The "God-intoxicated ape." I am always mentally engaged by this commentary. It's great to see someone who really knows what they're talking about, even though I do not consider myself religious at present.
This reminds me of the few true atheists I've met in my life: people for whom questions of ultimate meaning are utterly irrelevant, so much so that they have a total disinterest in talking about the subject.
That said, I kinda' want a Fr. Barron t-shirt that says "And here's why..." ^_^
I would love to see a talk / debate between Ft Barron and Neil DeGrasse Tyson especially after watching Neil in this video and his passion for field. /watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc
I really like what Fr Barron says. However, it is also very easy for any Catholic to treat his faith/religion as a toy - taking it out once a week on Sunday for one hour and then returning to pagan ways for the rest of the week, elevating his job, agenda, power, money etc into his other god. I think our faith, our love for God needs to be 24/7 - to stop us turning other things into our mini-gods.
There's no rule that says that you have to substitute religion with alcohol and drugs. Many have substituted religion with enlightenment, humanism, science, art and a lot of other things.
@DrHowbeit This is interesting because the Scientism of New Atheism is actually a much more profound attack on art, humanism, etc. than it is an attack on religion. It's attack on religion is rather perfunctory and can be resolved with even a modicum of research on the subject. But by saying that ONLY reason and empiricism are valid epistemologies, they are launching an attack on aesthetics, values, relationships, imagination, emotion, and everything that adds beauty to human life.
@CoryTheRaven Sounds like you're painting a malicious portrait of science, or "Scientism" as you call it. I think you will end up on the wrong track if you apply dualism to the subject. Religion and atheism are not antipoles. Actually atheism is not an -ism and "atheism" and "scientism" are not necessarily linked. They are two separate things. Furthermore science doesn't neglect emotion. Emotions can be studied. Understanding something doesn't mean you discredit it.
@DrHowbeit Actually, I quite like science. I teach it in my career and I'm involved in a number of volunteer science interest groups. I do more actual science stuff than most of the Internet atheists who accuse me of being an irrational, antiscience, stupid poo-head. Science is rad.
Thing is, I don't subscribe to a doctrine of Scientism: the belief that rationalism and empiricism have epistemological primacy. I don't elevate the tool of science to a philosophy...
@CoryTheRaven The Internet is what it is. There are hotheads on every side. Seems to me that religious and non-religious people online are equally hostile.
@DrHowbeit ...I don't extend methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism. To me the dualism is not at all science vs. religion: it's Rationalism vs. Romanticism, and I am a card-carrying Romantic.
That is ultimately my disagreement with New Atheism, which is the doctrine of Atheism grounded in Scientism (there are other doctrines of atheism that do not hold to Scientism, like Communism, Samkhya Hinduism, Atheist Buddhism, Nihilism, Objectivism, etc. Lots of different atheisms)
@CoryTheRaven I don't see science as a philosophy either, but there are a lot of sensible practises. That goes for basically all religions as well. I don't think one should get locked entirely to a specific mindset. Unfortunately that is often what religion ordains.
@DrHowbeit As do many irreligions. Unfortunately too many people confuse the desire to be right with the desire to seek truth. Even claiming to seek truth becomes part of their "I'm right and you suck" system. Usually, I have found, that when one is actually seeking truth, the biggest enemy is not those other people who believe different things than me, but oneself.
Reminds me of this philosopher: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." Sent-ts'an, c. 700 C.E.
@CoryTheRaven "New Atheism" is another pointless term. There's nothing new about it, probably because there's nothing new to religion. As far as I can find out it's been coined by media, namely Andrew Brown, a journalist at The Guardian. Just a way to label sides and create headlines. I've realised Christians find it very hard to come to terms with what "atheism" actually stands for. It's basically nothing. Not a philosophy, community, way of life, religion or what have you.
@DrHowbeit That's not true. New Atheism denotes a particular philosophy and praxis of atheism that is driven by an aggressive adherence to Scientism (the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism). There are other philosophies of atheism with different metaphysics, several of which I listed.
Atheists are very infrequently atheist about atheism, requesting some kind of special neutral status for it instead of looking at it as JUST ANOTHER social and psychological phenomenon.
@CoryTheRaven ...That is, it's not a null value. It is just as much a creation of the psyche as any other belief and can be studied just like any other belief. It can be just as easily tracked historically, analysed academically, and dissected philosophically.
I know it sucks to think that one's beliefs (theistic or atheistic) could be reduced to objects of study, because we're all so well trained on the genetic fallacy that to study something invalidates its truthiness, but there it is.
@CoryTheRaven Atheism as a phenomenon? Atheism or rather agnosticism is a null value as long as a particular religion can't bring evidence that hold to scrutiny. Atheism simply means not believing in God because the evidence is insufficient. Do you have an -ism for not believing in ghosts? Is not believing in ghosts a phenomenon of the mind?
@DrHowbeit Atheism is a social and psychological phenomenon, and it is not simply nonbelief in gods. There are even, as I keep pointing out, different types of atheism. So which atheism has null value? Is everyone naturally a Communist until given sufficient evidence for an alternate economic and political systems? Should we assume that Samkhya Hinduism's take on reality is correct until demonstrated otherwise?
No, atheism in all its diversity and variety is just as much a learned philosophy
@DrHowbeit And to answer your question, yes, not believing in ghosts is a phenomenon of the mind. There are specific cultural-historical reasons why Westerners don't really have a belief system regarding "ghosts" whereas cultures like China with its ancestor worship and Japan with its nature spirits do, and it has surprisingly little to do with science. Why a culture does not believe in something is just as much an object of study as why a different one does...
@DrHowbeit ...You're missing a critically important part of the equation: EVERYTHING is a phenomenon of the mind. All these various forms of atheism, after dismissing everything other phenomenon as cultural and psychological, wants to disingenuously eke out a spot for itself as a basal truth... As something BEYOND social, scientific and philosophical study, the metaphysics to end all metaphysics. As I said, atheists are rarely atheist about atheism.
@CoryTheRaven I agree that most atheists probably are atheists because they were brought up in a secular culture. But that argument actually supports atheism since atheists and agnostics are the ones emphasizing the argument of cultural impact.
@CoryTheRaven Are metaphysics crucial? Some have the idea that it's absolutely critical, for whatever the reason, to believe in something supernatural, something elusive. Isn't "supernatural" simply a placeholder? Once there's an explanation the tag "supernatural" is replaced with the tag "natural". If God exists and can be explained (like e.g. the lightning) does that devalue God?
@DrHowbeit You're confounding "metaphysics" with the supernatural. Metaphysics, by dictionary definition, is "The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value." Not only is metaphysics crucial: it is unavoidable. Simply by virtue of asking any question on the nature of reality and existence, EVERYBODY does metaphysics. And different doctrines of atheism have different metaphysics.
@DrHowbeit I also think you err by applying a negative value to the term "supernatural". No, to put it bluntly, it is not a placeholder. To assert that something is supernatural is to make a positive claim that an entity or whathaveyou exists in a state beyond the effects of physical law. I don't believe in God because science has yet to fill in this or that gap: I have a positive, affirmative belief that such an entity exists beyond Space, Time, Energy and Matter.
@CoryTheRaven You seem to be all about semantics and definitions which don't really engage me. Different types of "atheisms"? I don't know about that. Atheism in general discourse says that a person thinks there is no god. Often atheists tend to support science, liberalism and other things as well. Does that mean it a package deal? No.
@DrHowbeit NO offense, but I suggest you learn about it then if you don't know about that. For me, one of the most telling pieces of evidence is the fact that different types of atheists will harrangue each other for being the wrong type. It comes up every time the violent crimes of Communism is mentioned in the form of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: something to the effect that Communism isn't REALLY atheism because it has replaced God with the State...
@DrHowbeit ...So no, nonbelief in a deity is not the sole necessary and sufficient characteristic of atheism. At least, it is no more functionally useful than "belief in a deity" is for all the different assorted types of theism (in fact, I have a suspicion that the reason so many atheists fall into the error that all theism is pretty much alike might have to do with the fact that they don't even recognize that not all atheism is alike).
@CoryTheRaven It's not useful to branch out various "atheisms". Communism is a political system. Buddhism is a religion. You can be an atheist capitalist. Does that make capitalism an atheism? Does this particular form of capitalism belong in the tree of atheisms? How about atheist plumbers? What's the label for that group? It's an atheism I guess.
@DrHowbeit Communism is more than a specific political or economic system though. It is a worldview based on Marx's historical dialectic. That is quite different from the metaphysics of New aTheism, with its primacy of rationalism and empiricism. And yes, Buddhism and Samkhya Hinduism are religions... Atheist religions. Secular humanism and Nihilism offer up opposing views of the world, though both are atheist. Objectivism is based on the views of Ayn Rand...
@DrHowbeit ...I could go on and on, but the point is that these are not trivial differences of circumsatnce, like being a plumber. These are fundamental differences in metaphysics held by different schools of atheist thought, and they are not particularly compatible with one another. It is not much different from theism. I can tell you for a fact (having dated one) that my metaphysical views as a Christian are fundamentally different from those of a Wiccan. It doesn't befit reductionism.
@CoryTheRaven Atheist about atheism? I don't know what that means. Does "atheism" here simply mean "to not believe". So atheists should try to not believe in not believing in God? Does that mean they're back to believing in God, the God they don't believe exists?
@DrHowbeit No, being atheist about atheism is to take the same critical view towards atheism as a philosophy that is taken towards theism as a philosophy. Of course, that assumes that atheists are actually atheist about theism and not just chronically uninformed about theism. I often meet atheists who confuse ignorance for rational non-belief...
@DrHowbeit ...I sometimes hear that silly cliche about how atheists just believe in one less god than monotheists. Well keep going. Don't just substitute one belief for another. Don't just stop believing in monotheism. Stop believing in atheism too. Challenge one's own atheist assumptions, philosophies and metaphysics. Challenge rationalism and empiricism. Challenge the historical dialectic. Challenge yourself.
@DrHowbeit ...I sometimes hear that silly cliche about how atheists just believe in one less god than monotheists. Well keep going. Don't just substitute one belief for another. Don't just stop believing in monotheism. Stop believing in atheism too. Challenge one's own atheist assumptions, philosophies and metaphysics. Challenge rationalism and empiricism. Challenge the historical dialectic. Challenge yourself.
@CoryTheRaven Who thinks atheism is beyond study? I've never heard an atheist being troubled by attempts to map out the history, origin and nature of atheism. Where do you get that from?
You're doing it right now. Every time an atheist tells you that atheism is not a belief, they are claiming that it has special status as something beyond study. You're not allowed to dissect it like any other belief because, don't you see, it's not a belief. No, it's a non-belief, and you can't study a non-belief. It has no content to study. It's not just another philosophy: it's The Truth...
@DrHowbeit ...Of course, if that were true, then it would make atheism literally nothing more than anti-intellectual drivel. No content, nothing to see here and therefore nothing for an intelligent person to consider about it.
But as it stands, it is merely the argument that it has no content that is anti-intellectual drivel. And it is so in the same sense as any other religious person getting touchy about the prospect of their beliefs getting "explained". Atheism is not above explanation.
@CoryTheRaven Atheism as a basal truth? Not really. It means not believing in God. It doesn't mean knowing for a fact that God doesn't exist. Which God for that matter? You seem colored by heated encounters with contentious atheists. From that you draw a conclusion that atheism is about claiming certainty and being aggressive? The Catholic Ustasa in Croatia managed concentration camps in the 40s. Does that make genocide and torture intrinsic to the Catholic faith?
Depends on the type of atheism. Buddhist atheism is actually much more honest. It says that you cannot know if there is a god or if there is not a god. Western forms of atheism are much more certain. New Atheism in particular, even if divorced from its aggressive adherents, makes the claim that we ought not to believe in a god unless proven otherwise. That assumes atheism as a basal truth. I have no reason to assume atheism is any more likely than theism
@CoryTheRaven "I have a positive, affirmative belief that such an entity exists beyond Space, Time, Energy and Matter."
You didn't answer the question. If you could explain and fully understand God would that devaluate God? If God was as comprehensible as the lightning would that quell God's magical glow? People don't worship the lightning (anymore). We know what it is.
@DrHowbeit I didn't answer your question because I thought it was odd. It depends on what you mean by "explain and fully understand God". If you mean in a relational sense, then that is kinda' what theism is about. If you mean in the sense of God being a natural phenomenon, then it kind of misses the point. But moreso, it is odd because we cannot "explain and fully understand" anyone or anything. Only the omniscient could FULLY understand every facet of anything.
@CoryTheRaven I don't know where this is going. Your understanding of atheism is twisted. Atheism simply means: I don't believe there is a god. That's all. You want to convince me that atheism is a belief system, a philosophy, is that correct? Let's try this: Is baldness a hair color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is not playing golf a sport? Is not believing in God a philosophy?
@DrHowbeit I think you're missing the point. Atheism is not simply non-belief in a god. It is a whole grouping of diverse metaphysics that operate without deities, just as theism is a whole grouping of diverse metaphysics that operate with deities. Each different philosophy of atheism proposes ideas about the nature of reality and being, about epistemology, about morals, about the right organization of society, and so on, all based on the assumption that there is no god...
@DrHowbeit ...Even Nihilism - which is the only sensible form of atheism, imo - makes propositions about reality and our appropriate reaction to it. All of those various forms of atheism I mentioned make positive metaphysical, philosophical claims that comprise belief systems unto themselves. New Atheism, for instance, is not about simple non-belief in a god: it is about a positive belief in the primacy of rationalism and empiricism...
@DrHowbeit ...And honestly, I'm not sure how much more energy I have to keep articulating all of this, and giving actual examples, only to have you continuously deny that these examples exist and accuse my views of being twisted without actually offering any kind of serious counter-argument. I guess New Atheism and Samkhya Hinduism and Objectivism and New Agers who just don't believe in God do not exist or are not substantially different because, er, you say so. Okay.
@CoryTheRaven On "atheist about atheism". Like I thought. You use the word "atheism" as if it meant "being critical" in general. That's not what atheism means. Atheism means "I don't believe there is a god". That's all. You can be atheist and believe in ghosts and goblins.
@DrHowbeit I'm sorry, which atheism only means that you don't believe in a god? I know that New Atheism means that you DO believe in the primacy of rationalism and empricism. And I know that Communism means you DO believe in the historical dialectic. And that atheist Buddhism means you DO believe in the teachings of Buddha. and so on.
@CoryTheRaven You're correct. Atheism doesn't really have a content. Saying "I don't believe in ghosts" doesn't have much content either. It means that "I" have not been convinced to think that ghosts exist. That's all.
@CoryTheRaven True. Atheism is not an active belief. It's disbelief in God. That doesn't say it can't be studied. I have already agreed that atheism can be studied and dissected. There's lots of material on the history of atheism and it's development. That doesn't make it true or false. Why do you think atheists are scared of people analyzing atheism?
@DrHowbeit "Why do you think atheists are scared of people analyzing atheism?"
For the same reason that many theists are afraid of people analyzing theism: the perception that explaining a belief system falsifies it. If atheisms, like theisms, are merely cultural and psychological phenomena then they have no a priori claim to truth. "No," they say, "my views are a non-belief which means they can't be studied like any other belief (ignore the philosophical assumptions behind the curtain)."
@DrHowbeit yourdictionary is wrong. In fact, as I recall we already established that you can have an atheist religion. Here are some more accurate definitions...
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs...
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
@CoryTheRaven Is empiricism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is rationalism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is evolution intrinsic to atheism? No. Is marxism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is not believing in God intrinsic to atheism? Yes.
They are intrinsic because they are what form the philosophical foundation for that non-belief in God. Without a doctrine of ratinoalism and empiricism, New Atheism would have no grounds for its non-belief. Without Marx, Communism would have no ground for its violent supression of theism. You stop at non-belief in gods without asking "why?"
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or non-belief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or disbelief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or non-belief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
@CoryTheRaven Can the isolated atheist belief be a p-a-r-t of a belief system? Yes. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g can be a part of a belief system. Can I believe in magic and be an atheist? Yes. Can have a rigid mechanical world-view and be an atheist. Yes. I'm gonna leave the following two unanswered. Is a pair of boots a Ceasar Salad because I pour Ceasar dressing over it? Is communism an atheism because it shares disbelief in god?
@CoryTheRaven Atheism in itself doesn't say anything about, for instance, how the universe came about. It is not an explanation that substitutes the God-explanation. It simply says that the God-explanation is not convincing, leaving the slot open. If Neo-Nazis or Boy Scouts adopts it's idea is completely irrelevant to the definition of the word. Can I make it any clearer? And I'm not even an atheist.
I understand what you're saying. I've understood it from the beginning. You are not the first person to say it to me. It just happens that you're wrong. There ARE different types of atheism, as I've shown. Those different types of atheism have different metaphysical beliefs, as I have shown. And those metaphysical beliefs form the foundation of their non-belief in god and therefore form a positive and fundamental claim, as I have also shown.
@CoryTheRaven Apart from the word "doctrine" I can't see the difference. I suppose one could discuss the definition of the word "doctrine" but it's fruitless cause there is no international standard. It could mean a principlE or body of principlES. Who knows? By the way, dictionaries don't actually dictate what a word is supposed to mean. They tell us how people use the word. That's why dictionaries are reprinted all the time.
@DrHowbeit Ah, NOW dictionaries aren't really authoritative once I use a definition that is more accurate than the one you used. I guess that makes me wrong and you right then.
@CoryTheRaven The case of the banana was deliberately trivial. The thing is, yet again, not liking bananas reveals things about my understanding of the universe, at least when I'm doing things your way. For example it means I believe the universe to be consistent. I expect that a banana today will taste similar to a banana the previous time. My not-liking-bananas will turn into a belief system, an -ism, say abananaism.
@CoryTheRaven Actually it's impossible to make a statement that does NOT immediately become an -ism. If I like pears – pearism. Negative statements can't be. Everything is an affirmation. My accumulated life experience is a system of ideas that infects everything I say and turns it into an -ism. Is that your point? Atheism is a belief system the same way not liking bananas is a belief system?
@CoryTheRaven I told you early on that I'm not energized by defining words. I wrote that I "reluctantly" dug up definitions (because you´re making a case about the meaning of words and correct how I use them). Saying that dictionaries don't present absolute truths is not inconsistent with that.
And as I pointed out I don't know why you did cut and paste that texts in the first place. Your dictionary also says that atheism is a "belief" and religion is a "set of beliefs".
@CoryTheRaven Your argument seems quite clear. In the case of "new atheism" (if we assume it includes rationalism and "scientism") it holds pretty good. "New atheism" can be seen as a belief system. You're trying to convince me that an isolated belief (IB) is a belief system. The problem I see is how to decide when an IB is too trivial (supposedly "I don't like bananas") to be considered a belief system and when an IB is complex enough (supposedly "I don't believe in God").
@CoryTheRaven I expected you to pick up on that. That statement could easily be rephrased to "I believe I don't like bananas" and the point would still stand. Correcting language remains your main objective. Note that we haven't even been talking about whether or not god exists here.
@DrHowbeit No it couldn't. You're comparing two entirely different things. I don't "believe" I dislike a foodstuff. It just doesn't taste good to me. That is quite different from a philosophical system that ends - not begins, ends - with the belief that God does not exist.
For someone who is not "energized" by definitions of things, you certainly enjoy playing word games.
@CoryTheRaven "It just doesn't taste good to me." So it seems. But nothing is that simple. You must correlate time, memory, present, past & so much more to make up your mind & declare your position. An assertion/belief/opinion(take your pick) is an "end" that must be based on something. When is that "something" a belief system & when is it not? That was my question. And who makes that decision? He/she have the difficult task to decide (from case to case?) when philosophy starts.
@CoryTheRaven More ping-pong: You took it upon you to criticize and rectify my understanding and use of words such as "atheism", "supernatural", "metaphysics" and "belief". I'm trying to get things straight which you hold against me.
@CoryTheRaven You have shown that a person's understanding of the world is a belief system. When that person declares a disbelief that belief system is tagged a philosophy/religion named after the disbelief.
@CoryTheRaven The understanding of the universe as consistent might seem to generic to make up for a belief system (along with a number of other building blocks). But that's because you, or someone else, say so. Who draws the line and where?
@CoryTheRaven I get the impression you have already decided that God DOES exist as a basis for your thinking, with all the arguments that revolve around that belief. You assume that persons with no information on the subject, when being asked the question "Do you think there's a being who exists outside space and time", will say "Yes" in 50% of the cases.
@CoryTheRaven I was under the impression you addressed me to change my understanding of what atheism implies. I've decided to hear you out to see if you have a point.
@DrHowbeit "My father used to sodomize me as a child with bananas then make me eat them after"
This coming from your very own twitter and blogs.
How sad, just because you were fucked in the ass with bananas by your dad doesnt mean you have to say racial slurs like, "only niggers eat bananas"
You call yourself a Dr, but your exact words and outlook on food and races are very ignorant. Stop the banana and black skin hate you ignorant racist piece of shit.
@CoryTheRaven "I've understood it from the beginning"
Oh, good, that's a relief. I've understood what you mean by different types of atheism as well, so perhaps there's hope. Let's see. Your position, if I'm correct, is that a person needs a specific understanding of the world to have disbelief in god. Therefor disbelief in god in itself is a system of ideas. Ok, I can see the point. Where does this lead? Continues.
@DrHowbeit "Your position, if I'm correct, is that a person needs a specific understanding of the world to have disbelief in god. Therefor disbelief in god in itself is a system of ideas."
Getting there. Allow me to repeat myself once again, for your benefit: More fundamental than non-belief in a deity is a suite of metaphysical beliefs that each type of atheism has that forms the foundation of their non-belief. These constitute positive philosophical claims....
@DrHowbeit ...Furthermore, atheist philosophical claims - like theist philosophical claims, and ANY product of the human mind - are cultural and psychological phenomena with no a priori truth value.
That they are philosophical claims also distinguishes them from a fruit, unless you are a hardcore materialist in which case it would not. In that case, atheism would be only the processing of chemicals in the brain and not have any greater truth value than a dislike for bananas.
@CoryTheRaven Continued. If someone offer me a banana and I go "No, I don't like bananas" does that make up for a system of ideas? After all, I don't dislike bananas for nothing, it is based on previous experiences of bananas, associations of bananas, it's texture and taste in reference to other textures and tastes. When you go down to it "not liking bananas" is a complex result of my interaction with bananas and the world as a whole? Is that how you wanna play it?
@DrHowbeit Um... Different cultures have different foods, many of which can seem downright disgusting to members of other cultures. Taste is very much a complex result of your interaction with a foodstuff and the world as a whole (for example: I am Canadian, my dad is German, and I can't stomach more than half of the things he considers delicacies). The very flippancy of your analogy demonstrates how you haven't really been thinking this subject through.
@CoryTheRaven You seem to have created your very own definition of "western atheism" as well. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. Your familiar with Dawkins i pressume. He's sometimes considered "militant" but even Dawkins admits he can't be 100% certain that God doesn't exist. No one can. He just thinks there's no good reason to think God exists. That's all.
@DrHowbeit "You seem to have created your very own definition of "western atheism" as well."
Um, noooo, there is a distinct difference between atheist Buddhism and Samkhya Hinduism vs. New Atheism and Western Secular Humanism. Heck, there are FUNDAMENTAL differences between how people in Japan, for example, express religiousity vs. how people in the USA do. Are you seriously suggesting that these cultural differences do not exist, nor have an impact on the cultural phenomenon of atheism?
I can understand the impression that we are hard-wired for God. Children are believers to a high degree according to studies. It makes sense in a basic way, that someone looks over us and knows what is right and wrong. It also makes sense when you look at the sky to allege that the sun is moving and that the observer is standing still. Just use your eyes, right? As we know, it's the other way around. It took some time and still doesn't make sense in our daily life experience. Never the less.
One of the things that pushed me away from whatever kind of mixed-bag religion I entertained in the past is the way it slows down your thinking. When you find yourself in a challenging situation, be it a dilemma or whatever, one's mind have to take a detour: "What would God want?" It's a triangular thought process. The straight line, on the other hand, is practical and in the moment. "What do I think? What does my experience and knowledge say?" It's made me a lot smarter to go straight.
There's quite a few things to address in this video. I think religious people have to get this clear that religion does not own spirituality. Non-believers aren't indifferent by definition. Explaining things through "God" strikes me as a way of diminishing existence. It's a great mountain, but when get to the peak of religion there's a greater mountain waiting. The real depths of intellect and emotion is blocked by the quite grand, but still limited, notion of a super-being pulling the strings.
Actually (Classical) Theism does NOT believe in "a super-being pulling the strings.", like God was like a superman controlling everything with a super computer.
That's a huge strawman and has nothing to do with the understanding of God in Classica (like Catholic) Theism.
Also, Theism does not "try to explain things through God", it's another misconception... the God of the Gaps argument has always been refused even in antiquity or middleages (see Augustine or Aquinas).
Well, it was an expression. How about "a creator of everything". Would that sit better?
"try to explain things through God"
Perhaps you interpreted it in a way I didn't intend. If God created everything then everything has to be explained through God (or with God or in reference to God). How does that sound?
I LOVE GOD!!.. I LOVE GOD!!!.. .I LOVE GOD!!!! meeeeoooowwww..... and I don't care about naivness or smallness or stupidity in some poeple's eyes.....without Him... life is without purpose and sense.... there is JOY in staying in His arms like a little baby.... so close... so close... and because of that I LOVE ALL PEOPLE with their imperfections.... and of course all animals (furry ones specially...hahahaha)... so I am sending you hearts.. <3... <3... <3 ...
I don't think that it is fair to accuse secularists of condescension when you dismiss the idea that they have any interest in 'the big questions.' We look for answers to the same questions as you, but whereas your questions were answered millennia ago, ours are renewed with every new advance in human knowledge. Also, as a side point, you confuse secularism with atheism. This is wrong. A religious person can be a secularist too, and many are. You demean your own flock with such words.
I don't think that it is fair to accuse secularists of condescension when you dismiss the idea that they have any interest in 'the big questions.' We look for answers to the same questions as you, but whereas your questions were answered millennia ago, ours are renewed with every new advance in human knowledge. Also, as a side point, you confuse secularism with atheism. This is wrong. A religious person can be a secularist too, and many are. You demean your own flock with such words.
Fine words Father. I've heard it said that Europeans in fact Do believe in God, they just call it the State. A welfare state that can provide much luxury and leisure for some unreflecting token political obedience might indeed be dangerous.
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
Father, you should discuss chauvinism in favor of the modernity. I think scientism and the bracketing of premodern thinking using what Lewis called the "historical point of view" means we will be doomed to reinventing the wheel.
"where does the universe come from? who knows.. who cares.. let's just move on."
I think you're nuts if you believe that secularists are completely indifferent to the big questions in life. That's false! It's just that we aren't looking for answers to these questions in the writings of ancient peoples who were oblivious to basic cosmology, bacteria, electricity, etc. You guys have a cute little story about existence which we're to accept on "faith", but the thing is, we need actual proof.
@xalspaero Oh spare me the condescension. Our tradition offers the argument from contingency, a metaphysically cogent and compelling argument for a creative source of existence which exists through the power of its own essence. Say what you want about that demonstration, it is not a "cute little story" that anyone is asking you blindly to accept.
@xalspaero Let's see: Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Chartres Cathedral, Michelangelo, Bach, John Henry Newman, Karl Rahner, John Paul II: they all amount to "nothing." Friend, you need just a little exposure to cultural history!
@wordonfirevideo i don't look down on these great scholars, i actually love the works of Dante, but even if one is inspired to produce great things that have stayed with us for centuries, he is still inspired by faith. and listing scholars' names doesnt really serve as a rebuttle to "Faith is all you have to offer". haha sry
@aujeimune You're offering a complete caricature of "faith." Faith is not opposed to reason, though it passes beyond reason. Augustine, Aquinas and company were deeply interested in showing the rational coherence of Christian belief. You have to get over the prejudice that faith means "accepting things blindly." No serious Christian has ever characterized faith that way.
Faith is not about knowing everything. Faith is about trusting somebody because you love them; This means there is room for doubt in faith- it is necessary for any spiritual growth. This has never been more exemplified than with how Jesus's friends abandoned him because they were afraid, and how more brightly they burned with the Spirit when they saw Him again. Most of them died horribly, in proclaiming the Truth of God. Would you die for a lie? Even an uneducated peasant wouldn't.
@aujeimune One thing I have noticed in comments upon many videos is something that Monseigneur Luigi Giussani points out in his book "The Religious Sense" Often people seem to reduce what is reasonable to what is demonstratable. The trouble with this is that some things can be reasonable, can be true, without being able to have that whole process demonstrated.
@aujeimune For instance, I know that my mother loves me, and that it is reasonable for me to have this belief, even though that process of 'love' can never be truly demonstrated in its entirety. It seems to me, when you are describing that you need proof to have faith in something, you are describing that proof in this same way. As wordonfirevideo put it, "Faith is not apposed to reason." Faith is an openness to reality, and reason is the means by which we interpret and interact with reality.
"Haha sry"? I'm sorry for your ignorance, but not in a contemptuous sort of way. I know you've not been taught enough. The Catholic tradition has fostered the Scientific Method and the University System, dispelled superstition, affected International Law and Rights and Economics and Politics, provided incomparable Architecture, Painting, Music and Literature. And over that, we are the number one charitable institution in the world. We educate more children than you can ever imagine.
Don't agree with me? Listen to the expert view. I suggest to check out the distinguished Historian and Economist Thomas E. Woods. I hope he will help you know more and know better!
@wordonfirevideo does the existence of mircles as in the ones used in the canonisation process not give real proof of God's help and therefore existence.
@xalspaero Those people weren't quite "oblivious", but rather, they had limited means of observation. "Oblivious" implies that the knowledge was within their reach and that they just failed to reach it, but the lack of technology (due to the times) was limiting them. A society's information is cumulative and requires time; in 1000 years, we'll be "oblivious ancient peoples" too. Besides, a society's scientific knowledge hardly indicates its wisdom.
I like your reference to Freuds idea that repressed feelings manifest themselves through other outlets, perhaps thats also a problem with celibacy? Sorry if i sound flippant, but i think its worth considering.
@chuckstar666 Friend, the church has considered it for centuries--actually long before Freud. There are plenty of ancient and medieval treatments of precisely this issue.
@chuckstar666 Brother, you are not flippant sounding. Know that Celibacy has existed since the beginning. It is to an extent a discipline and not a doctrine. Even so, consider that our actions and omissions eventually become ourselves, molding our body, mind, and soul. This is something the Spiritual tradition has long considered: "How do I prepare myself to be a vessel consecrated to God so that He can approach me and fill me undefiled on His terms and in a way that is most loving?"
@wordonfirevideo (1)The difference between the important questions about meaning of life & the universe is that religion asserts it, and science seeks it and looks to find it. Instead of just stopping at "I think a loving God created the universe and that feels good to me to believe that", science searches for and discovers the reality of it.
The idea that humans are "wired for God" is an unfounded assertion. (continued)
@goldenram27 (2) Having a desire to fly, doesn't mean you can actually flap your arms and take off. Obviously flying isn't an innate desire in humans but it demonstrates the fallacy. Innate or not, desires don't prove the existence of the object of that desire. There are atheists who have no need, want or desire for God. One can live quite comfortably and be completely content without a belief or desire for a god.
to compare me with Freud and nichie , marx.is silly...you dont have to go after religion with an vengeance anymore , Religion is fizzling out without any help.....why do you think more and more people fall under the category of "spiritual but not religious". The are hard wired to be superstitious and which manifests itself in the thousands of religions we have today. They are all searching for something yes, but it's naive to think it has to be your version of the truth.
@Cousinsjay Come on, Jay: look beyond the New York Times and Le Monde! Religion is positively flourishing in Asia, Latin America, and especially Africa. And in our country, there are millions upon millions of evangelicals and Catholics, especially Vietnamese, Mexican, and Filipinos. And yes, everyone (including you) wants unconditioned truth and goodness, and they sure as heck aren't going to find it in the cold secularism you're advocating.
@wordonfirevideo "yes, everyone (including you) wants unconditioned truth and goodness"
Right but just becaue we want the truth dosent mean we should belive everyone relgion who claims the have the absoulte truth..
Every relgion claims to have absoulte truth ( which makes sense because why belive in something you think is false) --yet the clearly cant all be correct.
@badpanda84 Without seeming curt, the assertion that every religions claims absolute Truth is an assertion that simply is not true. It is a canard out of Western skepticism. It is worth noting that every religion lays claim that they do not have the absolute Truth, that absolute Truth is unknoweable sans one: The Catholic religion. Truth is not a something. Truth is a Somebody. And, His name is Jesus. That is the unique claim of the Christian. Even absolute systems like Islam claim no truth.
@badpanda84 My friend, I have lived within the world of Islam already. Thank you for the invitation. Regarding what no one is ever going to say, consider that there are people who do live life suspicious of others always attempting to decieve their neighbor. Before Christ it was impossible to know the purpose of life. In this way, the religions of the world say, "We are waiting for higher truth to arrive." The Christians say, "Truth is here and has come and is now approaching us at our level."
@badpanda84 Yes, you are right. If someone does not subscribe to the arrival of Truth then they are properly bound by honest religious sentiment to continue awaiting His arrival. This is why the remaining Jews, those who didn't become Christians, aren't condemned by the Church; though we pray for their conversion, their fidelity to what they have known; steadfastness to Abraham. There is a wonderful work on this, "Many Religions One Covenant", written by the African convert Francis Arinze.
Father Barron: My immediate response to your insightful video is that, while everyone naturally desires the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, they do not expect or welcome it in the form of the arguments of a Roman catholic priest especially in this generation). I have watched many of your presentations and have read the responses of a bucketful of your detractors. Not to worry, though. You're in good company with many prophets and wisemen/women who were not what the people were expecting.
You just don't get it. Religion is on its way out ...given way to a more enlightened Philosophy and new moral and ethical thinking........The statement that we will move to more addictive substitutes...is just stupid Bob...And as you call it a disaster....very narrow minded thinking......
@Cousinsjay Ah yes, religion is on its way out. You join the ranks of Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Nietzsche, Lenin, etc, etc, all of whom, long ago, predicted the imminent collapse of religion. Well, we're still here. You're dealing, Jay, with a caricature of religion, derived, I'm gathering, from your youth. Try a sophisticated version.
I wouldn't say that repressed feelings about fulfillment and truth, or more specifically - "God", go away because of our true nature, but rather because of early socialisation that instills the idea of God into us. As a former Catholic, I experience these resurfacing feelings from time to time - but my friends who were socialised as atheists never experience that, and never have such questions because they were never conditioned to think that way. In this case, nurture wins out over nature.
@HappyColouredMarbles My point had nothing to do with Socrates' religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Socrates seemed to realize that to be human is to seek truth. Your spiritual aspirations really can't be totally chalked up to your Catholic upbringing; Socrates acknowledged this dimension of human existence, and he wasn't Catholic. It is possible to revert to an animal state, if we neglect the spiritual dimension of human existence. In two or three generations, a whole legacy can be lost.
@billybagbom Thank you for the clarification. My point was tongue in cheek, in case you didn't pick up on that. Regardless, you haven't swayed me from my belief that "God" is socialised into people - and those "deep religious feelings and impulses" simply don't exist in the first place for people who have not had that socialisation. You can seek truth in other ways and find meaning in life in ways that do not include an imaginary being.
@HappyColouredMarbles I wasn't offering an apologetic, so I'm not surprised you weren't "convinced.". Do you really believe that human spiritual aspirations are totally explicable by "socialization"? Prove that God is an imaginary being. No; better still, prove that you and I are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination. Note: I am not asking you to prove a negative. YOU said God is imaginary. That's dogmatic. I say, "prove it." I have asserted nothing.
@billybagbom Now we're bordering on the flying spaghetti monster argument. I suppose I can't prove that it doesn't exist either. But when you think about it rationally, it seems pretty far out there.
I think that spirituality may be ingrained in human beings in a sense, so there may be a biological aspect to it as well as socialisation. It certainly is good for coping with death to have spirituality to fall back onto - it helps human beings to deal with loss and maybe that is passed on
@billybagbom ...genetically, as a type of survival mechanism. But mainly, I do believe that that people are socialized for spirituality. Take a look at religion. The religion you practice is highly dependent upon the society into which you were born, the family into which you were born. Of course there are exceptions of people who convert later in life, but they are indeed, exceptions. When something is ingrained in you from childhood, it is very difficult to let go of - it defines who you are.
@HappyColouredMarbles Sorry about my last post. Too much whiskey, too late at night. I DID ask you to prove a negative: " prove that you and I are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination." Man, you nailed me there! Or rather, if you didn't, thanks! Anyway< I came out looking bad for that, and I think that when you say "god is an imaginary being" and can't prove it and then resort to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you don't exactly come up smelling like roses.
@billybagbom My point about the flying spaghetti monster is that, as with the topic of proving that we "are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination," there are a number of things you could insert in place of the word "God" and still not be able to disprove. Including the flying spaghetti monster. I don't disagree that it can't be proven. But that doesn't make "God" any more real or less imaginary for that matter. That's as far as I'll indulge you on that topic.
This video resonates with me so well. This "hardwiring" was very much evident in my own spiritual personality and is the reason I was not satisfied as an agnostic. I believed that God most likely existed and I desperately wanted to know Him.
I will be receiving the sacraments of confirmation and first communion this Easter Vigil.
@RioDePensamientos Thank you. I am only 23 years old and I have a long way to go. I pray everyday that God will give me and my friends the strength to persevere in the faith and be a good servant. I chose Doubting Thomas as my patron saint
OK Father. Fair enough, keep your hair on! I may have come over as a little pugnacious with that comment. I'm not accusing you of a Swaggart, blackguard or scoundrel. I'm actually enjoying your videos very much, especially the one about Bob Dylan, but I'm probably not personally going to donate because I'm a bit skint at present. My objection was more aesthetic than ethical. It's actually a real pleasure to see the issues you cover discussed intelligently, tolerantly and with humour! .
I think the message in this video, whilst plausible and very eloquently put, is made somewhat questionable by the conspicuous request at the end for a DONATION. That strikes me as a mite crude and jarring.
@MrTobytwirl Well why? Where do you think these videos come from? I mean, I need money to do this ministry, and involvement with the media is always expensive. If you're worried about my absconding funds, let me tell you that I live in two rooms at Mundelein Seminary, drive a six year old Camry, and go on one vacation a year. I'm a priest. Trust me when I tell you that I'm not living in mansions and flying around in private jets!
The "God-intoxicated ape." I am always mentally engaged by this commentary. It's great to see someone who really knows what they're talking about, even though I do not consider myself religious at present.
NashvilleKildCountry 1 month ago
This reminds me of the few true atheists I've met in my life: people for whom questions of ultimate meaning are utterly irrelevant, so much so that they have a total disinterest in talking about the subject.
That said, I kinda' want a Fr. Barron t-shirt that says "And here's why..." ^_^
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
I would love to see a talk / debate between Ft Barron and Neil DeGrasse Tyson especially after watching Neil in this video and his passion for field. /watch?v=6RjW5-4IiSc
gnoxycat 2 months ago
I really like what Fr Barron says. However, it is also very easy for any Catholic to treat his faith/religion as a toy - taking it out once a week on Sunday for one hour and then returning to pagan ways for the rest of the week, elevating his job, agenda, power, money etc into his other god. I think our faith, our love for God needs to be 24/7 - to stop us turning other things into our mini-gods.
zhangruyi 2 months ago
There's no rule that says that you have to substitute religion with alcohol and drugs. Many have substituted religion with enlightenment, humanism, science, art and a lot of other things.
DrHowbeit 4 months ago
@DrHowbeit This is interesting because the Scientism of New Atheism is actually a much more profound attack on art, humanism, etc. than it is an attack on religion. It's attack on religion is rather perfunctory and can be resolved with even a modicum of research on the subject. But by saying that ONLY reason and empiricism are valid epistemologies, they are launching an attack on aesthetics, values, relationships, imagination, emotion, and everything that adds beauty to human life.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Sounds like you're painting a malicious portrait of science, or "Scientism" as you call it. I think you will end up on the wrong track if you apply dualism to the subject. Religion and atheism are not antipoles. Actually atheism is not an -ism and "atheism" and "scientism" are not necessarily linked. They are two separate things. Furthermore science doesn't neglect emotion. Emotions can be studied. Understanding something doesn't mean you discredit it.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Actually, I quite like science. I teach it in my career and I'm involved in a number of volunteer science interest groups. I do more actual science stuff than most of the Internet atheists who accuse me of being an irrational, antiscience, stupid poo-head. Science is rad.
Thing is, I don't subscribe to a doctrine of Scientism: the belief that rationalism and empiricism have epistemological primacy. I don't elevate the tool of science to a philosophy...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven The Internet is what it is. There are hotheads on every side. Seems to me that religious and non-religious people online are equally hostile.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...I don't extend methodological naturalism to philosophical naturalism. To me the dualism is not at all science vs. religion: it's Rationalism vs. Romanticism, and I am a card-carrying Romantic.
That is ultimately my disagreement with New Atheism, which is the doctrine of Atheism grounded in Scientism (there are other doctrines of atheism that do not hold to Scientism, like Communism, Samkhya Hinduism, Atheist Buddhism, Nihilism, Objectivism, etc. Lots of different atheisms)
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I don't see science as a philosophy either, but there are a lot of sensible practises. That goes for basically all religions as well. I don't think one should get locked entirely to a specific mindset. Unfortunately that is often what religion ordains.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit As do many irreligions. Unfortunately too many people confuse the desire to be right with the desire to seek truth. Even claiming to seek truth becomes part of their "I'm right and you suck" system. Usually, I have found, that when one is actually seeking truth, the biggest enemy is not those other people who believe different things than me, but oneself.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
Reminds me of this philosopher: "If you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease." Sent-ts'an, c. 700 C.E.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "New Atheism" is another pointless term. There's nothing new about it, probably because there's nothing new to religion. As far as I can find out it's been coined by media, namely Andrew Brown, a journalist at The Guardian. Just a way to label sides and create headlines. I've realised Christians find it very hard to come to terms with what "atheism" actually stands for. It's basically nothing. Not a philosophy, community, way of life, religion or what have you.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit That's not true. New Atheism denotes a particular philosophy and praxis of atheism that is driven by an aggressive adherence to Scientism (the epistemological primacy of rationalism and empiricism). There are other philosophies of atheism with different metaphysics, several of which I listed.
Atheists are very infrequently atheist about atheism, requesting some kind of special neutral status for it instead of looking at it as JUST ANOTHER social and psychological phenomenon.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven ...That is, it's not a null value. It is just as much a creation of the psyche as any other belief and can be studied just like any other belief. It can be just as easily tracked historically, analysed academically, and dissected philosophically.
I know it sucks to think that one's beliefs (theistic or atheistic) could be reduced to objects of study, because we're all so well trained on the genetic fallacy that to study something invalidates its truthiness, but there it is.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheism as a phenomenon? Atheism or rather agnosticism is a null value as long as a particular religion can't bring evidence that hold to scrutiny. Atheism simply means not believing in God because the evidence is insufficient. Do you have an -ism for not believing in ghosts? Is not believing in ghosts a phenomenon of the mind?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Atheism is a social and psychological phenomenon, and it is not simply nonbelief in gods. There are even, as I keep pointing out, different types of atheism. So which atheism has null value? Is everyone naturally a Communist until given sufficient evidence for an alternate economic and political systems? Should we assume that Samkhya Hinduism's take on reality is correct until demonstrated otherwise?
No, atheism in all its diversity and variety is just as much a learned philosophy
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit And to answer your question, yes, not believing in ghosts is a phenomenon of the mind. There are specific cultural-historical reasons why Westerners don't really have a belief system regarding "ghosts" whereas cultures like China with its ancestor worship and Japan with its nature spirits do, and it has surprisingly little to do with science. Why a culture does not believe in something is just as much an object of study as why a different one does...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...You're missing a critically important part of the equation: EVERYTHING is a phenomenon of the mind. All these various forms of atheism, after dismissing everything other phenomenon as cultural and psychological, wants to disingenuously eke out a spot for itself as a basal truth... As something BEYOND social, scientific and philosophical study, the metaphysics to end all metaphysics. As I said, atheists are rarely atheist about atheism.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I agree that most atheists probably are atheists because they were brought up in a secular culture. But that argument actually supports atheism since atheists and agnostics are the ones emphasizing the argument of cultural impact.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Are metaphysics crucial? Some have the idea that it's absolutely critical, for whatever the reason, to believe in something supernatural, something elusive. Isn't "supernatural" simply a placeholder? Once there's an explanation the tag "supernatural" is replaced with the tag "natural". If God exists and can be explained (like e.g. the lightning) does that devalue God?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit You're confounding "metaphysics" with the supernatural. Metaphysics, by dictionary definition, is "The branch of philosophy that examines the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value." Not only is metaphysics crucial: it is unavoidable. Simply by virtue of asking any question on the nature of reality and existence, EVERYBODY does metaphysics. And different doctrines of atheism have different metaphysics.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit I also think you err by applying a negative value to the term "supernatural". No, to put it bluntly, it is not a placeholder. To assert that something is supernatural is to make a positive claim that an entity or whathaveyou exists in a state beyond the effects of physical law. I don't believe in God because science has yet to fill in this or that gap: I have a positive, affirmative belief that such an entity exists beyond Space, Time, Energy and Matter.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven You seem to be all about semantics and definitions which don't really engage me. Different types of "atheisms"? I don't know about that. Atheism in general discourse says that a person thinks there is no god. Often atheists tend to support science, liberalism and other things as well. Does that mean it a package deal? No.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit NO offense, but I suggest you learn about it then if you don't know about that. For me, one of the most telling pieces of evidence is the fact that different types of atheists will harrangue each other for being the wrong type. It comes up every time the violent crimes of Communism is mentioned in the form of a "No True Scotsman" fallacy: something to the effect that Communism isn't REALLY atheism because it has replaced God with the State...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...So no, nonbelief in a deity is not the sole necessary and sufficient characteristic of atheism. At least, it is no more functionally useful than "belief in a deity" is for all the different assorted types of theism (in fact, I have a suspicion that the reason so many atheists fall into the error that all theism is pretty much alike might have to do with the fact that they don't even recognize that not all atheism is alike).
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven It's not useful to branch out various "atheisms". Communism is a political system. Buddhism is a religion. You can be an atheist capitalist. Does that make capitalism an atheism? Does this particular form of capitalism belong in the tree of atheisms? How about atheist plumbers? What's the label for that group? It's an atheism I guess.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Communism is more than a specific political or economic system though. It is a worldview based on Marx's historical dialectic. That is quite different from the metaphysics of New aTheism, with its primacy of rationalism and empiricism. And yes, Buddhism and Samkhya Hinduism are religions... Atheist religions. Secular humanism and Nihilism offer up opposing views of the world, though both are atheist. Objectivism is based on the views of Ayn Rand...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...I could go on and on, but the point is that these are not trivial differences of circumsatnce, like being a plumber. These are fundamental differences in metaphysics held by different schools of atheist thought, and they are not particularly compatible with one another. It is not much different from theism. I can tell you for a fact (having dated one) that my metaphysical views as a Christian are fundamentally different from those of a Wiccan. It doesn't befit reductionism.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheist about atheism? I don't know what that means. Does "atheism" here simply mean "to not believe". So atheists should try to not believe in not believing in God? Does that mean they're back to believing in God, the God they don't believe exists?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit No, being atheist about atheism is to take the same critical view towards atheism as a philosophy that is taken towards theism as a philosophy. Of course, that assumes that atheists are actually atheist about theism and not just chronically uninformed about theism. I often meet atheists who confuse ignorance for rational non-belief...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...I sometimes hear that silly cliche about how atheists just believe in one less god than monotheists. Well keep going. Don't just substitute one belief for another. Don't just stop believing in monotheism. Stop believing in atheism too. Challenge one's own atheist assumptions, philosophies and metaphysics. Challenge rationalism and empiricism. Challenge the historical dialectic. Challenge yourself.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrHowbeit ...I sometimes hear that silly cliche about how atheists just believe in one less god than monotheists. Well keep going. Don't just substitute one belief for another. Don't just stop believing in monotheism. Stop believing in atheism too. Challenge one's own atheist assumptions, philosophies and metaphysics. Challenge rationalism and empiricism. Challenge the historical dialectic. Challenge yourself.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Who thinks atheism is beyond study? I've never heard an atheist being troubled by attempts to map out the history, origin and nature of atheism. Where do you get that from?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Where do you get that from?"
You're doing it right now. Every time an atheist tells you that atheism is not a belief, they are claiming that it has special status as something beyond study. You're not allowed to dissect it like any other belief because, don't you see, it's not a belief. No, it's a non-belief, and you can't study a non-belief. It has no content to study. It's not just another philosophy: it's The Truth...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...Of course, if that were true, then it would make atheism literally nothing more than anti-intellectual drivel. No content, nothing to see here and therefore nothing for an intelligent person to consider about it.
But as it stands, it is merely the argument that it has no content that is anti-intellectual drivel. And it is so in the same sense as any other religious person getting touchy about the prospect of their beliefs getting "explained". Atheism is not above explanation.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheism as a basal truth? Not really. It means not believing in God. It doesn't mean knowing for a fact that God doesn't exist. Which God for that matter? You seem colored by heated encounters with contentious atheists. From that you draw a conclusion that atheism is about claiming certainty and being aggressive? The Catholic Ustasa in Croatia managed concentration camps in the 40s. Does that make genocide and torture intrinsic to the Catholic faith?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Atheism as a basal truth?"
Depends on the type of atheism. Buddhist atheism is actually much more honest. It says that you cannot know if there is a god or if there is not a god. Western forms of atheism are much more certain. New Atheism in particular, even if divorced from its aggressive adherents, makes the claim that we ought not to believe in a god unless proven otherwise. That assumes atheism as a basal truth. I have no reason to assume atheism is any more likely than theism
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "I have a positive, affirmative belief that such an entity exists beyond Space, Time, Energy and Matter."
You didn't answer the question. If you could explain and fully understand God would that devaluate God? If God was as comprehensible as the lightning would that quell God's magical glow? People don't worship the lightning (anymore). We know what it is.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit I didn't answer your question because I thought it was odd. It depends on what you mean by "explain and fully understand God". If you mean in a relational sense, then that is kinda' what theism is about. If you mean in the sense of God being a natural phenomenon, then it kind of misses the point. But moreso, it is odd because we cannot "explain and fully understand" anyone or anything. Only the omniscient could FULLY understand every facet of anything.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I don't know where this is going. Your understanding of atheism is twisted. Atheism simply means: I don't believe there is a god. That's all. You want to convince me that atheism is a belief system, a philosophy, is that correct? Let's try this: Is baldness a hair color? Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is not playing golf a sport? Is not believing in God a philosophy?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit I think you're missing the point. Atheism is not simply non-belief in a god. It is a whole grouping of diverse metaphysics that operate without deities, just as theism is a whole grouping of diverse metaphysics that operate with deities. Each different philosophy of atheism proposes ideas about the nature of reality and being, about epistemology, about morals, about the right organization of society, and so on, all based on the assumption that there is no god...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...Even Nihilism - which is the only sensible form of atheism, imo - makes propositions about reality and our appropriate reaction to it. All of those various forms of atheism I mentioned make positive metaphysical, philosophical claims that comprise belief systems unto themselves. New Atheism, for instance, is not about simple non-belief in a god: it is about a positive belief in the primacy of rationalism and empiricism...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...And honestly, I'm not sure how much more energy I have to keep articulating all of this, and giving actual examples, only to have you continuously deny that these examples exist and accuse my views of being twisted without actually offering any kind of serious counter-argument. I guess New Atheism and Samkhya Hinduism and Objectivism and New Agers who just don't believe in God do not exist or are not substantially different because, er, you say so. Okay.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven On "atheist about atheism". Like I thought. You use the word "atheism" as if it meant "being critical" in general. That's not what atheism means. Atheism means "I don't believe there is a god". That's all. You can be atheist and believe in ghosts and goblins.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit I'm sorry, which atheism only means that you don't believe in a god? I know that New Atheism means that you DO believe in the primacy of rationalism and empricism. And I know that Communism means you DO believe in the historical dialectic. And that atheist Buddhism means you DO believe in the teachings of Buddha. and so on.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven You're correct. Atheism doesn't really have a content. Saying "I don't believe in ghosts" doesn't have much content either. It means that "I" have not been convinced to think that ghosts exist. That's all.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven True. Atheism is not an active belief. It's disbelief in God. That doesn't say it can't be studied. I have already agreed that atheism can be studied and dissected. There's lots of material on the history of atheism and it's development. That doesn't make it true or false. Why do you think atheists are scared of people analyzing atheism?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Why do you think atheists are scared of people analyzing atheism?"
For the same reason that many theists are afraid of people analyzing theism: the perception that explaining a belief system falsifies it. If atheisms, like theisms, are merely cultural and psychological phenomena then they have no a priori claim to truth. "No," they say, "my views are a non-belief which means they can't be studied like any other belief (ignore the philosophical assumptions behind the curtain)."
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Reluctantly I've dug up some definitions from a dictionary I found online called "yourdictionary".
"Atheism: The belief that there is no God"
"Religion: Religion is a set of beliefs about God or the supernatural"
"Philosophy: Philosophy is a set of ideals, standards or beliefs used to describe behavior and thought"
Notice the difference between "belief"(singular) and "set of beliefs"(plural). One isolated belief can not possibly be a system.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit yourdictionary is wrong. In fact, as I recall we already established that you can have an atheist religion. Here are some more accurate definitions...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit re·li·gion
noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs...
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit re·li·gion (continued)
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit a·the·ism
noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Is empiricism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is rationalism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is evolution intrinsic to atheism? No. Is marxism intrinsic to atheism? No. Is not believing in God intrinsic to atheism? Yes.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Is empiricism intrinsic to atheism?"
To New Atheism, yes. Same for rationalism.
"Is marxism intrinsic to atheism?"
To Communism, yes.
They are intrinsic because they are what form the philosophical foundation for that non-belief in God. Without a doctrine of ratinoalism and empiricism, New Atheism would have no grounds for its non-belief. Without Marx, Communism would have no ground for its violent supression of theism. You stop at non-belief in gods without asking "why?"
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or non-belief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or disbelief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CoryTheRaven Let's compare a religion, say Catholicism, with a belief (or non-belief), say atheism, and see if there is a difference. If I believe in God am I Catholic? No, not by definition. C is a set of beliefs that consists of the Trinity, the Bible, the resurrection etc. If I don't believe in God am I an atheist? Yes. Does communism, buddhism and new age have anything to do with it? No, not by definition.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Can the isolated atheist belief be a p-a-r-t of a belief system? Yes. A-n-y-t-h-i-n-g can be a part of a belief system. Can I believe in magic and be an atheist? Yes. Can have a rigid mechanical world-view and be an atheist. Yes. I'm gonna leave the following two unanswered. Is a pair of boots a Ceasar Salad because I pour Ceasar dressing over it? Is communism an atheism because it shares disbelief in god?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Atheism in itself doesn't say anything about, for instance, how the universe came about. It is not an explanation that substitutes the God-explanation. It simply says that the God-explanation is not convincing, leaving the slot open. If Neo-Nazis or Boy Scouts adopts it's idea is completely irrelevant to the definition of the word. Can I make it any clearer? And I'm not even an atheist.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Can I make it any clearer?"
I understand what you're saying. I've understood it from the beginning. You are not the first person to say it to me. It just happens that you're wrong. There ARE different types of atheism, as I've shown. Those different types of atheism have different metaphysical beliefs, as I have shown. And those metaphysical beliefs form the foundation of their non-belief in god and therefore form a positive and fundamental claim, as I have also shown.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Apart from the word "doctrine" I can't see the difference. I suppose one could discuss the definition of the word "doctrine" but it's fruitless cause there is no international standard. It could mean a principlE or body of principlES. Who knows? By the way, dictionaries don't actually dictate what a word is supposed to mean. They tell us how people use the word. That's why dictionaries are reprinted all the time.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Ah, NOW dictionaries aren't really authoritative once I use a definition that is more accurate than the one you used. I guess that makes me wrong and you right then.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven The case of the banana was deliberately trivial. The thing is, yet again, not liking bananas reveals things about my understanding of the universe, at least when I'm doing things your way. For example it means I believe the universe to be consistent. I expect that a banana today will taste similar to a banana the previous time. My not-liking-bananas will turn into a belief system, an -ism, say abananaism.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Actually it's impossible to make a statement that does NOT immediately become an -ism. If I like pears – pearism. Negative statements can't be. Everything is an affirmation. My accumulated life experience is a system of ideas that infects everything I say and turns it into an -ism. Is that your point? Atheism is a belief system the same way not liking bananas is a belief system?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit I already explained my point, in detail, repeatedly. There is no need for guesswork. You need merely to read it.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I told you early on that I'm not energized by defining words. I wrote that I "reluctantly" dug up definitions (because you´re making a case about the meaning of words and correct how I use them). Saying that dictionaries don't present absolute truths is not inconsistent with that.
And as I pointed out I don't know why you did cut and paste that texts in the first place. Your dictionary also says that atheism is a "belief" and religion is a "set of beliefs".
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Your whole argument with me was that I was defining words wrong, so it's a little disingenuous to say that you're not "energized" by it.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Your argument seems quite clear. In the case of "new atheism" (if we assume it includes rationalism and "scientism") it holds pretty good. "New atheism" can be seen as a belief system. You're trying to convince me that an isolated belief (IB) is a belief system. The problem I see is how to decide when an IB is too trivial (supposedly "I don't like bananas") to be considered a belief system and when an IB is complex enough (supposedly "I don't believe in God").
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Not liking bananas is a "belief" now?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I expected you to pick up on that. That statement could easily be rephrased to "I believe I don't like bananas" and the point would still stand. Correcting language remains your main objective. Note that we haven't even been talking about whether or not god exists here.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit No it couldn't. You're comparing two entirely different things. I don't "believe" I dislike a foodstuff. It just doesn't taste good to me. That is quite different from a philosophical system that ends - not begins, ends - with the belief that God does not exist.
For someone who is not "energized" by definitions of things, you certainly enjoy playing word games.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "It just doesn't taste good to me." So it seems. But nothing is that simple. You must correlate time, memory, present, past & so much more to make up your mind & declare your position. An assertion/belief/opinion(take your pick) is an "end" that must be based on something. When is that "something" a belief system & when is it not? That was my question. And who makes that decision? He/she have the difficult task to decide (from case to case?) when philosophy starts.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven More ping-pong: You took it upon you to criticize and rectify my understanding and use of words such as "atheism", "supernatural", "metaphysics" and "belief". I'm trying to get things straight which you hold against me.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven You have shown that a person's understanding of the world is a belief system. When that person declares a disbelief that belief system is tagged a philosophy/religion named after the disbelief.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven The understanding of the universe as consistent might seem to generic to make up for a belief system (along with a number of other building blocks). But that's because you, or someone else, say so. Who draws the line and where?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I get the impression you have already decided that God DOES exist as a basis for your thinking, with all the arguments that revolve around that belief. You assume that persons with no information on the subject, when being asked the question "Do you think there's a being who exists outside space and time", will say "Yes" in 50% of the cases.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven I was under the impression you addressed me to change my understanding of what atheism implies. I've decided to hear you out to see if you have a point.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "My father used to sodomize me as a child with bananas then make me eat them after"
This coming from your very own twitter and blogs.
How sad, just because you were fucked in the ass with bananas by your dad doesnt mean you have to say racial slurs like, "only niggers eat bananas"
You call yourself a Dr, but your exact words and outlook on food and races are very ignorant. Stop the banana and black skin hate you ignorant racist piece of shit.
FnkDctr 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven "I've understood it from the beginning"
Oh, good, that's a relief. I've understood what you mean by different types of atheism as well, so perhaps there's hope. Let's see. Your position, if I'm correct, is that a person needs a specific understanding of the world to have disbelief in god. Therefor disbelief in god in itself is a system of ideas. Ok, I can see the point. Where does this lead? Continues.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit "Your position, if I'm correct, is that a person needs a specific understanding of the world to have disbelief in god. Therefor disbelief in god in itself is a system of ideas."
Getting there. Allow me to repeat myself once again, for your benefit: More fundamental than non-belief in a deity is a suite of metaphysical beliefs that each type of atheism has that forms the foundation of their non-belief. These constitute positive philosophical claims....
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit ...Furthermore, atheist philosophical claims - like theist philosophical claims, and ANY product of the human mind - are cultural and psychological phenomena with no a priori truth value.
That they are philosophical claims also distinguishes them from a fruit, unless you are a hardcore materialist in which case it would not. In that case, atheism would be only the processing of chemicals in the brain and not have any greater truth value than a dislike for bananas.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven Continued. If someone offer me a banana and I go "No, I don't like bananas" does that make up for a system of ideas? After all, I don't dislike bananas for nothing, it is based on previous experiences of bananas, associations of bananas, it's texture and taste in reference to other textures and tastes. When you go down to it "not liking bananas" is a complex result of my interaction with bananas and the world as a whole? Is that how you wanna play it?
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
@DrHowbeit Um... Different cultures have different foods, many of which can seem downright disgusting to members of other cultures. Taste is very much a complex result of your interaction with a foodstuff and the world as a whole (for example: I am Canadian, my dad is German, and I can't stomach more than half of the things he considers delicacies). The very flippancy of your analogy demonstrates how you haven't really been thinking this subject through.
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
@CoryTheRaven You seem to have created your very own definition of "western atheism" as well. Atheists come in all shapes and sizes. Your familiar with Dawkins i pressume. He's sometimes considered "militant" but even Dawkins admits he can't be 100% certain that God doesn't exist. No one can. He just thinks there's no good reason to think God exists. That's all.
DrHowbeit 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@DrHowbeit "You seem to have created your very own definition of "western atheism" as well."
Um, noooo, there is a distinct difference between atheist Buddhism and Samkhya Hinduism vs. New Atheism and Western Secular Humanism. Heck, there are FUNDAMENTAL differences between how people in Japan, for example, express religiousity vs. how people in the USA do. Are you seriously suggesting that these cultural differences do not exist, nor have an impact on the cultural phenomenon of atheism?
CoryTheRaven 1 month ago
I can understand the impression that we are hard-wired for God. Children are believers to a high degree according to studies. It makes sense in a basic way, that someone looks over us and knows what is right and wrong. It also makes sense when you look at the sky to allege that the sun is moving and that the observer is standing still. Just use your eyes, right? As we know, it's the other way around. It took some time and still doesn't make sense in our daily life experience. Never the less.
DrHowbeit 4 months ago
One of the things that pushed me away from whatever kind of mixed-bag religion I entertained in the past is the way it slows down your thinking. When you find yourself in a challenging situation, be it a dilemma or whatever, one's mind have to take a detour: "What would God want?" It's a triangular thought process. The straight line, on the other hand, is practical and in the moment. "What do I think? What does my experience and knowledge say?" It's made me a lot smarter to go straight.
DrHowbeit 4 months ago
There's quite a few things to address in this video. I think religious people have to get this clear that religion does not own spirituality. Non-believers aren't indifferent by definition. Explaining things through "God" strikes me as a way of diminishing existence. It's a great mountain, but when get to the peak of religion there's a greater mountain waiting. The real depths of intellect and emotion is blocked by the quite grand, but still limited, notion of a super-being pulling the strings.
DrHowbeit 4 months ago
@DrHowbeit
Actually (Classical) Theism does NOT believe in "a super-being pulling the strings.", like God was like a superman controlling everything with a super computer.
That's a huge strawman and has nothing to do with the understanding of God in Classica (like Catholic) Theism.
Also, Theism does not "try to explain things through God", it's another misconception... the God of the Gaps argument has always been refused even in antiquity or middleages (see Augustine or Aquinas).
Entropy3ko 2 months ago
@Entropy3ko "a super-being pulling the strings."
Well, it was an expression. How about "a creator of everything". Would that sit better?
"try to explain things through God"
Perhaps you interpreted it in a way I didn't intend. If God created everything then everything has to be explained through God (or with God or in reference to God). How does that sound?
DrHowbeit 2 months ago
I LOVE GOD!!.. I LOVE GOD!!!.. .I LOVE GOD!!!! meeeeoooowwww..... and I don't care about naivness or smallness or stupidity in some poeple's eyes.....without Him... life is without purpose and sense.... there is JOY in staying in His arms like a little baby.... so close... so close... and because of that I LOVE ALL PEOPLE with their imperfections.... and of course all animals (furry ones specially...hahahaha)... so I am sending you hearts.. <3... <3... <3 ...
MatyldaJola 4 months ago
I don't think that it is fair to accuse secularists of condescension when you dismiss the idea that they have any interest in 'the big questions.' We look for answers to the same questions as you, but whereas your questions were answered millennia ago, ours are renewed with every new advance in human knowledge. Also, as a side point, you confuse secularism with atheism. This is wrong. A religious person can be a secularist too, and many are. You demean your own flock with such words.
DaithiDublin 4 months ago
I don't think that it is fair to accuse secularists of condescension when you dismiss the idea that they have any interest in 'the big questions.' We look for answers to the same questions as you, but whereas your questions were answered millennia ago, ours are renewed with every new advance in human knowledge. Also, as a side point, you confuse secularism with atheism. This is wrong. A religious person can be a secularist too, and many are. You demean your own flock with such words.
DaithiDublin 4 months ago
Fine words Father. I've heard it said that Europeans in fact Do believe in God, they just call it the State. A welfare state that can provide much luxury and leisure for some unreflecting token political obedience might indeed be dangerous.
jesseboy303 4 months ago
Faith is trusting a reliable source, but of course you must use reason to determine what to have faith in
Liezei 6 months ago
"Faith" is holding-fast to what our reason has already convinced us is true in spite of our changing mood swings.
grunderlyme 6 months ago
Comment removed
grunderlyme 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Its been a great week here in Ireland. Our new priminister finally gave the pope a proper going over re: the lies, cover ups, and ongoing abuses of the catholic church in relation to innocent children. Telling him that the rule of law supercedes canon law. Not being from Ireland, you would never appreciate the control the church had on all levels of government, the police, and everyday people. The church was never questioned and we have a history of destroyed lives because of blind faith!
newfrontier01 7 months ago
Father, you should discuss chauvinism in favor of the modernity. I think scientism and the bracketing of premodern thinking using what Lewis called the "historical point of view" means we will be doomed to reinventing the wheel.
benabaxter 7 months ago
The one group of people that made Jesus sick to His stomach were the luke-warm (Rev 3:15-16)
thoughtadventure 8 months ago 3
"where does the universe come from? who knows.. who cares.. let's just move on."
I think you're nuts if you believe that secularists are completely indifferent to the big questions in life. That's false! It's just that we aren't looking for answers to these questions in the writings of ancient peoples who were oblivious to basic cosmology, bacteria, electricity, etc. You guys have a cute little story about existence which we're to accept on "faith", but the thing is, we need actual proof.
xalspaero 8 months ago
@xalspaero Oh spare me the condescension. Our tradition offers the argument from contingency, a metaphysically cogent and compelling argument for a creative source of existence which exists through the power of its own essence. Say what you want about that demonstration, it is not a "cute little story" that anyone is asking you blindly to accept.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 14
@wordonfirevideo Your tradition offers nothing. "Faith" is all you have to offer.
xalspaero 8 months ago
@xalspaero Let's see: Paul, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, Chartres Cathedral, Michelangelo, Bach, John Henry Newman, Karl Rahner, John Paul II: they all amount to "nothing." Friend, you need just a little exposure to cultural history!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago 14
@wordonfirevideo i don't look down on these great scholars, i actually love the works of Dante, but even if one is inspired to produce great things that have stayed with us for centuries, he is still inspired by faith. and listing scholars' names doesnt really serve as a rebuttle to "Faith is all you have to offer". haha sry
aujeimune 8 months ago
@aujeimune You're offering a complete caricature of "faith." Faith is not opposed to reason, though it passes beyond reason. Augustine, Aquinas and company were deeply interested in showing the rational coherence of Christian belief. You have to get over the prejudice that faith means "accepting things blindly." No serious Christian has ever characterized faith that way.
wordonfirevideo 7 months ago 19
@aujeimune
Faith is not about knowing everything. Faith is about trusting somebody because you love them; This means there is room for doubt in faith- it is necessary for any spiritual growth. This has never been more exemplified than with how Jesus's friends abandoned him because they were afraid, and how more brightly they burned with the Spirit when they saw Him again. Most of them died horribly, in proclaiming the Truth of God. Would you die for a lie? Even an uneducated peasant wouldn't.
IoannesBellator 7 months ago
@aujeimune One thing I have noticed in comments upon many videos is something that Monseigneur Luigi Giussani points out in his book "The Religious Sense" Often people seem to reduce what is reasonable to what is demonstratable. The trouble with this is that some things can be reasonable, can be true, without being able to have that whole process demonstrated.
SalelakaMokonzi 7 months ago
@aujeimune For instance, I know that my mother loves me, and that it is reasonable for me to have this belief, even though that process of 'love' can never be truly demonstrated in its entirety. It seems to me, when you are describing that you need proof to have faith in something, you are describing that proof in this same way. As wordonfirevideo put it, "Faith is not apposed to reason." Faith is an openness to reality, and reason is the means by which we interpret and interact with reality.
SalelakaMokonzi 7 months ago
@aujeimune faith requires the intellect. as c.s. lewis would say, atheism is unreasonable.
irishgal2002697 3 months ago
@aujeimune
"Haha sry"? I'm sorry for your ignorance, but not in a contemptuous sort of way. I know you've not been taught enough. The Catholic tradition has fostered the Scientific Method and the University System, dispelled superstition, affected International Law and Rights and Economics and Politics, provided incomparable Architecture, Painting, Music and Literature. And over that, we are the number one charitable institution in the world. We educate more children than you can ever imagine.
requitalguarantee 2 months ago
@aujeimune
Don't agree with me? Listen to the expert view. I suggest to check out the distinguished Historian and Economist Thomas E. Woods. I hope he will help you know more and know better!
requitalguarantee 2 months ago
@aujeimune
Augustine and Aquinas (and many other) did write about faith, but they used reason and logic to come to their conclusion, not blind faith
I think you are indeed sorry, for yourself you should be if you truly speak about reaon and knowledge and you make arguments based on gross ignorance.
I am sure daddy Dawkins is proud of his many culturally and intellectually stunted children.
Entropy3ko 2 months ago
@wordonfirevideo
drdoyle1000 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo does the existence of mircles as in the ones used in the canonisation process not give real proof of God's help and therefore existence.
drdoyle1000 4 months ago
@xalspaero Those people weren't quite "oblivious", but rather, they had limited means of observation. "Oblivious" implies that the knowledge was within their reach and that they just failed to reach it, but the lack of technology (due to the times) was limiting them. A society's information is cumulative and requires time; in 1000 years, we'll be "oblivious ancient peoples" too. Besides, a society's scientific knowledge hardly indicates its wisdom.
CriaSunshine 2 months ago
I like your reference to Freuds idea that repressed feelings manifest themselves through other outlets, perhaps thats also a problem with celibacy? Sorry if i sound flippant, but i think its worth considering.
chuckstar666 9 months ago
@chuckstar666 Friend, the church has considered it for centuries--actually long before Freud. There are plenty of ancient and medieval treatments of precisely this issue.
wordonfirevideo 9 months ago
@chuckstar666 Brother, you are not flippant sounding. Know that Celibacy has existed since the beginning. It is to an extent a discipline and not a doctrine. Even so, consider that our actions and omissions eventually become ourselves, molding our body, mind, and soul. This is something the Spiritual tradition has long considered: "How do I prepare myself to be a vessel consecrated to God so that He can approach me and fill me undefiled on His terms and in a way that is most loving?"
ammazzamoro 9 months ago
but that guy has a point -- they have witnesses the problem of relgion in the past.. American never had the inqusition, or crusades..
badpanda84 9 months ago
@wordonfirevideo (1)The difference between the important questions about meaning of life & the universe is that religion asserts it, and science seeks it and looks to find it. Instead of just stopping at "I think a loving God created the universe and that feels good to me to believe that", science searches for and discovers the reality of it.
The idea that humans are "wired for God" is an unfounded assertion. (continued)
goldenram27 10 months ago
@goldenram27 (2) Having a desire to fly, doesn't mean you can actually flap your arms and take off. Obviously flying isn't an innate desire in humans but it demonstrates the fallacy. Innate or not, desires don't prove the existence of the object of that desire. There are atheists who have no need, want or desire for God. One can live quite comfortably and be completely content without a belief or desire for a god.
goldenram27 10 months ago
to compare me with Freud and nichie , marx.is silly...you dont have to go after religion with an vengeance anymore , Religion is fizzling out without any help.....why do you think more and more people fall under the category of "spiritual but not religious". The are hard wired to be superstitious and which manifests itself in the thousands of religions we have today. They are all searching for something yes, but it's naive to think it has to be your version of the truth.
Cousinsjay 10 months ago
@Cousinsjay Come on, Jay: look beyond the New York Times and Le Monde! Religion is positively flourishing in Asia, Latin America, and especially Africa. And in our country, there are millions upon millions of evangelicals and Catholics, especially Vietnamese, Mexican, and Filipinos. And yes, everyone (including you) wants unconditioned truth and goodness, and they sure as heck aren't going to find it in the cold secularism you're advocating.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
@wordonfirevideo "yes, everyone (including you) wants unconditioned truth and goodness"
Right but just becaue we want the truth dosent mean we should belive everyone relgion who claims the have the absoulte truth..
Every relgion claims to have absoulte truth ( which makes sense because why belive in something you think is false) --yet the clearly cant all be correct.
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Without seeming curt, the assertion that every religions claims absolute Truth is an assertion that simply is not true. It is a canard out of Western skepticism. It is worth noting that every religion lays claim that they do not have the absolute Truth, that absolute Truth is unknoweable sans one: The Catholic religion. Truth is not a something. Truth is a Somebody. And, His name is Jesus. That is the unique claim of the Christian. Even absolute systems like Islam claim no truth.
ammazzamoro 9 months ago
@ammazzamoro " Even absolute systems like Islam claim no truth."
really -- no relgion is ever going to say.. We belive in a bunch of lies but you should be come a Muslim anywawy
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 My friend, I have lived within the world of Islam already. Thank you for the invitation. Regarding what no one is ever going to say, consider that there are people who do live life suspicious of others always attempting to decieve their neighbor. Before Christ it was impossible to know the purpose of life. In this way, the religions of the world say, "We are waiting for higher truth to arrive." The Christians say, "Truth is here and has come and is now approaching us at our level."
ammazzamoro 9 months ago
@ammazzamoro " In this way, the religions of the world say, "We are waiting for higher truth to arrive."
That just means that they obviously dont agree with the chirstains when they say the truth is here.
badpanda84 9 months ago
@badpanda84 Yes, you are right. If someone does not subscribe to the arrival of Truth then they are properly bound by honest religious sentiment to continue awaiting His arrival. This is why the remaining Jews, those who didn't become Christians, aren't condemned by the Church; though we pray for their conversion, their fidelity to what they have known; steadfastness to Abraham. There is a wonderful work on this, "Many Religions One Covenant", written by the African convert Francis Arinze.
+++
ammazzamoro 9 months ago
Father Barron: My immediate response to your insightful video is that, while everyone naturally desires the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, they do not expect or welcome it in the form of the arguments of a Roman catholic priest especially in this generation). I have watched many of your presentations and have read the responses of a bucketful of your detractors. Not to worry, though. You're in good company with many prophets and wisemen/women who were not what the people were expecting.
billybagbom 10 months ago
You just don't get it. Religion is on its way out ...given way to a more enlightened Philosophy and new moral and ethical thinking........The statement that we will move to more addictive substitutes...is just stupid Bob...And as you call it a disaster....very narrow minded thinking......
Cousinsjay 10 months ago
@Cousinsjay Ah yes, religion is on its way out. You join the ranks of Feuerbach, Marx, Freud, Sartre, Nietzsche, Lenin, etc, etc, all of whom, long ago, predicted the imminent collapse of religion. Well, we're still here. You're dealing, Jay, with a caricature of religion, derived, I'm gathering, from your youth. Try a sophisticated version.
wordonfirevideo 10 months ago
I wouldn't say that repressed feelings about fulfillment and truth, or more specifically - "God", go away because of our true nature, but rather because of early socialisation that instills the idea of God into us. As a former Catholic, I experience these resurfacing feelings from time to time - but my friends who were socialised as atheists never experience that, and never have such questions because they were never conditioned to think that way. In this case, nurture wins out over nature.
HappyColouredMarbles 11 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles Excuse me for trolling, but I wonder: Better to be Socrates unfulfilled, or a pig totally satisfied?
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Oh come on. Socrates was atheist.
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles My point had nothing to do with Socrates' religious affiliation (or lack thereof). Socrates seemed to realize that to be human is to seek truth. Your spiritual aspirations really can't be totally chalked up to your Catholic upbringing; Socrates acknowledged this dimension of human existence, and he wasn't Catholic. It is possible to revert to an animal state, if we neglect the spiritual dimension of human existence. In two or three generations, a whole legacy can be lost.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Thank you for the clarification. My point was tongue in cheek, in case you didn't pick up on that. Regardless, you haven't swayed me from my belief that "God" is socialised into people - and those "deep religious feelings and impulses" simply don't exist in the first place for people who have not had that socialisation. You can seek truth in other ways and find meaning in life in ways that do not include an imaginary being.
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles I wasn't offering an apologetic, so I'm not surprised you weren't "convinced.". Do you really believe that human spiritual aspirations are totally explicable by "socialization"? Prove that God is an imaginary being. No; better still, prove that you and I are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination. Note: I am not asking you to prove a negative. YOU said God is imaginary. That's dogmatic. I say, "prove it." I have asserted nothing.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom Now we're bordering on the flying spaghetti monster argument. I suppose I can't prove that it doesn't exist either. But when you think about it rationally, it seems pretty far out there.
I think that spirituality may be ingrained in human beings in a sense, so there may be a biological aspect to it as well as socialisation. It certainly is good for coping with death to have spirituality to fall back onto - it helps human beings to deal with loss and maybe that is passed on
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
@billybagbom ...genetically, as a type of survival mechanism. But mainly, I do believe that that people are socialized for spirituality. Take a look at religion. The religion you practice is highly dependent upon the society into which you were born, the family into which you were born. Of course there are exceptions of people who convert later in life, but they are indeed, exceptions. When something is ingrained in you from childhood, it is very difficult to let go of - it defines who you are.
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
@HappyColouredMarbles Sorry about my last post. Too much whiskey, too late at night. I DID ask you to prove a negative: " prove that you and I are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination." Man, you nailed me there! Or rather, if you didn't, thanks! Anyway< I came out looking bad for that, and I think that when you say "god is an imaginary being" and can't prove it and then resort to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, you don't exactly come up smelling like roses.
billybagbom 10 months ago
@billybagbom My point about the flying spaghetti monster is that, as with the topic of proving that we "are not beings who depend for our very existence on God's creative imagination," there are a number of things you could insert in place of the word "God" and still not be able to disprove. Including the flying spaghetti monster. I don't disagree that it can't be proven. But that doesn't make "God" any more real or less imaginary for that matter. That's as far as I'll indulge you on that topic.
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
@billybagbom For me, seeking truth doesn't entirely exclude spirituality, but it does not include a christian god.
HappyColouredMarbles 10 months ago
I've been to Spain and went to barcelona. I saw the unfinished Sagrada Familia (Catalan: Holy Family).
It is magnificent!
zztestenglish 11 months ago
This video resonates with me so well. This "hardwiring" was very much evident in my own spiritual personality and is the reason I was not satisfied as an agnostic. I believed that God most likely existed and I desperately wanted to know Him.
I will be receiving the sacraments of confirmation and first communion this Easter Vigil.
agentjs09 11 months ago 24
@agentjs09 Terrific! Congratulations.
wordonfirevideo 11 months ago
@agentjs09 It sounds like you've had a real long journey. I wish you luck as you continue it.
RioDePensamientos 11 months ago
@RioDePensamientos Thank you. I am only 23 years old and I have a long way to go. I pray everyday that God will give me and my friends the strength to persevere in the faith and be a good servant. I chose Doubting Thomas as my patron saint
agentjs09 11 months ago
PS
I know it's a bit off-topic, but do you get " Father Ted" reruns on TV in the States? I think it's a hoot.
MrTobytwirl 1 year ago
OK Father. Fair enough, keep your hair on! I may have come over as a little pugnacious with that comment. I'm not accusing you of a Swaggart, blackguard or scoundrel. I'm actually enjoying your videos very much, especially the one about Bob Dylan, but I'm probably not personally going to donate because I'm a bit skint at present. My objection was more aesthetic than ethical. It's actually a real pleasure to see the issues you cover discussed intelligently, tolerantly and with humour! .
MrTobytwirl 1 year ago
I think the message in this video, whilst plausible and very eloquently put, is made somewhat questionable by the conspicuous request at the end for a DONATION. That strikes me as a mite crude and jarring.
MrTobytwirl 1 year ago
@MrTobytwirl Well why? Where do you think these videos come from? I mean, I need money to do this ministry, and involvement with the media is always expensive. If you're worried about my absconding funds, let me tell you that I live in two rooms at Mundelein Seminary, drive a six year old Camry, and go on one vacation a year. I'm a priest. Trust me when I tell you that I'm not living in mansions and flying around in private jets!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 2
@wordonfirevideo I didn't think You Tube charged to make a video. What does each one cost?
C45SAA 1 year ago
@C45SAA It's not YouTube; it's the production of the video itself. We've made over 175 of these, and they're not cheap!
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago