Fr. Barron comments on Heroic Materialism

[auradiana]

my response is that Father Barron is a cute geek. He needs to be kissed on the cheek with all due respect ;)

[oracleofaltoona]

Related to the issue of what I see as order versus chaos (maybe that is oversimplification) do you ever see a value in going "out there" or past boundaries of current thought or even articles of faith in order to explore the boundaries of faith? Or is that a vain exercise in a sort of false boldness or taboo-busting — boldly going where we need not go — to paraphrase Captain Kirk.

[oracleofaltoona]

Father Barron, have you ever done any commentary on the work of Philip Rieff?

[wordonfirevideo]

@torvasal1 Why in the world would you think that?

[Clarissa2go]

Thanks for putting into words what I felt when I first saw my big metropolis Chicago at the age of 9 . where I came from the building is small in scale and not as industrialized. 'Souless' ist what I saw and wondered what souls/lives had spent their time in all those office buildings and stores that seemed to be multiples of the same thing - heroic materialism. Hopper put it all in his painting "Nighthawks".

[equitemcroce]

Hey there. I just discovered your videos. When I saw the title of this clip I told myself: this guy has gotta know Ken Clarke...and there you have it. He was indeed a great thinker. I know what Fr. Barron means about Clarke having a powerful impact on the way he sees things. I had a similar experience.

So far, watching Fr Barron's is like breathing fresh air. So thank you for posting these vids of him.

[SaschaRegensburg]

You may want to have a look at authors like Adorno and Horkheimer, who have contributed profound critiques of the moral relativism as a consequence of the capitalistic enlightenment "Dialectic of enlightenment". If the heirs of this school of thought like Habermas are good enough for the pope they should be good enough for you

[Portoinfinitivo]

@SaschaRegensburg Oh, the Frankfurt school 'good enough for the Pope'? Now this is interesting. Wherever did you get this from?

[SaschaRegensburg]

@wordonfirevideo: "Moral relativism at its core": There is no moral relativism at the core of marxism. Quite to the contrary one of the main points of the marxist critique is the claim that an abstract moralism, which does not take the concrete conditions of economy and society into account is flawed. This is the Hegelian critique of Kant, the claim that "Sittlichkeit" as the concrete justification of action and institution must replace abstract moral.

[wordonfirevideo]

@SaschaRegensburg If, as Marx argued, "human nature is nothing but the sum total of social relations," then there is no objective ground for morality in human nature itself. And if, as Marx argued, the achievement of the communist condition through violent struggle is the supreme end, then any means chosen to attain it is morally justifiable. And if, as Marx argued, there is no God, there is no objective and unconditioned good. Bottom line: moral relativism.

[SaschaRegensburg]

@wordonfirevideo hm. Somehow I have the same feeling with you, father that I have with Christopher Hitchens: He has never read any serious book about Catholizism and you maybe could have a second look at Marx by reading e.g the Capital. I just cannot find your summary there.Maybe you mix up a sociological description ("nature determined by social relations" (in German "bedingt" is rather "conditioned" than "determined") with a moral claim. The "occupation" of human nature by social conditions

[wordonfirevideo]

@SaschaRegensburg I did my masters work in philosophy on Marx. I stand by the statements I made. I'm not trying to demonize him; but I do think he opened the door to moral relativism, especially in his philosophy of man.

[SaschaRegensburg]

@wordonfirevideo that the social actors dont understand and dont command is a CRITIQUE of society. (structural sin of society getting people to sin habitually). The insight that human n. is social rather unites marxism and Christianity in contrast to the abstract individualism of liberalism. (We pray: our daily bread give US, not ME!) Class struggle btw is also rather a description of a socio-economic fact. Anyway. Decent on the topic: Th. Steinbuechel (Ratzinger cites him as strong influence)

[SaschaRegensburg]

@wordonfirevideo on Marxism. a) Marxism is a economic critique of the reality of the capitalist society and economy. b) It does not give a recipe for any future society c) Therefore Marx can not be held responsible for the regimes in the Soviet Union and China. No, "Marxism with a human face" has not yet been in power, so what?

[xiragata]

Personal joy is a gift from God, when we believe in Him, and obey His Commandments; the only thing that takes away joy from us is sin. Yes, we can mourn personal losses, but if we did not sin the losses will be forgotten and joy will spring quickly back in our lives; a sinner lives under a mantle of evil and this is the cause of the lack of happines in the life of such person. The larger the sin the more there is a lack of joy. In today's world is called "depression".

[xiragata]

A very beautiful video all true. Large cities lack something; to me they lack warmth and empathy. It is called sometimes "The Stone Jungle" or "Selva de Pedra" , and maybe is one of the reasons I do not like large cities. The first time I visited one (in my adult years), as I walked the sidewalk I could perceive something in the air, like the air was dirty, a feeling of uncleanliness, invisible, something that made me very unseasy; like an aura. I am not talking about refuse or dirty streets,

[CitizenSkeptic]

Father Barron,

You say: "That story is still of compelling spiritual power".

Perhaps so. But we have many myths which are compelling. My point has always been: but is the story true?

Is it true that a conscious being decided to create the universe?

Is it true that humans being are somehow a special part of this being's creation?

Is it true that this being became a man and died and then rose from the dead?

No. Those are just myths. They are not true.

[wordonfirevideo]

@CitizenSkeptic Well, why don't we start with the existence of God? I have argued that the contingency of the world points toward a non-contingent ground and that this first cause must, accordingly, be that which exists through the power of its own essence. And that which exists through the power of its own essence is unlimited in its actuality. That takes care of the conscious creator. As to the other points, give me more than 500 characters!

[CitizenSkeptic]

@wordonfirevideo

I am not impressed by such metaphysical speculation. Contingency, essence, powers, actuality . . . are all notions that have no connection to reality. That is, they are imaginary. Just like notions such as ether, phlogiston, the caloric, elan vital, all turned out to be imaginary.

So, if you are trying to convince me that a God exists, you ought to start with real things, not made up stuff.

[coldforgedcowboy]

@CitizenSkeptic....... Have you ever proved your own existence? It's really not that easy!

[CitizenSkeptic]

@coldforgedcowboy

I would not require "proof". I believe that Barron exists. If God existed and wanted me to believe that he existed, it would be a trivial matter for God to provide the evidence.

[coldforgedcowboy]

@CitizenSkeptic..... You may "believe" that Father Barron exists but can your prove it? Better yet prove that "you" yourself actually exist! This is an important because you need to use the same methods that you use to prove your own existience to prove the existence of God.

[CitizenSkeptic]

@coldforgedcowboy

To expect people to "prove" all their beliefs is silly, since that sets a standard so high that we could believe almost nothing. What is your point? I have not asked anybody to prove anything, nor would I.

[FrancisDeSales123]

@CitizenSkeptic You speak of speculative reason, but what of practical reason? As happiness is what all men desire, as Aristotle says in his first book on ethics. If we are creatures who act for an end, which means that each action is committed because we think it will bring us closer to happiness, and Christianity provides us the happiness we seek, do we not have justification of holding the belief, through practical reason? Why must only speculative reason justify a belief?

[CitizenSkeptic]

@FrancisDeSales123

As usual, Aristotle was wrong. Happiness is not what all men desire. Regardless, sure, believe whatever you want if it makes you happy. But for me, I care much more about what is true than about what might make me happy.

Thank you for conceding that truth seeking plays no part in why or how you believe things.

[FrancisDeSales123]

@CitizenSkeptic On the contrary, speculative evidence is not always necessary. Saint Augustine says that we seek God because we seek a happy life. Practical reason prescribes that when faith is offered as a gift, it must not be refused, as to refuse ones ultimate desire would be irrational, and thus contrary to the function of man qua man, the function which is rationality, in man the "rational animal".

[FrancisDeSales123]

@coldforgedcowboy I think, therefore I am =p I couldn't resist, God bless!

[FrancisDeSales123]

@CitizenSkeptic How do you know that such things are made up? I am sure that your rejection is epistemologically justified; do you care to share?

[CitizenSkeptic]

@FrancisDeSales123

Sure. Let's take this notion of an "essence". According to Aristotle and the Thomistic dogma that the Padre has received, the essence of man is they are a rational animal. That is, our rationality is a hard divider between us and other animals.

But that is just empirically false. Rationality falls on a continuum. Some non-human animals are rational sometimes, some humans are rational sometimes.

Essentialism in biology has been falsified by evolution.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo Father again, just because something exists through the power of its own essence ( the universe) does not mean it is unlimited in its actuality (or even conscious), unless you also want to believe that it can be perfectly evil as well as perfectly good ( an apparent paradox).

even still , Good and Bad are concepts that are entailed by dualistic spacetime. The universe is neither 'Good" nor "Bad"

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Well first of all, "the universe," which is just the sum total of contingent things, is hardly that which exists through the power of its own essence. Second, even to speak of something as "perfectly evil" is incoherent since evil is a privation of the good. That which exists through the power of its own essence (God) is sheerly actual and hence perfectly good.

[CitizenSkeptic]

@wordonfirevideo

Why not say good is the privation of evil? More silly metaphysics.

Essence, contingency, power, actuality . . . all of these notions are just stuff philosophers made up. Arguing this nonsense is in the angels on pinheads category.

[wordonfirevideo]

@CitizenSkeptic Well, sticks and stones... I mean, there isn't a coherent counter-argument in your statement; just an off-hand dismissal of two thousand years of philosophy!

[CitizenSkeptic]

@wordonfirevideo

What is the point of countering an argument if the original argument is meaningless? It is a simple matter to make up a bunch of metaphysical concepts and then use those made up concepts to "prove" something. Two thousand year old bad philosophy is still bad philosophy.

I realize you are required by Catholic dogma to believe this hodge-podge of metaphysical obscurantism that the overwhelming majority of philosophers have rejected.

[wordonfirevideo]

@CitizenSkeptic You're really good at sticks and stones, man! Not even the hint of a counter-argument in anything you've said. I win this round.

[FrancisDeSales123]

@CitizenSkeptic Good is not the privation of evil because good is only different to being in thought. Privation is necessarily an reduction of something, thus if evil is synonymous with non-being, then nothing can possibly be privation of it, because non-being (evil) is a complete absence of something. How do you know that philosophers have made these things up? Please provide me with an argument, I would love to hear it.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo The laws of physics are probabilisitic such that any event need not occur, including hairless apes. This is the source of Einsteins " God does not play with dice". As a whole, the universe contains the nec conditions for its own existence and everything in it ( no outside force required). What is incoherent is to speak of substantiative existence (even good and evil forces-good as a privation of evil..lol) in undifferentiated ( no limit to its no-thing-ness) spacetimelessness.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo The contingency argument does not work because there is no reason to believe the universe is contingent. It could have produced a different universe filled with different stuff, but the universe itself contains the necessary condition to produce at least this universe. The stuff of this universe is directed by probabilistic forces of physics and is not intensional. A God does not play with dice.OTOH, if the universe suddenly appeared denovo, an outside force would be confirmed.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Well let's start with you. Did you have parents? Do you eat and drink and breathe? If you answer yes, then you are, in the sense that I'm using the term, contingent. You have to be explained. An infinite recourse to other contingent things won't do. Therefore we have to come to some reality which is non-contingent. There is no reason to invoke "the universe" to make this argument work. You'll do just fine.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo The stuff is contingent. In fact, the probabilistic nature of the universe is an unintentional process ( no dice).This does not mean that the universe itself is contingent. It could have produced different stuff, but it contains the nec conditions for existence (no outside help required). In fact, the universe entails all meaning ascribed to "existence". No spacetime is an undifferentiated quantum mess of no-being-ness. a spacetimeless being is incoherant-let alone a "good" one

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Forget "the universe" for a moment and just concentrate on yourself. You haven't so far given an adequate metaphysical account of why you, who are utterly contingent, actually exist. You can appeal to other contingent causes--your parents, food, oxygen, etc.--but that is just to postpone the ultimate question.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo in other words, the stuff produced by the universe is contingent, based upon probabilistic principles of the universe ( inconsistent with intension BTW), but those principles like E= mc2, gravity etc are inherant features of the universe that make material existence possible. Energy and gravity are not contingent material things ( not really sure what they are and energy seems to have always existed). What they produced is contingent, but their inherant properties are not.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Sure they are! They were both radically effected at the Big Bang, and they continue to ebb, flow, change, and develop throughout the history of the cosmos. This means that, to use classical philosophical vocabulary, they are marked by potency. That which exists through the power of its own essence, that whose very nature is to be, is characterized as pure act, pure reality. No matter how pervasive "energy" and gravity are, they are not actus purus!

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo it is true that from our relativistic perspective energy changes form and the universe is changing, but that does not mean that energy itself is contingent. In fact, according to 1st principles of energy it can never be created nor distroyed.It appears to have this inherent property of always existing. You may be mistaking the particulars with the principles.E=mc2 eg, is an inherent principle of energy that affords the particulars.This is a pure act inherant to energy.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Let me argue it from the other side. If the argument from contingency is right, we have to come to some reality which exists through the power of its own essence. You seem to have conceded this, but you are identifying that reality with "energy." The problem is that the truly non-contingent, must be that whose very nature is to be. But anything that is subject to change and development in any sense is marked by potency and hence cannot be that whose nature is to be.

[SaintForChrist]

@wordonfirevideo

You said "anything that is subject to change and development in any sense is marked by potency and hence cannot be that whose nature is to be."

That's a very good point Fr. Barron.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo When we trace causes, we ultimately come to an inherant property that is just a brute fact. What caused the tseunami of 2004. Plates shifting. What caused that? Convection cells under the crust.What caused that? Temperature gradients in semisolid medium. what caused that? Ultimately you get to an inherant property of quantum strings ( if correct). Nothing causes this, it is just an inherant property of strings.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo if we trace the universe back in time, there is sufficient explanation inherant to the universe for every event that follows. No outside force required ( for a tsunami eg or my birth). This consistency is present throughout the time line for the generation of planets, stars, gallaxies, all the way to the primordial beginning where it inherantly possesses the capacity to be ( the universe entails substantiative existence itself). Existence "outside" the universe is incoherant.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra I know we've kind of exhausted this line of argument. But do you see that that which, in your own words, "inherently possesses the capacity to be" must be that whose very nature is to be? And this is precisely what we mean by "God," the one who said of himself "I am who I am." Anything that is marked by potentiality or ontological imperfection cannot be this reality.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo There is no perfect being. Something either exists or it does not.What does perfect being mean? There might be a quality that in its purity we call perfect ( perfectly round, perfectly Good), but it is the quality that we are talking about, that is entailed by space and time, not existence. Are there shades of existence? The universe contains the inherant necessary conditions for existence, and brings meaning to words like "thing", "being", "outside", "before", "exists" .

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo If stars suddenly appeared in the sky , breaking laws of thermo, we would conclude an "outside" source. We would conclude a miracle because it defys explanation within the capacity of the universe itself. If we saw a clear pattern of intent with this ( everything working for the benefit of humanity eg), we could conclude a "good" agent . Instead we see a vast universe governed by mindless probabilities within the capacity of the universe itself that appears consistent in time.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra No. You're mixing up categories. Everything you're talking about here has to do with causes within the nexus of conditioned things. Creation names the fact that radically contingent reality requires a non-contingent ground. As such, creation can't be measured or "seen." It can only be known through a metaphysical induction.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo Or it might be induced through our theories and observations. Observe that every event in the universe has a sufficient and necessary explanatory condition that preceeds it, even following back in time, to the primordial state of the universe, that still contains the necessary condition for every event that follows. You might be confusing the whole with the parts or the principles with the particulars.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo as a very crude analogy, a lottery is not just the set of lottery winners. A lottery contains the nec conditions to produce a lottery winner, even if the partic lottery winner is not known beforehand. Trace the universe back and the nec condition for what follows is sufficiently present without need for outside interference. The universe appears to contain the inherant conditions for existence. Theists often make categ errors by ascibing to God qualities entailed by spacetime

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra But absolutely nothing in the universe, including space and time themselves, always were. They both "began" 13 billion years ago. Everything bears the mark of contingency. Why is there a lottery at all? Why is there something rather than nothing? You've come nowhere near to answering those questions.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo 13 BYA from our relative perspective, the universe inflated and spacetime "began" entailing what I call substantiative existence ( definition), kind of like Marduk emerging from the primordial stuff ( Sumerian cosmology i believe). The first point of the timeline ( a singularity or planck sphere-quantum loop ) is not actually in spacetime ( requires at least 2 points), but contains the necessary conditions for what follows. ...cont'd

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo of course Father, I don't know if I am right because we don't have the background knowledge yet about the origins of the universe.The tools we have are not powerful enough to erase all controversy. It appears to contain all the nec conditions for every event that happens throughout time requiring no "outside" help and the probabilistic nature of the events appears inconsistent with intension and every quality we ascribe to being seems to presuppose the universe. con't

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo Why something rather than nothing? Well, what is "Nothing" when we are talking about Spacetimelessness. I don't even have the mental capacity to grasp STLN. What is a " thing"? Is God a something? I don't know that you want to speak of him as nothing. I think that spacetime entails meaningful things and the language we use to describe them,by providing definition. what is a Dog w/o spacetime? Is it still a carnivore? i bet every serman you make describes God in spacetime terms

[bayreuth79]

@wordonfirevideo This has been my problem debating with atheists as well: confusing categories. Creation does not refer to the manner or mode of the formation of the universe (all of which falls within the remit of the scientific enterprise) but the radical causing of existence of whatever exists. This is also where eminent scientists such as Stephen Hawking have gone wrong in assuming that if there were a Creator he has to have lit the blue touch paper of the big bang, but this is not so...

[bayreuth79]

@wordonfirevideo The fact of creation can be "known through a metaphysical induction"? What do you have in mind here, Father? Are you referring to, perhaps, Thomas Aquinas' Five Ways, for example? If so how convincing do you think those arguments are?

[wordonfirevideo]

@bayreuth79 I favor a streamlined version of the argument from contingency. Check out my other videos to see my defense of it.

[equitemcroce]

@wordonfirevideo Fr. Barron. I don't know if you remember this, but when Clarke goes to the cloister of Santa Croce in Florence, he says that it is his "center" and the place where he seems to find a certain faith or trust in Man. Personally, I've been in a few places where I could say that so I can't really single one out. It's not everyday I find a Ken Clarke fan so I have to ask you: Do you have a similar place you can call your "center" in the same way Clarke meant?

[wordonfirevideo]

@equitemcroce Thanks for your question.  For me, it would probably be Chartres Cathedral.

[xiragata]

@CitizenSkeptic How do you know they are not true?Can you prove it? What is myth to you it is true to others.

[CitizenSkeptic]

@xiragata

tinyurl (dot) com/28rww3s

[CitizenSkeptic]

Christian story is false. 

[wordonfirevideo]

@CitizenSkeptic Well that's what I call a convincing counter-argument!

[CitizenSkeptic]

@wordonfirevideo

For the Christian story to make sense, the garden of Eden story must be in some sense true. But the garden of Eden story is false. It is literally false, as well as false if taken metaphorically. Humans are not essentially different from other animals. There is no point in our evolutionary history where we were perfect of "unfallen" or whatever your myth claims.

Face it Padre, you have devoted your life to propagating a myth as if it were true.

But, it is not true.

[Blaseboniface]

@wordonfirevideo

[adstanra]

Will point out the Girolamo Savanorola affair in florence. this was not a spiritually mature city by any means. We are not only more advanced scientifically and technologically today, but also more sophisticated culturally, intellectually, legally, socially, politically and ,I would argue spiritually.

[tigerarmyrule]

Quite remarkable on youtube to see comments both well thought out and not simply a slanging match.

Yes the Uffizi or Accademia has lots of Pietas meastas etc but equally 20th century American art has lots of mindless colourful blobs. To me ( and please do not suppose me a moron I am far from it ) to me the vast majority of our art today is trite self referential and jaded.

[ClarkKasheta]

It would seem that art and architecture, at one time reflected God; then it moved to reflecting the individual (the Renaissance); then it moved to nature (Romanticism); now, to complete the digression, it reflects purely the material (modernity). Incidentally, as the emphasis in the Church has moved from "I" to "we," sacred art has suffered in parallel.

[adstanra]

Would also like to assert that life for millions of people in the west has never been better. Renaissance Forence and 19th century Paris were not great for most people living there c/to today. ..even for the Medici family. Today, there is more science, music, art, ideas, literature, wealth flowing from NewYork than could ever be imagined in any of those cities, in a comparable time. the modern world has realised the benefits of equality under the law, freedom of dissent, speech and democracy.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra Oh give me a break! You really think there is more fine art flowing from New York today than from Renaissance Florence or Medieval Paris?!! And you think there are more good ideas popping up in 21st century Chicago than in classical Greece? There might indeed be greater quantity of art and philosophy today but hardly more quality.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo Do not romanticise renaissance Father. There was some great work no doubt, a huge amount of it sponsored by one family, but it was very limited in its scope and texture. The scope of the story telling today far exceeds that of classical greece, as I think you would know being a film critic,especially that available to the masses. One stroll through the Lourve or a museum in Florence will show you the limitations of ideas back then...one more Madonna with baby...

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra I'm not romanticizing it; I'm arguing that it was spiritually richer. Heroic materialism is not enough!

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo you are romanticizing it IMO and portraying a city like NY as unjustifyably materialistic. Go to any square in NY and you will find a rich blend of literature, music, art,culture that would make anyone's head spin, certainly blow away anyone from the renaissance. i am amazed at the knowledge and opportunities available to young people today, the forums to discuss ideas freely and to challange ideas, to become an individual with own thoughts and ideas.

[adstanra]

@adstanra One gets the distinct impression while walking through Louvre , or Rome, Florence or Venice that the only sponsor of art and music in those days was the church. There is one Madonna with babe after the other, or some religious scene taken from the bible. I agree this can be moving, but the scope was very limited. You call this spiritually rich.....fine, and I love these places but the modern era affords so much more scope for the imagination.It seems it was not enough.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo I do note that you said at the beginning of the video that you would not like to return to premodern days. Even on Youtube, there are smucks like me able to express an opinion with knowledge that far exceeds any philosopher of antiquity. Do you realise what life was like for most living in medieval Paris or renaissance Firenze? Our society is far richer.

[adstanra]

We need to retell the story of the human struggle for freedom, love,beauty. the wonderful, compelling tragic story of human physical and social evolution. NewYork is not just about buildings and materialism, but the individual stories of each person. It is about plays like Rent and Les miserable, and Jersy Boys and the hundreds of books and stories filling every library. It is about honestly searching for truth, not sitting ina pew being fed by clergy the same story over and over.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra As a Catholic, I do appreciate your honesty. What I submit to you, though, is that the idea that we Catholics are just "sitting in pews being fed by clergy the same story over and over" is a misconstrual of what our Faith is all about. Yes, it is a single story, but it is one that we are immersed in, not one we blindly accept for no reason and at the expense of some wider "search for truth." The Truth has found us, we need only get to know Him better.

Be at peace, and God bless.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c well, fair enough. At the same time, lets not point to buildings in NewYork and infer that modernity lacks depth, art, soul and that all people are concerned about is materialism. i am afraid this is just one more attempt to denigrade "Man", by telling us, one more time, that we are nothing without a God.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra The intent of Fr. Barron's critique is exactly the opposite. The point is that human beings do themselves a disservice (sp?) by restricting themselves to the material and forgetting the God Who made them in His image.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c I have no evidence that humans do themselves a disservice by not being religious. Atheists appreciate beauty, love, feel a sense of numinous etc etc etc, just like everyone else. There is a depth of wonder just being alive in the physical world. FBs argument that there is no heroism in a secular world is not merited.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra But where does that beauty, love and sense of the numinous come from? If there is no God, then such feelings are purely subjective because there is no objective standard for any of these things.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c Hey Irish,there are objective standards without God because the laws of physics are not random. We can objectively determine which types of governments are best for society, which behaviours acceptable for the betterment of society etc, in the same way we determine which medicines work best. Love and beauty come from finite minds in spacetime. These are not things that ontologically exist, they are concepts that describe a state of mind for humans.

[FrancisDeSales123]

@adstanra I would have to encourage you to research into exaggerated, moderate or scholastic realism. As I highly doubt that abstract universals are products of the mind.

[adstanra]

@FrancisDeSales123 your doubt about the matter is not an argument.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra The laws of physics are not random -- that's all well and good. But how does it follow that a Creator is not needed in order to set and keep them in motion? And if love and beauty are only states of mind -- and, therefore, subjective -- then what's to stop us from saying that those principles that make for the best governments, medicines, etc. are not also subjective?

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c Some medicines work objectively despite the subjective experience of the patient. Also, some behaviours are beneficial to the individual and society despite subjective perception. These are derived from the laws of physics which require no sustainer ( laws of conservation are not broken) and no apparent outside cause to set them in motion. Morality is objective in that way, but also subjective in that we humans are limited subjective beings living together in a finite world.

[adstanra]

@adstanra imagine Irish, that you are an omnipotent omniscient all-good entity living in an unlimited world. There could be no possible world in which the best possible choice could not be made and morality would be mute. "Morality' is a subjective experience entailed by finite individuals living with others in a finite world....ie - spacetime. the laws of physics are mindless and care not whether hairless primates exist or survive...this is up to us to work out.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra Well, let's just say that this is your "subjective" opinion and put the matter to bed :)

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c it is not a matter of subjective opinion. the laws of physics respect no person. I am arguing that there is objective truth derived from the laws of physics that are not random. These laws are not personal, but entail substantiative existence. Morality is a subjective enterprise also entailed by impersonal ( but objective) laws of physics that create conditions for the term " Morality" to have meaning , the experience of subjective beings in a finite world.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra Do not the non-random nature of physics suggest an underlying intentionality? Also, as for 98% of species being extinct, from a Catholic perspective I would answer that the universe was created "in statu viae," "in a state of journeying" toward final perfection; along the way, certain species disappear while others appear, the more perfect exist alongside the less perfect.

This info's from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part One, Section 2, Chapter 1, Article 1, Paragraph 2.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c Well i am gaining respect for the Catholic tradition.But i don't think the stochastic pattern is consistent with intensionality. When one considers the evolutionary past or the sperm that effected my existence, or the tseunami that killed 200,000 people, some kids playing on the beach, and Einsteins( why is he so important) statement " god does not play with dice", it does not appear as though there is any intensionality ( wow, too much brandy tonight .....finally off work,lol)

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra What this suggests to me is that the big picture is, in fact, much bigger and much more complex than what we, from our limited purview, are able to even begin to comprehend. As I said before, the mystery of physical evil is part of creation's journey toward becoming what it's meant to be.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c taking a hell of alot of time and causing alot of suffering to individuals ( smallpox ,malaria,predation) along the way. Why not just create us perfect from the beginning, or with just a little less gratuitous suffering? Seems a strange course for an omnipotent being.

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra But again, how can you prove that the laws of physics require no sustainer or outside cause to set them in motion? If we, as finite beings, look at these laws, all we can see are the mechanisms. The fact that we cannot SEE the any cause doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't there.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c the laws of physics are impersonal and care not if a tsunami kills kids playing on the beach. Lightning is not directed with intent by Thor or Zeus or Yahweh. The nested heirarchial bush of life where 98 % of all species are now extinct is inconsistent with intension. We have demonstrated the law of conservation of energy and expansion explains the appearance of order w/o breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There appears to be no outside force required.Why do you say there is?

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra Why do you say there isn't? As I said, the fact that we cannot see it does not imply that it isn't there. Energy is a finite, contingent thing, and therefore cannot explain existence regardless of what "laws" have been demonstrated. Everything has to depend on something, and there cannot be an infinite chain of dependence -- it all has to come back to one Cause, eventually, and this Cause must be self-subsistent and non-contingent. It is both science and common sense.

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c hey my friend.I have no beef with your post, just that the universe itself , as a whole, is the necessary cause of existence, in fact, it entails existence.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra That's like saying 10,000 X 0 is something other than zero. "The universe" is just the collectivity of contingent things.  Appealing to the totality of unexplained things doesn't explain anything!

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo consider my existence. 1 sperm amongst billions, therefore I am contingent, but the biologically nec. conditions were present. The first mammal might have been killed, but the nec conditions for mammals was present in the system. The earth need not have formed, but the nec. physical conditions were present, all the way back to the undifferentiated universe which need not have formed the way it did, BUT the nec conditions for existence were present. No "outside" force required.

[wordonfirevideo]

@adstanra No! You've just permanently postponed the inevitable answer. You've just appealed endlesly and hence fruitlessly to other contingent conditions. You've got to come, finally, to a properly non-contingent ground, or the whole system has no foundation. Some reality "outside" of the contingent order has to be invoked or else we've explained precisely nothing.

[adstanra]

@wordonfirevideo I traced the universe back in time, arguing that the nec. conditions ( no outside help required) are maintained to the beginning of the universe, which contained the nec. conditions for what followed. Like I did not have to exist, but the nec biological conditions existed to allow it, the contingent stuff did not have to happen,but the nec conditions for what followed existed inherent to the universe.A thinking being "apart from" spacetime is incoherant and unnecessary. .

[1r1shCath0l1c]

@adstanra I think Fr. Barron addresses these points very well in his responses -- he's a much smarter man than I am :X

[adstanra]

@1r1shCath0l1c smarter?.....more experienced maybe. But his answers are not that great...lol.

[Blaseboniface]

@adstanra It IS about feeding them "the same story over and over" again, that God loves them, died for them, and is knocking at their door. If "they" would but answer God would come in and dine with them and they with Him, and suddenly, the scales, as with St. Paul, would fall from their eyes, and they would be converted. As Father Barron says, "The sure sign that God is alive in you is joy."

[adstanra]

@Blaseboniface Yes i have heard religious people say stuff like this before, no matter what religion. There is no need for anyone to die for us...this is the horrible part of the christian story IMO. Atonement, sacrifice of innocent, grace, salvation, fall etc. It is also not true that Joy can only be found as a theist....I have known all sorts of people from all faiths and never once thought that any particular faith or lack of faith brought joy..other factors are more important.

[Blaseboniface]

@adstanra The joy we are talking about is in a different category, and is intimately connected to the experience of God's saving Love in one's own Heart. You will know the taste of an orange when you taste it by the Grace of God, and so it is with joy, atonement, and the necessity of an example of pure innocence that not only shows but is the Way. The Sacred, Ancient, and Deep Technology of the Catholic Tradition provides a Complete Map for the sincere seeker.

[adstanra]

@Blaseboniface there is no complete map my friend. This is the sort of speak every religious person is convinced of. It is dogmas goal to make you think you cannot live without it.....that it has saved you. If it makes you into a better person...great, but I have not witnessed that catholics are more joyful than others. I have noticed that all religious people think they cannot live without it and that it makes them more joyful.I am more joyful since leaving christianity.

[xtrashed]

@adstanra

Obviously you yourself are entranced by Father Barron and the Catholic faith because every video of his I see your comments. You just can not stop watching.

[adstanra]

@xtrashed well true..lol. I used to spend more time talking to protestants who love William Lane Craig. I like FB better. i appreciate his thoughtfulness and he is life affirming. He loves philosophy , science, history as I do. the people who come to his videos have challenged me and I have had great discussions with many of them. It have a much better appreciation of catholicism..as a Protestant I thought it was basically a cult..lol.i hope I have helped some think more about their views.

[xtrashed]

@adstanra

I like William Lane Craig as well. He presents standard arguments for Gods' existence etc. and it does not really matter what denomination you are part of.

[adstanra]

@xtrashed even JWs and Mormons? Pentacoastals and southern baptists? do you think FB has a whole lot in common with Jerry Faldwell etc? What about other faiths...Islam Hindus etc. I would guess that WLC is very critical of Catholicism.

[xtrashed]

@adstanra

He is Evangelical, but as I said the arguments he presents have nothing to do with denomination. They are for all. There is nothing for example in the moral argument that matters whether you are Catholic or Evangelical lol.

[adstanra]

@xtrashed well, true.

[lawprof3]

Unheroic, mindless materialism was best captured by Fritz Lang in his Weimar period "Metropolis" (just fully restored).

Clark was a brilliant polymath but he was too close to the settings he saw as massive but soulless. As a New Yorker who finds much modern architecture uninspiring, I look beyond the facade to the creativity, energy and often deep moral and ethical commitment of many who dwell or work therein.

You brilliantly blend your faith with your critical insights about our culture.

[Greyslayer76]

Who performs the music from 8:06 onward? Very uplifting.

[SaschaRegensburg]

Maybe you might want to check out what Walter Benjamin wrote about Capitalism as Religion. By the way: Your constant identification of Marxism with Soviet Style Communism is below your usual intellectual level. Even the Pope knows that and therefore has quite interesting debates with Habermas, who is coming directly coming from this western tradition of Marxism.

[powereddrive]

@SaschaRegensburg

Thanks for adding this, I have said similar things on the Father's channel before, but most Catholics here seem to only be familiar with opposing systems of thought that are obviously impoverished in comparison to their own

[coldforgedcowboy]

@powereddrive .....impoverished and inhumane as we seem to be 50 million babies in the United States alone.

[powereddrive]

@coldforgedcowboy

The problem with your statement is, (though I am sympathetic to the indignation that produced it) that by using such rhetoric you have already made debate or discussion impossible. Such rhetoric may be effective at rabble rousing but you turn away those who do not already agree with you.

[wordonfirevideo]

@SaschaRegensburg Show me, concretely, where "Marxism with a human face" has actually instantiated itself. There is a moral relativism at the heart of the Marxist project which, I'm afraid, fatally compromises it.

[powereddrive]

@wordonfirevideo

I reject the whole emphasis you put on "Marxism" the writings of intellectuals are way overrated in my opinion, Lenin and Luxembourg both called themselves Marxists but what they had in common was very little. As for examples, here are a few: the Anarchist movements of Catalonia during the Spanish Civil War, the original Kibbutzim which played an important role in the Zionist takeover of Palestine, and what has recently occurred among the indigenous people in Oaxaca.

[pewpewaliens]

Great, as always!

[KaiseRex42]

I remember Civilization as well and Clark did a great job. Appreciate what you say but wonder if a new generation understands the artistic arguments? Reading some of the comments I fear they do not! :(

Never mind, the last part preview was also very good and looks like it might be fun. Hope to see more . . .

[Blaseboniface]

Wow! That was beautiful. Some of your viewers aren't getting it, because they keep coming from the anthropomorphic point of view-Triumph des Willens is artistic, Vanity Magazine is aesthetically stunning, but true to its' name without God like Heroic Materialism, "not enough", unfulfilled avarice and sadly empty. The Transcendentals-Truth and Goodness imbued with the love of God, raise beauty to Glory. "Deo...glorificamus te..."

[powereddrive]

moral not artistic

[powereddrive]

Yes the Duomo was an artistic affair, but so was "The Triumph of the Will," a piece of art's aesthetic value is not necessarily congruent with its artistic value. I am NOT equating the Church with Nazism, but to say that something is beautiful because of the divine inspiration behind it is in my opinion the wrong way to go. As to what makes art "philosophically true," I guess it depends on a person's particular philosophy.

[powereddrive]

I blame the advent of the car for why Paris is more enjoyable than New York, Paris was designed for a walking populaion, the great American cities were devised for an industrialized population

As for the emphasis on worshiping material things, well I just got back from a semester in Florence and after getting up close and personal with Santa Croce, Santa Maria del Fiore, and San Miniato al Monte, I can definitely say that Medieval Catholicism in Italy was not a non materialistic affair.

[ammazzamoro]

@powereddrive

Indeed, it was an artistic affair as every action should be ordered. The philosophically true Work of Art is the continued expression of the Divine Image impressed upon Man.

+++

alms. fasting. prayer.

[gkcfan]

And so, Father, long prior to our Holy Father John Paul II, we encounter G.K. Chesterton who, like the Holy Father and your coomentary here, decried both Communism and unbridled Capitalism. I know you've read it, but it never fails to provoke thought: What's Wrong With the World - G.K. Chesterton.

[Archangel76]

Beautiful commentary, as usual. Within the trailer at the end, does anyone know the name of the music or song that plays at 8:07? Thank you.

[AdversusHaereses]

Its the alternative which popped out of the orthodox marxists which pervails in our schooling systems today of western society. This is known as the Frankfurt school of thought. Marxist in essence, sweet in practice.

[coldforgedcowboy]

Hey Father Barron,

Is the Catholism Project just going to be from the perspective of the Latin Rite, because I have seen any Eastern Rite Churches in the trailers?

[coldforgedcowboy]

@coldforgedcowboy ...... You know to get the real Eastern Rite experience Father Barron needs to visit a small parish in the middle of Siberia or Canada in the middle of winter when it's about -30C.

[DiehardJack]

In the narrative of "Heroic Materialism, " the heroes of this story are secularists, materialists, and secularist, materialist, progressives. Do these heroes fight for justice, as all true heroes should? Webster's defines justice, as, "the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action." Do these heroes take the right action, for cause of justice? Are they, to use the religious connotation, righteous?

[motomambo]

Thank you Father for everything you do. God bless you.

[DopoNotte]

Tower of Babel