemma, for "suffering" as such is a subjective state of affairs. Why couldn't Hitler say that the very existence of Jews caused enormous suffering in him and the German people? Why couldn't slave owners have claimed that slavery alleviated enormous suffering in the people of the South, and therefore was justified?
Derek Stewart not really. Do you have one example of where he turns him on his head? Or is it just a general feeling you have as a heavily biased listener?
@@shankz8854 Well, I'm actually a first time listener. I'd never heard of the Bishop before. I do regularly listen to Rogan though. I guess it's subjective about who was turning heads. My personal beliefs are my own, and I really don't know why I even commented but apparently I did. I'm not biased either way.
Derek Stewart I’m interested in debating people with a different opinion to me. It’s one way of learning. I’d also like to add that you are in fact biased (as we all are) - I can tell by your final sentence: “god bless”.
I don't understand how you can read the words: "Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." How can you read that, and say "its a metaphor for fighting evil"
10.30. The water into wine miracle is a reference to the spirituality of the Jewish Faith, in which the everyday pedestrian life is represented by water, and a life in God is represented by wine.
32:18 The people that stay in the religion are those who have another conversion process. When I hit my early teens I questioned my faith and became an atheist. However when I looked back on it later in life as saw that it was important. I became a Methodist again just like my parents were. I loved it. However after looking into it more I saw that even Methodism was not true. I still love it but I became convinced of the truth of Catholicism. This was one of the most painful experience of my life. It cost me one of my closest friends and it is not something I wanted to do at all. If I had anyway off of this I would take it but I have to follow the truth. I find it offensive that he just dismisses this.
I'm curious now, the bishop said that we shouldn't hold to many of the things that were "recommended and urged in the old testament" including much of Leviticus. That is the book I have heard most cited in opposition to homosexuality. Does that mean that may not be the true will of God? I'm no bible expert though so I am curious how these passages are usually interpreted.
With different denominations there are different approaches to the questions of biblical interpretation and sexuality. The Catholic Church interprets the part of Leviticus prohibiting sexual acts between people of the same sex as morally binding. This is one of those teachings i have diffculty grappling with and at this point i just take on the basis of believing the Church has the authority correctly interpret the Bible, but it also is something i can accept a little easier from Catholicism because they havent reversed the teaching against contraception like so many christian denominations opposed to homosexuality have. This is my personal take on it as a bisexual who converted to Catholicism and tries to live out its teachings and definitely hasnt always been successful at it even after converting. But thats why im thankful for confession.
2 small simple questions for our materialist friends..... 1. How do you get Something from nothing? 2. How do you get Life from Non-Life?.....(see Dr. James Tour)
@@joycelilyandrewes8667 The Universe always existed? The problem is there is no observational evidence that, that is true. Now someday it may be possible to find some data, but as of Today all we know is 13.7-.8 billion years ago the universe come into existence. (See Dr Michael G Strauss: "The Grand Design: Is God Unnecessary?" www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/08/the-grand-design-is-god-unnecessary.html "The correct response is that we don't know the process by which non-living materials perform the processes we associate with living organisms such as growing, reproducing, maintaining homeostasis, and so forth. However, that doesn't decide between materialism and supernaturalism." The problem I have in reading articles watching videos (in the popular media) is Life existing is assumed. A hundred years ago people talked about the simple one celled organism. Today whatever else we can say about one celled organisms SIMPLE is not one of them. A couple of videos I'd like you to look at. James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html About 20 minutes Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution (or as I like to call it...A Christian, An Atheist, and A Jew walk into a hotel room :-)) th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html About an hour.
23:25: you are joking, right? These objections are brought up ALL THE TIME! Very disingenuous to say that they are not brought up to justify faith in God. Sure, not directly. But they ARE in fact brought up to break up faith in science, which in the end amounts to the same thing. And note that I said "faith in science" and not "faith in scientism," which as Bishop Barron correctly points out is not the same thing.
It would be fascinating to see him defend a few of his most interesting opinions. For example, he obviously reveres George Pell because his interviews with Pell remain posted on TH-cam. He is also on record as advocating that the survivors of clerical child rape ought not to receive justice in the courts. I'd be fascinated to hear Barron discuss both topics.
A very necessary commentary on modern atheism. As Jordan Peterson put it, science deals with matter. Religion deals with what matters. For a much more intelligent book on atheism by an atheist, see John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism. By far the most erudite and eloquent argument against atheism that I have come across is David Bentley Hart’s Atheist Delusions.
Good title, make sense because atheism is actually kind of childish, which is ironic because the best theological discussions I have is with my four-year-old nephew. I'm not making that up, that kid is a little theologian.
The two disciples after the resurrection. Finishing a meal Jesus vanishing. One said to the otherwere not our hearts burning when He spoke to us on the road?
Bishop Barron - Knowing that the Bible is a compendium of literary styles ( a library), how do we discern when the writing is allegorical and when it is speaking truth? How do we say that Adam and Eve, Noah, etc were allegorical and on the other hand remain steadfast to the belief that the Eucharist is Jesus' body and blood. I believe and want to be able to evangelize to my children and beyond. Peace.
I would like to know Bishop Barron's opinion of Dr Joe Dispenza work & meditations (to elevate our consciousness to personally connect to "the divine" [God] ) & his documented evidence of frequent, true "miracles ( of Biblical proportions) of healing" in his workshops; which are aided by supernatural "beings" (see Lilou Mace interview of Dr Joe on TH-cam video) - & are these "beings" Angels?? Is this the meeting point of science & religion???
He debated with Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Pell is now in jail and Richard has a point about morality. People who believe that a wafer becomes the Body of the Lord Jesus have a serious problem with reality. They don't dare to debate with Richard directly.
Oh well father excuse me man in a lot of the world was always doing this before it needed written it was a way of life that did not need written...but flowed by our parents their parents etc...
Thanks for this Bishop! Please keep up this dialogue about atheism...the more videos that are out there the more atheists will realize that they are always arguing against caricatures of God because they can touch perfection itself.
My estimation of Joe Rogan just went way down. What a full! Go live in an atheist country, like China or somewhere in Africa, then tell us how great atheism is.
@domhnall777 The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was based on Judeo-Christian values and morals, thus making the USA a Christian country regardless of the percentage of atheists in it. "All men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR by certain unalienable rights..." Today's China and its governing system has been forcefully created based on atheism and communist ideology, thus making it an atheist country regardless of how many religious people are in it. Communists don't recognize an individual's rights, they are all about the collective. Any individual who stands in the way of the collective will be eliminated. Read about Mao's China. I don't know where you get your information, but according to my sources there is no religious freedom in China. If there was muslims wouldn't being locked up in concentration camps as we speak. There's no such thing as freedom in China. If there was, protests in Hong Kong happening now wouldn't be suppressed and Chinese government wouldn't use the Social Score system to force their citizens into compliance.
@domhnall777 Establishing one National Religion would mean, excluding all other religions making an individual's freedom impossible. Religion and faith are not the same thing. Christian faith is one thing, Catholic religion is another. Here's a quote from one of our founding fathers, John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That is the individuals adherence to a set of moral rules gives them the freedom to control their lives. The government doesn't have to police your every move because they can trust you more or less. In China the government controls you and what you do with your life. A Chinese citizen told me recently that their government tells them what's right and wrong. He didn't know what morals were.
I grew up an altar boy and graduated from Catholic Schools. I started doubting my faith when i was 14 and I was a solidified atheist by the time i was 16. Without having ever heard the term, and before the popularity of Richard Dawkins or the internet. I can credit reading the Bible cover to cover and asking many questions to my parents and religious leaders with shattering by faith. I'm 36 now and I've heard all the arguments inside and out. The fundamental difference between believers and non believers is what they consider passes for a valid argument. The Rogan/Dawkins podcast wasn't a stellar example of laying out the best arguments against belief in God... It was just a conversation between 2 non-believers. Nevertheless, I watched this entire 2 part rebuttal, and all I can say about it is... it was weak. But weak arguments are all believers need to keep on believing, that is if they need any reason at all.
So is Bishop Barron saying that the violence in the OT never happened in history? I understand that Christians can interpret the OT violence allegorically, but what if God actually commanded real violence in the OT? An allegorical interpretation doesn't help now if God commanded violence then.
The belief of faith is in your spirit. It is in the center of each one of us. It boggles my mind how these nonbelievers are preaching nothingness to our youth. That, is the root of all evil. I'm sure deep down they know they are wrong. Never to late to believe.
Johnny Brahms , one thing is 100% fact. I can't believe for you. But I can pray for you whether you want me to or not. Have a good life John I'm sure you have everything you need to do so.
Every time I listen to these "knock-down arguments", I'm always thinking of Dr. Evil saying to his son: "[Richard]... ya just don't get it, do ya? Ya don't!"
@domhnall777 he’s utterly clueless - he botched basic concepts like ‘faith’ and appears to be utterly innocent of the scholarly lit. He should stick to his area
23:58. I find the argument for God being the simple base to all causality very compelling. Yes, there needs to be a foundational ground of being, from which everything emanates. On the other hand, how do you get from such a conception of God, to the personal God of Christianity? It seems to me that starting from such a conception, you get various interpretations of it through the various religions. You can argue that some are closer to ultimate reality than others, but it's difficult to say that any of them are the actual truth.
The God of Christianity is a God who reveals Himself. You cannot know Him just by logic. So you can't get from the god of the philosophers to the revealed God of Christianity.
We must be surrended to God and hear our own Angels, everyone has one, no one is empty of Angels. That is a lie. They must be sad the Angels if everyone not pray to their own Angels😭😭😭
Concern for the marginalised can't be accounted for by atheists? Really? Ironically Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on altruism and how it arises from Darwinian Natural Selection. It is called "The Selfish Gene". Read it for god's sake before you make such a silly assertion.
I'm an Orthodox Christian and a physics and engineering college student and I've been waiting with bated breath for this second episode to come out! Bishop Barron, why don't you and Brandon do a third episode? I'm sure there's more clips to go over...Joe Rogan's podcasts are not known for brevity. We would love a third episode if you have the energy for it! Thanks again for all you do and for the Word on Fire show, Bishop Barron!
No thanks! www.google.com/amp/s/www.lifesitenews.com/mobile/news/us-cardinal-cupich-defends-use-of-pachamama-idol-during-amazon-synod
@AT Complete SS , I am a person of faith who has chosen to study science, and in my free time I am interested in philosophical implications. Why is there anything wrong with that? Anyways, thanks for keeping me humble and have a great day :)
I semi recently became Catholic (Been a couple of months now) and these videos have been a blessing :)
Welcome home brother.
Welcome home. :) It's a big house!
Welcome home.
@ljit ljam We are His children and He has sent His own son to us to understand His purpose on earth, BUT He does not want to interfere with our free will or destroy us. All these martyrdoms were done by MAN and for MAN. If everyone would hear His word and do His will, we would be LITERALLY in His kingdom, because the kingdom of God is among us, as Jesus brilliantly taught us (Tolstoy has a beautiful book on this subject as well).
ljit ljam I heard a great joke once:
A Jewish WW2 death camp survivor dies and goes to heaven. When he meets god he tells him a joke about the Holocaust. God replies: that’s not funny and quite offensive - you shouldn’t tell jokes about the Holocaust. And the man replies “I guess you had to be there.”
Bishop Barron you got to get on Joe Rogan's podcast. It would be a HUGE moment to evangelize. Don't underestimate how far reaching Rogan's influence is!!
Basilica If Rogan took it seriously, it would be great. I have a feeling he would make a mockery of the whole thing and light up a joint in the middle of it or something
@Jin p Rogan might be atheist but I think he would be open to have Bishop Barron on his show.They would probably disagree on almost everything but I think it would be civil. Rogan doesn't come across to me as real hardcore antithestic atheist/agnostic.
@Jin p "Sue is a blonde. She doesn't like hamburgers".
Austen Stokes extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Bishop Barren is certainly not above critique, but he has done amazing work to evangelize in the modern world...and he’s definitely not a traitor of the faith.
Rogan is influential. He'd destroy Barron.
Bishop Barron, you're literally one of my favorite people of all time and I really regret having not surrendered my life to Christ in my youth so I would have aspired to be a priest, still, you're such a role model to me!
Jonathan Gil Santillan sure he is 🙌🏽
I am glad for you relying on another religious leader to lead sheep like a good shepherd. Whatever path you feel you need. Churches can do good works when it comes to charity at times.
Jonathan Gil Santillan
Don't think there can be impediments becoming a Priest.
It's from God's side. You are a receiver of a gift from Him. He calls knowing ALL about you.
'No conditions' apply.
You don't look that old .What stops you now ?
@@petercarlson811 i agree. Priesthood is a sacrifice, first and foremost. It can bear rewarding fruits, of course, but that would be earned through the effort entailed in earnestly being a priest.
Ex Catholic here... turned atheist.... turned back to a Catholic.
@Scotlands Unicorn Wow. Really glad to hear that
Good to have you back, brother. Atheism is hollow and shallow.
@@Nimbereth Definitely, It's just another religion that doesn't care for anyone if their views differ from theirs. They think they have moral authority over everyone and they think because they're using "critical thinking" they're correct about absolutely everything lol I realised it was a cult and a bad one at that when Christians were being persecuted in other parts of the world and churches were being burned to the ground throughout Europe and when I spoke about it saying this is concerning, all these people would do is make jokes and laugh about it, talking about "where's your God now". I was in a bunch of atheist groups on facebook and when I made a post telling them I was seeing a major change in attitudes from atheists, that they were losing their humanity and that I was leaving atheism as I had become nihilistic... the response I got was unbelievable, non stop abuse... I don't want to be part of anything that acts the way they do, I care about all human beings regardless of their beliefs, none of us have the answers and we should be free to live life the best way we can unless it has a negative effect on others and if religion helps you through life or you find meaning in it then who are these people to try bully those people round to their way of thinking? It's evil at its core. I urge anyone to join an atheist group on facebook and show them bad things that have happened to our fellow human beings and mention what they believed and just sit back and watch the evil flow by your face, it's sickening.
Fascinating Scotlands. I'm waiting for the return to reason.
Welcome home my dear ❤️⛪️😊
Dawkins says he "doesn't get" why people put so much energy into their faith, but he's a tireless champion of atheism, writing books, producing documentaries, debating believers, appearing on panel shows, etc. I've heard a lot of religious criticism from him and very little discussion of science. He's practically a professional atheist.
You're quite uninformed, Lee. Read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins available on Amazon: www.amazon.com/Selfish-Gene-Anniversary-Landmark-Science/dp/0198788606/ref=sr_1_2?crid=Z8DZH0U4IBLH&keywords=the+selfish+gene+by+richard+dawkins&qid=1575244381&sprefix=The+Selfish+Gene%2Caps%2C157&sr=8-2
This was a pivotal book in our thinking about mutation and the natural selection of all life forms. Dawkins will be well remembered for his scientific insight, though his contributions to the dissolution of superstition and his brilliant criticisms of supernaturalism as silly are undoubtedly even more important.
A 55 yo physician, psychiatrist, born and educated in the Soviet Union…quietly baptized by my mother in Russian Orthodoxy, but brought up to be an atheist by the communist regime. At 23 yo immigrated to the US…and gradually transformed into an open minded agnostic…and by my middle age feel stronger and stronger what I think to be a call from my God…I am not there yet…but in my clumsy way I pray to arrive to the destination…
Wonderful episode! I've learned more about Catholicism from Bishop Barron in the last year than in all of my years of CCD and faith formation as a young child and teen. God bless you, Bishop Barron and the WOF team!
It is amazing how biblically illiterate Dawkins is. How can you devote your life to proving something wrong and only ever manage to have an elementary, superficial understanding of it.
it is shocking how incredibly stupid Dawkins is when it comes to philosophical argument -- I guess that's what happens when you only study natural science with seriousness
I consider myself an agnostic atheist. But I love listening to Bishop Barron. If more like him represented Christianity, perhaps it wouldn’t be slowly receding in western culture.
Naw, Joey, it would continue to recede. Why? Because it's based on superstitious nonsense, having not a whit of verifiable evidence to support it.
It would continue to recede, that’s no doubt true. It’s the very reason I am no longer a theist. I’m sure I could have stated that better. What I meant was some people do leave their faith because of the asinine behavior of some of the right wing Evangelicals. It’s not necessarily a good reason (it’s not based on whether or not their claims are true) but it’s not a non zero percentage. I can respect the way Barron argues for his faith, and still find his reasons lacking.
@@joeymorris4589 What do you consider lacking in my reasoning?
Bishop Robert Barron Thank you for taking the time to respond, Bishop Barron. I find myself in a constant state of not being convinced by the available evidence. Thing is, I’m also finding myself wanting to be convinced. So, how can that bridge be constructed? I haven’t yet found an answer. I’m finding it near impossible to make that final step.
@@joeymorris4589 Well, tell me what you find unconvincing and I'll try to convince you!
I said it once in part 1 and so i'll say it again, The Bishop should appear on Joe's podcast, it would put such a big smile on my face to see the Bishop and Joe together.
I absolutely love that the Bishop so unabashedly suggests protestant Theologians. N.T. Wright is one of my favorite, and there is no reason we Catholics should discount our protestant siblings when they have so much to offer.
@@toninobelimussi296 It's WONDERFUL when silly supernaturalists argue and neither has the least bit of verifiable evidence for his position. So revealing of the fundamental nature of superstition.
There's no need for us to belittle them, but we must remember the Catholic Church has the fulness of Truth and we do not need to look outside the Church for doctrine.
@@johnnybrahms6591 'Silly supernaturalists" - yeah, you've just demonstrated you have nothing whatever to say. Your anti-intellectual guff is pathetic really.
An atheist cannot be a "good moral person" a believer spends a lifetime trying to get anywhere near that themselves. An atheist, CAN be a "reasonably ethical person". Two different things.
mmmail1969 and your evidence for this?
@@shankz8854 - NO-one can be a "good moral person" - because, that would LITERALLY mean, they are PERFECT! I'm NOT a "good moral person" I'm a sinner! An atheist, by definition has no basis for seeking ANY moral position. They MAY seek a measure of ethical standing - but nothing they do is "moral" period!
mmmail1969 ok so you have an unusual definition of a “good moral person”. I agree no one is perfectly moral 100% of the time. And even if they were, who could judge that? You seem to have your own definitions of these words and I have no desire to get bogged down in semantics. Having said that, I think morality is no different regardless of what you believe. I don’t think morality comes from God (of course). Morality clearly changes over time, which is a pretty stark reminder to me that it was not set out in the beginning by a single omniscient perfectly moral being.
@@shankz8854, Mmmail1969's definition of a moral person is not unusual. It is the standard Christian definition in mainstream Christianity.
Brie I think “perfect moral person” would be a less confusing term. “Good” doesn’t imply perfection to most people.
I'd honestly love to see you go on Joe Rogan's podcast (watch out he's gonna try to get you to smoke)
I don't think Joe Rogan would want to talk to a Catholic priest, let alone a Bishop. He is not as "open mind" as he'd like to think. Plus he can be callous and inappropriate at times, so I don't think it would be a good environment for the Bishop anyways. I am all for productive conversations between people with opposing views, but I think that this would be one of the few unproductive ones.
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 Agreed. Joe has interesting guests and is pretty good at interviewing most people but he has a bad habit of shoehorning drugs into every conversation and isn't particularly deep thinking when it comes to religion
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 I wouldn't have thought that Joe would want to talk to a lot of people that he has talked to, like I know he doesn't agree with some of the political youtubers that he has had on, but they were still able to have conversations. Not all of Joe's podcasts are inappropriate either. The one with Snowden and Bob Lazar were both very respectful. Lastly, I don't think Joe's show is typically productive, especially when it involves guests that agree non stop. Usually those devolve into mutual bootlicking.
@@carlosfernandobuenabadnaja4211 he says awful things about the Catholic Church but Bishop Barron is an evangelizer and if that means being offended here and there, so be it. i think it would do a lot of good for Rogan (and potentially his listeners) if Bishop Barron came on the show because Rogan seems so ignorant of the religion he came from, and he's open minded enough to hear the other side.
@@pootnannies I agree that an evangelizer is bound to be on the wrong end of insults and offense, but that doesn't mean that he should actively look for that, if there is nothing to gain. And with Rogan I think that there is nothing to gain. Would I like to see him convert? Sure. But I don't think that it will happen anytime soon, and the good Bishop could use his energy elsewhere. Besides, for him to go to Rogan's show, he has to be invited first. And we all know that's not going to happen from Joe "I hate the Church almost as much as I love weed" Rogan.
My parents, grandparents, great grandparents weren't Catholics or practising Christians, but I'm a Catholic! :-D
Thank God for your journey. The Catholic Church is the true church.
Holy Trinity, thank you for your illuminating and respectful rebuttals presented by Bishop Barron and Brandon. Please shower Richard and Joe with your infinite love, compassion, and mercy. By your boundless grace, open their eyes to the truth and protect them from their resistant and controlling selves (as you once did for me). Give them a hunger for faith, as it is understood to be an act of the intellect assenting to the truth at the command of the will, according to your faithful servant, St. Thomas Aquinas. May all the glory be yours forever. Amen.
There was this video from around a year ago where Brett Weinstein and Richard Dawkins had a debate regarding a few different subjects, and when it came to the topic of the utility of religion, Brett noticed that Dawkins became almost completely unreasonable. Brett is also an atheist, IIRC, but he had a much more nuanced approach in his analysis and acknowledged the value of religion; while Dawkins stuck with his gross generalizations and stereotypes, even suggesting that religious people were mentally ill. I don't read much of Dawkin's stuff, but that interaction alone made it hard for me to take him seriously when it comes to this topic.
LOKITYZ
Since when did “nuanced” become synonymous with “holds a similar position to me?” While Dawkins doesn’t have the most nuanced view of religion or theology, I wouldn’t say Weinstein does either. His perspective, agree or disagree with it, is pretty simple and straightforward. I know a number of anti-theists who hold more detailed views though.
“Both Bible and the Koran”.
What about the Talmud?
The silence is deafening.
What about the books of Zoroastrianism.
What about the Book of Mormon
Or the vedas
Or the big book of Scientology
My God, i believe, i adore, i trust, and i love Thee. I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love thee.
Well that's because you're an idiot.
Anisa Duaa thanks mate
All Richard Dawkins does in his arguments is strawman religion.
I strongly feel that Richard Dawkins is a damn idiot . all his arguments are almost next to void. all he has to give as an argument against religion goes like this:-
' We need religion to justify morality? That's ridiculous'. Now 'that's ridiculous' - is that an argument?
don't forget slander and ad hominem - Dawkins loves these as well
@@angelicdoctor8016 yes yes why not haha
@@angelicdoctor8016 I consider slander and ad hominem to be subsets of the strawman argument. But, true, very true. Have you seen Lutheran Satire's cartoon about Conall and Donall meeting Dawkins? It's funny.
Naw, Dawkins doesn't need to "strawman" supernaturalism. It does it by itself.
This is Bishop at his best. I feel like this is all his videos in the past 10 years put in 1 awesome interview.
I agree 4 Bros. This is Barron at his very best. Unfortunately, his best is awful.
@@coleporter5757 Then tell me, old friend, why in the world do you keep listening to me?!
@@BishopBarron Probably for grins.
Johnny Brahms No way I believe that...
@@BishopBarron he listens to you becuase hes a huge fan.
Atheism is so bleak when the human heart yearns for hope and love.
We experience hope and love too. We just don't have unreasonable hopes like eternal life after we die.
@@BFizzi719 But your hope is completely materialistic.
Really
You are not convinced Hinduism is true , does that leave you feeling bleak ,
Oh Anna: My goodness. Bleak? You're kidding me, right? When science shows clearly that we humans are made in our essence from star dust? When science shows us that we are the product of 3.5 billion years of mutation followed by natural selection to give rise to conscious beings who can perceive a Cosmos 100 billion light years across? When the very poetry of our lives is unquestionable? When we need no superstitious nonsense at all to make sense of the Cosmos? Really? Bleak?
Bishop, Thank you. Very helpful. Peter
Rogen and Dawkins seem to be such light weights in their own private Idaho.
If Dawkins is such a "light weight," you might want to view his TH-cam debate with convicted pedophile cardinal George Pell. That should help you not to make such absurd comments.
I was just thinking that Dawkins seems very naive in not recognizing how religion helps people through challenges and intense suffering.
Oh I prefer the Lennox Dawkins debate..maybe light banter weight would better describe Dawkins
FortBaker2011
That is not relevant to its truth
Religious conversion often goes with experiencing The Love of God.
It's an Experience .
Therefore it is valid proof of God in the Convert.
The atheist cannot argue this experience away.
I believe because I have experienced God's Love.
All the proof I need.
It's like a colorblind person who refuses to believe that other people see colors they don't.
Honest question: how do you feel the love of god? What do you have to do for this? Praying? Going to the church? And how fo you know its christ and not the god of judaism or islam
@@lenar.1691 "what do you have to do for this"
Apply this question to any kind of love. It's a nonsensical question one might joke about a robot or alien asking people:
"Yes, my fellow humans, I too enjoy feeling this LOVE, how do you feel your love? Is it absorbed like the carbohydrates?..."
Yes prayer plays a role. Prayer is communication. You can't have a relationship without communication.
"And how do you know it's Christ and not the God of Judaism or Islam"
Have you researched the difference?
Jesus, as understood in Christianity, is "the word" of YHWH.
YHWH is the God of Judaism.
Islam has Allah. Allah is similar in concept to YHWH, and is clearly MEANT TO be thought of as exactly the same person. But the way Islam thinks about Allah rejects certain personal aspects of YHWH, and Islam and Judaism both reject that Jesus "is God" or is "the son of God".
Jesus taught his disciples to pray to "the father", and the church taught us to pray "in Jesus's name".
So for all intents and purposes the entity you're praying to when you pray "to God" is one... it's YHWH, called Allah in Arabic. And a Christian prays to YHWH as their "heavenly Father" (relational role) by way of Christ because of our faith in Christ, because Christ is his son (again, roles).
Christians sometimes also directly address Christ, or the Holy Spirit, these are the other "persons" of the trinity, they're all THE GOD, called YHWH.
Love is a sort of relational state that incorporates selflessness, emotions of compassion and empathy, and valuation and dedication. To define love more broadly look at the Greek words for love in the NT. It's not as narrow as the teenager infatuation type emotion we venerate in pop culture in the west. It's not just "feeling nice things about someone when around them".
It's more like "a profound sense of the value of a person or thing that transcends mere quantitative glibness and comparisons".
Peter Jongsma experiencing the love of God may be a wonderful thing but is really not a reliable proof of God’s existence. A proof by its nature is something that can be examined and experimented with. The mentally ill person might say they feel love from a tree but it doesn’t make it true. There exist many reasonable arguments for God’s existence that don’t rely on subjective experiences. As Catholics we embrace the truths of philosophy and science because God is the ultimate author of everything and all existence bears his mark
@@ravissary79 thank you very much for your answer! :)
I used to be Catholic. I still am, but I used to be too.
haha good
May God bless you always Bishop Barron ❤️
@Bishop Robert Barron I preface that while i am not Catholic I am a Christian scientist. I have a bachelor's degree in biochemistry and molecular biology and am aspiring to become a physician's assistant and possibly a doctor myself one day. On the matter of science "debunking" religion I put forth that just the opposite is in fact the case. In my own experience, as I have dug deeper and furthered my understanding of how the world and, more specifically, life functions in the realm of science it strengthened my belief that at the very least the world is not random. Something had to have given it order and purpose. Even looking at a simple cell, let alone an entire organism, one sees an intricacy and intent of design that laughs at the idea of random generation. For every question answered by science another rises. One can ask "Why?" ad infinatum and never find the answers to every question.Science is an amazing field and should be supported and observed but everyone but at its most basic points and its most intricate points it can never answer the question of "Why?". Science is good at finding the answer to "How?". Every scientific theory and postulation is an attempt the explain the functioning of some part of the universe. I can understand why some could see an overlap between religion and science, and indeed to a degree there is, but the two function in tandem rather than opposition or competition as most atheists I've come across try to put them. To summarize this monstrosity of an essay, science and religion, at least to me, answer to fundamentally different questions. Science can answer the "how" and religion the "why".
The order in the universe doesn't tell much, as there is no reference to know if it could be more or less orderly. It is not enough to answer why, there must be evindence that the answer is correct. Religion makes up answers, that is why it is incompatible with science.
It's such a pleasure to listen to this intelligent man.
He's more concerned with self promotion than Catholicism.
@@Mantis858585 if you genuinely think that then you've never actually listened to Bp Barron. It wouldn't take very long for any person of good will to see that he promotes the Saviour of all humanity, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
@@ironymatt really? Did you hear his prayer before Congress last week? He never mentioned Jesus. No sign of the cross before or after the prayer. Standing 5 feet from Nancy Pelosi he can't pray to end abortion? Revelations 3:16 "So because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of My mouth."
@@Mantis858585
If you want to critique the form and substance of the Bishop's prayers, aside from the other calumnus aspersions you cast, then do so to him directly, in line with Mt: 15-17. Otherwise you sew division in Our Lord's house and you appear more than intelligent enough to realize that TH-cam is not the place for it.
I’m waiting to see this video! Looks to be an interesting one! Thanks Bishop Barron for your messages!
It maybe interesting if not on repeat what everyone else has already said before.
@@Chamelionroses You'll want to watch it then to find out.
For the mean time head to my channel for your daily meditations! Please do not forget to subscribe
Humanism's persistence ( philosophy, psychology) is religion's biggest difficulty.
I respect Dawkins as a scientist, but there’s no getting around the fact that he’s a cheerleader more than anything, peddling unsophisticated arguments to even less sophisticated people.
He's a 'tabloid' scientist who, I'm sorry to say, has made a lot of money out of unintelligent folk.
@@Basilisk4119 Not nearly as much money as the Roman church has made from its legions of ill-educated and gullible folk.
Tonino Belimussi the Catholic Church is rich because they are old?! Hahahahaha Tonino you’ve outdone yourself - that is the DUMBEST thing you’ve ever said. “Show me a 2000 year old institution that’s poor”. Like the church has just been really careful with their money - they aren’t greedy. What about the Vatican seems greedy? Hahahaha. Imagine if Greenpeace or Amnesty International are around in 2000 years they’ll be strutting around in palaces and dressed in golden cloaks. Hahaha
Tonino Belimussi it’s not about accumulating wealth!! It’s about spending it on fine clothes and jewels, on palatial cathedrals and unrivalled opulence. Have you been to the Vatican? It really is astonishing. If you believe in Jesus, I can’t imagine how you could think he would be in favour of that. Utterly ridiculous.
Matt 19:17-21 if you want to be perfect sell your possessions and give to the poor. Luke 18:22 sell everything you have a give to the poor. And again Luke 12:13. Luke 14:33 those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples. Luke 20:46-47 beware the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted with respect in the marketplaces and have the most important seats and places of honour at banquets and for a show make long prayers. These men will be punished most severely.
Tonino Belimussi finally we agree on something! I’m not really against cathedrals either perse. They are some of the most beautiful buildings in the world and are open to everyone (even filthy atheists such as myself). I just feel that Jesus would’ve been against building these incredibly grand buildings in favour of housing and helping the poor. I realise the Catholic Church has done a huge amount of charity work over the years, but poverty and famine still remain an issue.
Thank you for your blessing.
I think a better title for Dawkins book might have been:
"Abandon hope all ye who enter here
A new collection of particle's guide toward the path of nihilism in a dead mechanized world"
John Buckner That is a more honest tittle.
Oh, John. Boo boo hoo hoo. Such stupidity.
@@johnnybrahms6591 can't you come up with something better than a childish quip please? If you want a debate put on the gloves and say something with more substance.
Hope? how about abandon belief without evidence.
@@davex444 go to Matt dillahuntys channel, look in the comments for Tracy Beckett 103 replies, and (if you can find a new rebuttal), put your gloves on and get back to me after you read it. I just debated this same comment a few days ago.
th-cam.com/video/JJuLQ0ZD4JA/w-d-xo.html
Find time to go on the Joe Rogan experience. Keep up the great work!
The eternal light that alone knows itself, and knowing, loves itself. Mystery.
I’m a Christian who has a simple question: if Jesus wasn’t the son of God, then what of all that comes after. When the disciples who died for him, and the hundreds of Saints who died after them? What of Paul and his turning to Christianity on the road to Damascus? Does one just brush off these accounts? These sacrifices made by those powerful Christians who would die for the faith? That martyrdom is nothing but a lie? I like to ask an atheist these just to see what happens (That’s not a shot at atheists, just a thought of mine)
Hello. I am an atheist. I define atheism as the practice of suspending the acknowledgement of the existence of gods until sufficient evidence can be presented. My position is that *_I have no good reason to acknowledge the existence of gods._*
And here is the evidence as to why I currently take such a position.
1. I personally have never observed a god.
2. I have never encountered a person whom has claimed to have observed a god.
3. I know of no accounts of persons claiming to have observed a god that were willing to demonstrate or verify their observation for authenticity, accuracy, or validity.
4. I have never been presented a valid logical argument which employed rationally sound premises that lead deductively to a conclusion that gods exist.
5. Of the 46 logical syllogisms I have encountered arguing for the existence of a god(s), I have found all to contain multiple fallacious or unsubstantiated premises.
6. I have never observed a phenomenon in which the existence of a god was a necessary antecedent for the known or probable explanation for the causation of that phenomenon.
7. Dozens of proposed (and generally accepted) explanations for observable phenomena that were previously based on the agency of a god(s), have subsequently been replaced with rational, natural explanations, each substantiated with evidence that excluded the agency of a god(s). I have never encountered _vice versa._
8. I have never experienced the presence of gods through intercession of angels, revelation, fulfillment of prophecy, the miraculous act of divinity, or any observation of a supernatural event.
9. Every phenomena that I have ever observed has emerged from necessary and sufficient antecedents over time without exception. In other words, I have never observed a phenomenon (entity, process, object, event, process, substance or being) that was created instantly by the solitary volition of a deity.
10. All claims of a supernatural or divine nature that I have encountered have either been refuted to my satisfaction, or do not present as falsifiable.
ALL of these facts lead me to the only rational conclusion that concurs with the realities I have been presented - and that is the fact that there is, *_no good reason_* for me to acknowledge the existence of gods.
I have heard often that atheism is the denial of the Abrahamic god. But denial is the active rejection of a substantiated fact once credible evidence has been presented. Skepticism (atheism) is simply withholding such acknowledgement until sufficient credible evidence is introduced. It is natural, rational and prudent to be skeptical of unsubstatiated claims, especially extraordinary ones.
I welcome any cordial response. Peace.
No one can come to God or know God through reason alone.
Believing in God is an encounter with Him that leaves you in no doubt that He is real.
If you have never had that experience does not dispute those who have.
And therein lies the problem.
You think you can boil down God to human reason alone and that is in and of itself irrational and a form of scientism, i.e., God is not an entity which can be observed or measured, in fact, he surpasses all human senses/sciences in that He lies outside the realm of the tangible/material.
@@josieposie9969 How did you conclude that I "have never had that experience?" Do you claim to have all knowledge?
Love your respectful tone. To answer your #1, God cannot be physically observed since the things we observe are in motion, and God is unchanging. The arguments you want to get familiar with to know that God exists come from St. Thomas Aquinas, who shows by reason alone not only that God exists, but that God has certain attributes that could only properly belong to a person, not an abstract force. God's existence is known by reason - faith happens "after reason", and real faith can have nothing unreasonable about it. Faith helps us know beyond what reason can know, but humans need help in this regard - hence the ongoing public miracles of Jesus, so we can know what he is saying is true. For starters Google this "Summa Contra Gentiles" or "Summa Theologiae" and look up questions you're interested in concerning God including proving God's existence. Here is a Bishop Barron video to help: th-cam.com/video/bdjjqFSEJ_Y/w-d-xo.html
Peace, Mike
@@G8rfan61 If you had had such an encounter you would not be disputing God's existence or asking for a rational reason to believe in Him.
Such experiences are life-altering and defy human reason as we know it, i.e., how do you logically explain the supernatural or the workings of the supernatural in one's own life??
It is seeing with the eyes of faith (and reason to a degree) that makes all the difference.
@@josieposie9969
-"No one can come to God or know God through reason alone."
A lot of the Catholics here will disagree with that. They are big fans of Aquinas who thought it's possible to get a lot of traction out of reasoning from daily experiences. I don't see how that counts as "scientism" either. It seems like a pretty rational enterprise to me.
-"If you have never had that experience does not dispute those who have."
I guess. Although I do find the accounts given of those experiences to be unconvincing and by my imagining wouldn't convince me if I were to have experienced them. But this raises a larger theological question: why does God only reveal himself to some people and not others? What are the soteriological consequences of that?
-"God is not an entity which can be observed or measured, in fact, he surpasses all human senses/sciences in that He lies outside the realm of the tangible/material."
Then how does one know they have experienced God? If God is so ineffable, wouldn't the appropriate response to any divine experience be something along the lines of "wow, that was really weird! I have no idea what just happened?"
"Richard dawkins is the most famous athiest of our time."
Hitchens: *rolls in grave*
Yes because Dawkins is destroying atheism through his extremely poor understanding of religion and philosophy and so sounds like a petulant child rather than an esteemed biologist.
Sarah Richards maybe Hitchens is in heaven I would not be surprised
Caroline Norman i mean we will never know but unless hitchens was a super low key Catholic then his chances of heaven were pretty slim. Most of the souls in hell were non believers.
@@f22fighterjet I don't believe that. God is a just and loving God full of Grace. He knows that people may not believe in him for perfectly reasonable reasons all though he wants them to find him and the truth during their lives. Romans clearly states that some who do not know the law and God still abide by the law as it is written on their hearts while some of those who know the law do not abide by it.
The new Covenant is written on our hearts.
@@iain5615 Really. You haven't read the bible have you.
Petition for Bishop Barron to got to the JRE..it would be amazing
I always enjoy hearing you .
I'd really like an episode or at least a segment on the significance of Jesus being raised a carpenter.
@Ben Grimm haha well thank you for your valuable input but I'd still like to hear what the Bish thinks
@Ben Grimm sick argument, I love how you didn't provide any reason to back up your claims, very impressed.
@Ben Grimm As moderator of replies to my comment I'm reporting you for any further replies which aren't constructive in accordance with my totalitarian judgement.
@Ben Grimm just you😋😘
@Ben Grimm right back at ya kiddo
Might as well be titled "Outgrowing Reality".
@Albert Schmalbert
Not instead of, in addition to.
@Albert Schmalbert
Yeah, do that at an emergency room and risk getting inappropriately treated to your own detriment. Sounds like a good time to me.
@Albert Schmalbert
I reject Nietzsche's assertion in its entirety. It's obvious nonsense.
And you can pretend all you want, just don't expect me to be obliged to pretend along with you.
@Albert Schmalbert
You're making the claim on Nietzsche's behalf that you can't perceive truth without god. It's up to you to prove what you've asserted. It's always up to the claimant to support the claim WITH EVIDENCE, otherwise it's just another baseless assertion.
@Albert Schmalbert
It's ALWAYS up to the person making a positive claim to support the claim with evidence. It's NEVER up to the respondent to attempt to prove a negative. You assert there's a god yet provide absolutely no evidence. I've never been presented with sufficient evidence that would cause me to believe the claim. Repeating the same claim over and over is not evidence. You need to prove your assertion before you can even get out of the starting blocks.
Brandon Vogt has such a nice face and what a beautiful smile he has!
Human morality is far older than any religious text. Humans displayed love and compassion towards family and other tribe members long before any religions originated. It was evolution that gave humans their morals and then humans tried to codify these morals in religious texts. Then other humans came along afterwards and read these texts thinking that they needed these texts to know what moral behavior is without realizing that this knowledge is instinctual
I have a question on the first part of the video. Why do you assume that we have our morals from the bible? Even before the existence of the bible there were many societies who had almost the same moral codes. Also in places were christianity spread very late (japan, etc,...) they had similiar ones.
Maybe I'm not the best to answer this, and it's very late, but I'd say a couple things
1) There is a difference in the morality systems of each religion. Of course there are similarities, but Catholicism didn't demand things like human sacrifice, or from other religions in Europe at the time, imply that there was many gods of different things.
2) The "small" differences lead to massive shifts over thousands of years. I might be just ignorant about this, but I don't think Catholics were gutting themselves like the Japanese did when they would commit sepukku.
What I would also say is that the moral system we in the west use is in large part based on the Bible, which is another way to put it. Sorry if I'm wrong on anything, not like I'm some expert theologian
Listening to Dawkins express his simple points proves he has no interest in listening to the other side never mind refuting them. He's created a strawman out of religious people and uses his time and efforts to debate the strawman. The problem for him today however is that religious people and thankfully us Catholics especially have picked up where we slacked off in the intellectual discussion and are now back defending and evangelizing the faith with a rich intellectual tradition. Richard Dawkins is ignoring how many non believers are being exposed to these intellectual arguments which reduces all his points to being nothing more than strawman arguments. These pop culture new atheists don't have the upper-hand they used to, Christians are just as visible in the media especially the internet as these militant secularists.
Paddy234 you call them straw men, but in reality the majority of the faithful hold these positions. Dawkins is not addressing theologians most of the time. He spends most of his time attacking fundamentalists like young earth believers and evolution deniers, which is quite reasonable.
@@shankz8854 Fundamentalists are certainly not the majority of believers. There are 1.2 billion Catholics alone who make up the biggest majority of Christians and most others still come from main denominations who wouldn't subscribe to fundamentalist positions.
The reason why Dawkins likes to focus on the fringe minority i believe is for two reasons. To elevate these people as to holding what most Christians believe in order to make it seem all Christian's think this way and secondly so he doesn't have to debate more rational points of view which he does his best to ignore most likely either because he doesn't understand them or finds them too rational to rebuke.
Paddy234 I totally agree and apologise for writing in a confusing way - I didn’t mean to say that fundamentalists were the majority.
You are totally wrong about Dawkins unfortunately. It is crystal clear
From listening to Dawkins over the years as I have that he focusses on the fundamentalists for the sole reason that they are the most at odds with science and are the most problematic for a successful enlightened society. Dawkins has friends who are christians but he would never (I don’t think) have a friend who denies evolution because he sees this as an egregious act of intellectual dishonesty. That is, he has far less of an issue with sophisticated christians and has said as much on numerous occasions. Further, he often quotes the stats on fundamentalism and repeatedly affirms they are not the majority, but a troublingly numerous minority. So you are completely wrong about that.
@@shankz8854 All good mate. I have heard Dawkins over the years and even limitely with this interview and his points are pretty consistent. He sees religion as damaging to human flourishing and progress and even dangerous which he states in this interview, he doesn't clarify that it's just a fundamentalist view that is harmful but religion full stop and he ironically states it's immoral to get one's moral structure from the bible which is funny from a man who was given his moral structure from a society built on christian truths.
He even describes bringing children up with religion as indoctrination which he aims to combat by indoctrinating them with secularism. He clearly has a problem with religion in general not just fundamentalism however he uses fundamentalism as a weapon to bash moderate religious people with. He clearly states in this interview that his qualms are about ALL religion in general and the arguments he gives are adolescent at best. Arguments like Christian's are atheists of every other God apart from one etc are just cringy. These people who talk like this are only interested in giving cliche half arsed phrases to make themselves feel ridiculously intelligent. Any serious seeker for truth wouldn't fall for such rubbish. The greatest minds in history believed/believe in God their creator, cliche phrases just don't work to undo that. This subject requires deep searching
@@shankz8854 I've realised evangelizing through intellectual arguments will only go so far. I feel the Pope is very correct when he asks us to build bridges with our neighbor rather than be indifferent. Sometimes debating to the point where it becomes about exerting ones ego can end up creating larger rifts. Christianity expanded by the virtues of those who lived by it and give their all for it. It will do so again only in this way. The intellectual debates are there to rational this love as best we can so as to invite others into it. If we cannot do so then at least we can be friendly with one another and live in peace
I’m becoming catholic and I come from an atheist family.
Beautiful! Thank you Bishop Barron!
Nothing new about Dawkins book except the title.
Its supposed to be a book for teenagers. Not adults. That's the difference.
Billy b I thought all his books were for teenagers.
My advice to Dawkins is, to study his own tie seriously and outgrow atheism...
#pwnage
It's a self- defeating argument.
The argument from a first unity/simplicity (going back from composed beings to a oneness) cannot work unless its causation is understood as contemporaneous. But the example of Bishop Barron does not lend itself to that understanding, at least if it is taken in the direction of a "proof". The problem is, as Bishop Barron rightfully explains elsewhere when speaking of the first mover, that it is perfectly reasonable to hold that an animal for example receives matter and form through his parents and imagine an infinite regress in an infinitely old world (such a world is possible in terms of a reasoned position according to Thomas Aquinas [STh I, q46, a1] but just happens not to be true according to revelation which posits creation). So as an argument from reason it does not work unless your example illustrate that the all links in the chain of causation exist in the here and now. What is valid is his Excellencies point about simplicity being metaphysically more fundamental and basic than complexity as attested also by the entire philosophical tradition which never imagined the ultimate fountain of everything as infinitely complex but simple.
I would like to see you on Rogan.
Rogan is super anti Catholic and Lukewarm Bishop Barren would probably just act embarrassed to be Catholic. Did you see Bishop Barren prayer in Congress? Never mentioned Jesus, not sign of the cross.... 😒😢
John Smith I just said I would like to see him on that’s it. Will it happen God only knows. But it’s still an interesting idea.
Does an atheist like Dawkins even engage with philosophical arguments like the ones laid out here? My guess is that he doesn’t at all. I don’t mean in his books, I mean in his own head.
My honest thought is he is cynically pumping out these books for money and acclaim. I don’t think he is really perusing “truth” as even an atheist would see it. If he were really after truth, he would try to engage with these deeper arguments and quit knocking down straw men.
@Qwerty He likes making money
Can you explain the trinity doctrine in light of Isaiah 9:6
"For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given;
and the government will be upon his shoulder,
and his name will be called
“Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”"
Enjoying the bite in the title here.
Is so funny how they thinks they know what god think or look like wow
Who is "god"? We capitalise proper nouns in English. I bet if you were talking to a Muslim, you would capitalise Allah, which is the right thing to do, it's a proper noun, in fact Christians use it that speak Arabic. I refuse to believe that you can't find the shift or the caps lock button on your keyboard.
Adam Hovey
Someone is triggered.
@@adamhovey407
Capitalize "god" when a claim of "a" god is found to be "the" god. Until then, a capitalized "god" is premature.
This Bishop just said there is far more credible evidence for Jesus than there is for Julius Caesar... lolol... Wow.
It’s simply true. Read Wright, Pitre, Bauckham, Sanders, and Raymond Brown for the details.
@@BishopBarron While I am ignorant on those authors, and I've not done an analysis of the two figures historical authenticities, Julius Caesar has his face minted on ancient Roman currency. This is undoubtedly something an empire would not do if he were not a real individual.
I will admit I'm not going to look into this further because to me it's a complete non-issue. I'm not worried about authenticity claims between a supposed supernaturally gifted human and a ruler of one of the worlds most dominant historical empires as to even entertain the comparison seems ludicrous.
I'd much rather talk about a point you made earlier in the video regarding morality and you saying an atheist would have a hard time justifying their moral structure apart from God. Not only is this false, I find it completely irrelevant to anything.
I don't expect a reply on this because it's simply a TH-cam comment and you are undoubtedly busy with other things! But thanks for the reply! Take care!
@@metashadow3924 I'm sincerely curious: how do you justify the objectivity of your moral claims? No appeal to society or psychology or evolution will do, since all of these give rise, finally, to a relativistic morality.
@@BishopBarron I am not claiming that morals are objective and by inserting the word "objectivity" into your question, I feel like you're trying to tie me down to an argument that you know I will lose. I'm also wondering why you're immediately dismissing moral relativism other than to further tie me down to the idea of objective morality. As far as I can tell, looking at the general morals of different generations going back and how the general moral landscape changes, I see no reason to disregard moral relativism because it seems very much a reality.
You seem to think there is a connection between morals and God and without God, you cannot be justifiably moral. What makes you think that connection exists? Yeah, I get that its in the Bible, but aside from that... How in the world can you be sure of that claim? You can see for yourself how morals have shifted over the generations. I think your side of the argument has an obsession with the word "Objective" in the morality debate with a purpose to tie it to the divine.
I very much subscribe to Sam Harris's moral argument, that morality can be gauged by suffering, and it is justifiably objective that it is not in one's best interest to be murdered. That seems very objectively moral, but you certainly don't need God to figure that out if you want to build a functioning society.
@@metashadow3924 You're absolutely right: I'm trying to fix you on the horns of a dilemma. If you maintain, as you seem to, that morality is utterly relative and subjective, it's finally impossible for you to say that Hitler's holocaust is truly wrong or that slavery is definitively immoral. One could easily say that each represents the consensus of a given culture at a given moment. And the appeal to Sam Harris won't get you off the horns of the dilemma, for "suffering" as such is a subjective state of affairs. Why couldn't Hitler say that the very existence of Jews caused enormous suffering in him and the German people? Why couldn't slave owners have claimed that slavery alleviated enormous suffering in the people of the South, and therefore was justified?
Simply brilliant. He turns Dawkins on his head at every turn! This was fascinating to listen to, thanks for making a 2 part video. God bless.
Derek Stewart not really. Do you have one example of where he turns him on his head? Or is it just a general feeling you have as a heavily biased listener?
@@shankz8854 Well, I'm actually a first time listener. I'd never heard of the Bishop before. I do regularly listen to Rogan though. I guess it's subjective about who was turning heads. My personal beliefs are my own, and I really don't know why I even commented but apparently I did. I'm not biased either way.
Derek Stewart so you’re aren’t biased but also don’t have any examples to volunteer?
@@shankz8854 Dude I was half lit when I watched the video and made the comment. Why do you give a shit what I think anyways?
Derek Stewart I’m interested in debating people with a different opinion to me. It’s one way of learning.
I’d also like to add that you are in fact biased (as we all are) - I can tell by your final sentence: “god bless”.
I don't understand how you can read the words:
"Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves."
How can you read that, and say "its a metaphor for fighting evil"
He heard Satan out in the desert but eventually banished him.
10.30. The water into wine miracle is a reference to the spirituality of the Jewish Faith, in which the everyday pedestrian life is represented by water, and a life in God is represented by wine.
The best answers from Bishop Baron Yes this is great !
I outgrew atheism to become a non-believer recently.
Me too. To leave militant atheism was a good thing to do.
What exactly do you mean by non-believer as different from atheism?
Is the next step to become a believer? :) Hope so
@Qwerty as obnoxious as saying god told you all the answers?
32:18 The people that stay in the religion are those who have another conversion process. When I hit my early teens I questioned my faith and became an atheist. However when I looked back on it later in life as saw that it was important. I became a Methodist again just like my parents were. I loved it. However after looking into it more I saw that even Methodism was not true. I still love it but I became convinced of the truth of Catholicism. This was one of the most painful experience of my life. It cost me one of my closest friends and it is not something I wanted to do at all. If I had anyway off of this I would take it but I have to follow the truth. I find it offensive that he just dismisses this.
In other words, Grips, those who maintain supernaturalism must constantly convince themselves that it's not in their imagination?
@@johnnybrahms6591 Not really.
@@SvenskaKrig1709 Apparently so, Grips.
Leap-to-faith = the valid self-defeating argument(?)
I'm curious now, the bishop said that we shouldn't hold to many of the things that were "recommended and urged in the old testament" including much of Leviticus. That is the book I have heard most cited in opposition to homosexuality. Does that mean that may not be the true will of God? I'm no bible expert though so I am curious how these passages are usually interpreted.
With different denominations there are different approaches to the questions of biblical interpretation and sexuality. The Catholic Church interprets the part of Leviticus prohibiting sexual acts between people of the same sex as morally binding. This is one of those teachings i have diffculty grappling with and at this point i just take on the basis of believing the Church has the authority correctly interpret the Bible, but it also is something i can accept a little easier from Catholicism because they havent reversed the teaching against contraception like so many christian denominations opposed to homosexuality have. This is my personal take on it as a bisexual who converted to Catholicism and tries to live out its teachings and definitely hasnt always been successful at it even after converting. But thats why im thankful for confession.
There exists a solipsistic argument that is ( ultimately) valid (?)
2 small simple questions for our materialist friends.....
1. How do you get Something from nothing?
2. How do you get Life from Non-Life?.....(see Dr. James Tour)
Actually I'd say science leads us to a belief in God. Particularly in the last (say) 50 years. At least it has made my faith stronger.
@@joycelilyandrewes8667
The Universe always existed? The problem is there is no observational evidence that, that is true. Now someday it may be possible to find some data, but as of Today all we know is 13.7-.8 billion years ago the universe come into existence.
(See Dr Michael G Strauss: "The Grand Design: Is God Unnecessary?" www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/08/the-grand-design-is-god-unnecessary.html
"The correct response is that we don't know the process by which non-living materials perform the processes we associate with living organisms such as growing, reproducing, maintaining homeostasis, and so forth. However, that doesn't decide between materialism and supernaturalism."
The problem I have in reading articles watching videos (in the popular media) is Life existing is assumed. A hundred years ago people talked about the simple one celled organism. Today whatever else we can say about one celled organisms SIMPLE is not one of them.
A couple of videos I'd like you to look at.
James Tour: The Origin of Life Has Not Been Explained
th-cam.com/video/r4sP1E1Jd_Y/w-d-xo.html
About 20 minutes
Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution
(or as I like to call it...A Christian, An Atheist, and A Jew walk into a hotel room :-))
th-cam.com/video/noj4phMT9OE/w-d-xo.html
About an hour.
Joe Rogan' s only problem is his skepticism.
23:25: you are joking, right? These objections are brought up ALL THE TIME! Very disingenuous to say that they are not brought up to justify faith in God. Sure, not directly. But they ARE in fact brought up to break up faith in science, which in the end amounts to the same thing. And note that I said "faith in science" and not "faith in scientism," which as Bishop Barron correctly points out is not the same thing.
Barron should go on the joe Rogan show.
It would be fascinating to see him defend a few of his most interesting opinions. For example, he obviously reveres George Pell because his interviews with Pell remain posted on TH-cam. He is also on record as advocating that the survivors of clerical child rape ought not to receive justice in the courts. I'd be fascinated to hear Barron discuss both topics.
@@johnnybrahms6591 I'd be interested in that too, Johnny!
A very necessary commentary on modern atheism. As Jordan Peterson put it, science deals with matter. Religion deals with what matters. For a much more intelligent book on atheism by an atheist, see John Gray’s Seven Types of Atheism. By far the most erudite and eloquent argument against atheism that I have come across is David Bentley Hart’s Atheist Delusions.
Eventually, Jesus shows some people what they truly are as to their contempt for him.
Good title, make sense because atheism is actually kind of childish, which is ironic because the best theological discussions I have is with my four-year-old nephew. I'm not making that up, that kid is a little theologian.
Nothing more childish than having an imaginary friend.
@@BFizzi719 Its not purely imaginary if it is evident via steps along logical reasoning. No more imaginary that the far side of the moon.
@@BFizzi719 As if that has anything remotely to do with religion - are you a fundamentalist or something?
The two disciples after the resurrection. Finishing a meal Jesus vanishing. One said to the otherwere not our hearts burning when He spoke to us on the road?
So enjoyed this....thank you both!
12:03 - Scholars that studied historical case of Jesus
Bishop Barron -
Knowing that the Bible is a compendium of literary styles ( a library), how do we discern when the writing is allegorical and when it is speaking truth? How do we say that Adam and Eve, Noah, etc were allegorical and on the other hand remain steadfast to the belief that the Eucharist is Jesus' body and blood. I believe and want to be able to evangelize to my children and beyond. Peace.
Read the Bible from within the interpretive community of the Church and in the context of the liturgy. That will help you know how to read it.
I would like to know Bishop Barron's opinion of Dr Joe Dispenza work & meditations (to elevate our consciousness to personally connect to "the divine" [God] ) & his documented evidence of frequent, true "miracles ( of Biblical proportions) of healing" in his workshops; which are aided by supernatural "beings" (see Lilou Mace interview of Dr Joe on TH-cam video) - & are these "beings" Angels?? Is this the meeting point of science & religion???
He debated with Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Pell is now in jail and Richard has a point about morality. People who believe that a wafer becomes the Body of the Lord Jesus have a serious problem with reality. They don't dare to debate with Richard directly.
Excellent point Charles. Perhaps Barron will do a follow-up jail house interview with Pell?
Awesome debate, no matter where you sit on these matters. If it makes you think then we've all gained something.
Oh well father excuse me man in a lot of the world was always doing this before it needed written it was a way of life that did not need written...but flowed by our parents their parents etc...
Galileo was correct.
Thanks for this Bishop!
Please keep up this dialogue about atheism...the more videos that are out there the more atheists will realize that they are always arguing against caricatures of God because they can touch perfection itself.
My estimation of Joe Rogan just went way down. What a full! Go live in an atheist country, like China or somewhere in Africa, then tell us how great atheism is.
@domhnall777 The US Constitution, the supreme law of the land, was based on Judeo-Christian values and morals, thus making the USA a Christian country regardless of the percentage of atheists in it. "All men are created equal and are endowed by their CREATOR by certain unalienable rights..."
Today's China and its governing system has been forcefully created based on atheism and communist ideology, thus making it an atheist country regardless of how many religious people are in it. Communists don't recognize an individual's rights, they are all about the collective. Any individual who stands in the way of the collective will be eliminated. Read about Mao's China. I don't know where you get your information, but according to my sources there is no religious freedom in China. If there was muslims wouldn't being locked up in concentration camps as we speak. There's no such thing as freedom in China. If there was, protests in Hong Kong happening now wouldn't be suppressed and Chinese government wouldn't use the Social Score system to force their citizens into compliance.
@domhnall777 Establishing one National Religion would mean, excluding all other religions making an individual's freedom impossible. Religion and faith are not the same thing. Christian faith is one thing, Catholic religion is another. Here's a quote from one of our founding fathers, John Adams, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people”. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” That is the individuals adherence to a set of moral rules gives them the freedom to control their lives. The government doesn't have to police your every move because they can trust you more or less. In China the government controls you and what you do with your life. A Chinese citizen told me recently that their government tells them what's right and wrong. He didn't know what morals were.
I grew up an altar boy and graduated from Catholic Schools. I started doubting my faith when i was 14 and I was a solidified atheist by the time i was 16. Without having ever heard the term, and before the popularity of Richard Dawkins or the internet. I can credit reading the Bible cover to cover and asking many questions to my parents and religious leaders with shattering by faith. I'm 36 now and I've heard all the arguments inside and out. The fundamental difference between believers and non believers is what they consider passes for a valid argument. The Rogan/Dawkins podcast wasn't a stellar example of laying out the best arguments against belief in God... It was just a conversation between 2 non-believers. Nevertheless, I watched this entire 2 part rebuttal, and all I can say about it is... it was weak. But weak arguments are all believers need to keep on believing, that is if they need any reason at all.
Right on! Well said!
Show me precisely where my arguments are weak.
Would love to! I'll have to find some time to skim through the videos again.
@@JBrooksNYS Still waiting...
So is Bishop Barron saying that the violence in the OT never happened in history? I understand that Christians can interpret the OT violence allegorically, but what if God actually commanded real violence in the OT? An allegorical interpretation doesn't help now if God commanded violence then.
Paul Copan has a good book about the seemingly bad God of the old testament. "Is God a Moral Monster?"
The answer: That god is the most heinous character in all of fiction.
@@johnnybrahms6591 Look up Classical Theism.
@@bradspitt3896 So sex slaves are good to have?
The belief of faith is in your spirit. It is in the center of each one of us. It boggles my mind how these nonbelievers are preaching nothingness to our youth. That, is the root of all evil. I'm sure deep down they know they are wrong. Never to late to believe.
Please provide verifiable evidence for your assertions. Thank you.
Johnny Brahms, only you have the answer to that question. Be it a right or wrong one. Good luck in your journey of life. Peace...
@@milvolts1 So no verifiable evidence? Thanks! I rest my case.
Johnny Brahms , one thing is 100% fact. I can't believe for you. But I can pray for you whether you want me to or not. Have a good life John I'm sure you have everything you need to do so.
@@milvolts1 My case is made yet again. I needn't raise an intellectual finger, as it were. Thanks!
The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel is an EXCELLENT book as well.
You reference Bart Erhman and his book dealing with the historicity of Jesus. Can you give the title of the particular book in question?
Every time I listen to these "knock-down arguments", I'm always thinking of Dr. Evil saying to his son: "[Richard]... ya just don't get it, do ya? Ya don't!"
Kevin Ganey Austin powers ftw
@domhnall777 I meant grasping religious/philosophical thought and the ability to make logical distinctions, beyond just how cells and DNA work.
@domhnall777 Dawkins you mean? Doesn't mean he has the first clue about culture or religion.
@domhnall777 Yeah, but him knowing not the first thing about religion excludes him. FFS he can't even be bothered to read the Qur'an.
@domhnall777 he’s utterly clueless - he botched basic concepts like ‘faith’ and appears to be utterly innocent of the scholarly lit. He should stick to his area
23:58. I find the argument for God being the simple base to all causality very compelling. Yes, there needs to be a foundational ground of being, from which everything emanates.
On the other hand, how do you get from such a conception of God, to the personal God of Christianity?
It seems to me that starting from such a conception, you get various interpretations of it through the various religions. You can argue that some are closer to ultimate reality than others, but it's difficult to say that any of them are the actual truth.
The God of Christianity is a God who reveals Himself. You cannot know Him just by logic. So you can't get from the god of the philosophers to the revealed God of Christianity.
@ Lumen Edl. Ok. So why is a Catholic bishop devoting all this time to expounding on the philosophical aspect of God?
@@fruzsimih7214 In other words, Lumen, you have to be superstitious to accept that god?
@@johnnybrahms6591 Yes, Johnny, superstition is required.
They were so afraid and then.
Modification!
We must be surrended to God and hear our own Angels, everyone has one, no one is empty of Angels. That is a lie. They must be sad the Angels if everyone not pray to their own Angels😭😭😭
Your excellency, would you say that God actually commanded the death penalty in Scripture for things like homosexuality and breaking the Sabbath?
Of course! Read the scripture! The Roman church took it seriously and embarked upon 2,000 years of a very bloody history in imitation.
Why does the just proclaim his atheism and leave?
Concern for the marginalised can't be accounted for by atheists? Really? Ironically Richard Dawkins wrote a whole book on altruism and how it arises from Darwinian Natural Selection. It is called "The Selfish Gene". Read it for god's sake before you make such a silly assertion.