Fr. Barron comments on "The Difference God Makes"

[auradiana]

xoxoxoxo cutest geek priest

[zhangruyi]

I fully agree Fr Robert that we as Catholics called to evangelize to the people God put in front of us and the Church is not called to accommodate the world. Unfortunately, the later has prevailed and hence the Catholic Church is rather wishy washy about evangelization and fail to proclaimed the good news of the resurrected Christ to others. 

[mdleavitt2112]

This is Powerful!

[theclarinet1234]

"If people are good only because they fear punishment, and hope for reward, then we are a sorry lot indeed. " and "The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action." Albert Einstein. . For Einstein, organized religion was but "childish fantasy," beneath the level of a mature adult. For him, the mature person relied on evidence and reason.

[dancarollo]

@theclarinet1234. C.S. Lewis had an illustration about the use of reason in morality. I'm paraphrasing a bit here: Reason and Evidence are akin to the skills one learns to understand the piano, the different notes, time signatures and keys. But we still require something BEYOND mere skill to know which notes ought to be played. We need a larger narrative about what life is, who we are, and why human life is valuable, etc. Reason alone cannot take us from IS to OUGHT.

[Chaaarge]

I'm not a moral absolutist. I happen to think that morality comes from the social contract (don't hurt me, and I won't hurt you). So the reason I don't kill and steal, is for several, non-religious reasons. I don't want to get caught, I want to have friends, and thieves don't get good friends, and I don't want people to steal from me, so I choose not to promote a society where stealing is permitted.That's my view on why we do good things

[wordonfirevideo]

@Chaaarge So you really think that enslaving other human beings would be okay if there were some cultural or political consensus around it? You really think that killing thousands of innocents in war would be okay as long as the perpetrators "don't get caught?" God help us, if our morality simply becomes a matter of political contrivance and convenience.

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo well, even if there is a god, who will reward us for being good people, we're still only doing things because god tells us to. It doesn't automatically make it good. And if someone decides to avoid certain actions just because he will go to hell, isn't that, in a sense the same as: Avoiding criminal acts so that you don't have to go to jail? How do we even define good and evil? I think things are good because we agree that they are good.

[wordonfirevideo]

@Chaaarge I'm not invoking Hell at all here, nor the pure "will" of God. I'm saying that certain acts, by their very structure or nature are wrong. Among these I would include the sexual abuse of children, rape, adultery, murder, slavery, etc. God does in fact condemn these things, but not as an arbitrary whim. He recognizes that they are incongruent with human flourishing.

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo Well, I personally choose to do so called "good" deeds, because it instinctively makes me feel better to help other people, and I feel bad when hurting people, but it's still subjective. I don't kill, because I know I would end up thinking about it for days afterwards and break down mentally(just one of the reasons). But it has not been scientifically proven that there is an ultimate objective morality, if God recognizes morality, then what would God base that on?

[wordonfirevideo]

@Chaaarge But friend, that is hopelessly subjectivistic! Hitler "felt good" killing Jews, and Stalin presumably "felt good" about murdering tens of millions of his own people. And southern plantation owners certainly "felt good" about owning slaves. Does this mean that what they did was right? Come on!

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo It's wrong to me because I don't want to live in a society that allows slavery or genocide (and I have my own reasons for it), therefore, I'm against those things, but it was right according to them. It comes down to how you define good and evil which there doesn't seem to be a clear definition of. This is the whole reason for why we have disagreements, debates etc... I guess some people would say that evil is "against society" and good is "helping society"

[wordonfirevideo]

@Chaaarge Friend, I can't believe that you really accept that! You've just admitted that neither you nor the wider society have any ground whatsoever for condemning genocide, racial descrimination, or murder. It's all just a matter of subjective whim. Essentially, you've withdrawn from any kind of moral debate.

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo I will answer this just like I answer any statements people make about mythology, tarot cards etc... You can't prove to me scientifically that those things are true, therefore there's no reason to believe it. So is it even possible to prove (using the scientific method) what is right and wrong(in a moral sense)? Untill it's proven, morality will be subjective. There isn't even a clear definition of morally "right" and "wrong". but who knows, it might exist, but it is unproven.

[wordonfirevideo]

@Chaaarge How do you show "scientifically" the difference between right and wrong, the nature of the beautiful, what makes a society just, why there is a universe at all? Science is great, but there are other ways of knowing. I have actually offered a proof for God's existence--the argument from contingency. It belongs to a philosophical or metaphysical way of knowing. Take a look at my video on the four YouTube heresies and pay close attention to my discussion of "scientism."

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo But I haven't even heard a clear definition of "right" and "wrong"(again, I'm talking about morals). Is wrong, being against society? Hurting other people? if so, is everything else ok as long as it doesn't hurt other people? Right and wrong seems to simply be labels that we put on actions we like and dislike. And different people like and dislike different things. Maybe I'm just turning this into a semantics issue though.

[chess12345789]

@Chaaarge Remember right and wrong is different from good and bad. If you don't get what I mean read Aristotle's ethics.

[Chaaarge]

@wordonfirevideo and science doesn't make the claim that is has the explanation for everything, and of course there are philosophical questions and answers, but if an objective moral standard exists, then it must come from somewhere, and the question: "Does x exist?" is something that can be adressed scientifically. An objective morallity would mean that morallity is "a thing". I liked your video on "scientism though". you made some great points

[thoughtadventure]

I've met so many people who were moral relativists until they found points of view that contradicted things they thought were important. Then they became absolutists really fast.

[Vezhil]

Is love not a property of social beings? God is social within himself, but not all of creation displays love. A rock does not love the wind.

Would you act differently if God didn't exist? Would you know? What if it were fairies that did everything that has been attributed to God, they trick you into thinking God did it and they trick me into thinking that nature did it? Neither of us would know the difference.

[jontv]

@christianman73 - I guess what I'm looking for is something with a basis other than faith or traditional religious sentiment. I know that is a tall order, but that's the kind of warrant I mean.

As I said, I am willing to agree to disagree with people of faith, but you make it hard to do so when you make sweeping claims about God that seem to exclude people who disagree. If you think God makes *you* a good person, fine -- but try to resist assuming that is a universal necessity.

[christianman73]

@jontv:

I never said that God makes me a "good person." However, your statement begs the question-- without a transcendent standard of good and evil, right and wrong, on which to base your statements (i.e. a standard not simply based on human preferences and societal convention), how do you even begin to define what makes a "good person"?

Christian faith is not based on a leap in the dark. It is founded on solid historical evidence. The problem is often a bias *against* that evidence.

[jontv]

@christianman73 - Since you believe that God is the one and only source of all good, anything you say on the subject is likely to be circular in its logical design.

I see no evidence for a transcendent standard. I believe we must do the best we can, using our hearts, minds, and philosophical traditions, including various religious ideas.

From where I sit, the history of faith is leaping in the dark. I don't know how I could be convinced otherwise. Hearsay isn't even admissible in court.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv To say that there is no transcendent standard is tantamount to saying that the individual will, or the party, or the culture, or the government, or popular opinion is the final moral standard. And that is to say that all ethics is finally relative, since all of those things shift and change. Do you see the danger? As Dostoevsky said, "once we eliminate God, everything is permitted."

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - I see what you believe is a danger. To me, it's no more dangerous than believing in a transcendent standard.

Because I don't believe in God, in my view human beings are making up the standard either way. The question is whether we admit that, or try to put the responsibility on God. I'm for taking responsibility and doing the best we can. Putting it on God doesn't make the standard any better, only rationalizes its weaknesses and shifts responsibility away from people.

[2750valio]

@jontv Man wisdom is a foolishness to God. You can't design your own morality standard that fits to everyone's free will. In our human weakness, God gave us the law of our nature, The ten commandments, that can make us to able Live in the communion and in harmony with every body and with our own creator.

[jontv]

@2750valio - Well, that's your opinion. I see no reason to agree. My morality is as good as or better than what you get from any sacred text. Humans are certainly not perfect, but neither were the humans who wrote the Bible.

[2750valio]

@jontv If you want to know the truth, then come to the One Holy Catholic Church, which is the foundation of the Truth, established by the work of the Holy Spirit and it has been exist for more than 2000 years. And Our Holy Bible was written by the Mystics who see what God sees, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Who is a liar? whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Whoever denies the Father and the Son, this is an AntiChrist.

[jontv]

@2750valio - Uh, right. How much do you know about the history of the "One Holy Catholic Church"? If you think that it's all about truth and holiness, you've got a lot to learn.

[benabaxter]

@jontv He speaks as a believer would of the spiritual, infallible dimension of the Church, the Church as the body of Christ. He doesn't speak of the fallible, human dimension of the Church.

[jontv]

@benabaxter - I don't see any evidence that 2750valio was making such a distinction. As a non-believer, I see the distinction as meaningless, anyway.

I don't have a problem with religious belief per say. I think it does some people some good (others, more harm than good). In that, it's like any other potentially dangerous thing (a gun, a car, etc.). I do have a problem with people who suggest you need a particular form of religious belief to live a good life or be a good person -- not true.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - On the FD quote, I would say two things:

1). The history of religion shows that whether or not people believe in God, damn near everything is permitted.

2). Despite religion's rather mixed record of preventing atrocious human behavior, the fact is, most people (regardless of religious affiliation) are basically decent and do NOT commit atrocities.

So as always, I argue that the transcendent standard is of questionable use, often ineffectual, and by no means necessary.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv No. Damn near everything is done, but if religion is allowed to speak, you can't say that everything is permitted. And I agree with you that most people do not commit atrocities,but I would say that this is because most people are religious and they have a keen sense of God's demand. The problem with your position is that when people commit atrocities, you would have no coherent way of arguing that they are wrong.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - Define "coherent". My value system is "coherent", as far as I know, but it's not based on religious assumptions. And I don't commit atrocities. Many millions -- if not billions -- of people on this planet are non-religious and yet excellent citizens.

This is the same argument we've had before. I am not opposed to religiously based value systems, but I don't see that they are necessary, nor any more "coherent" than the best of ethical philosophy. Certainly no more effective.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - Philosophy's good, but most people don't make decisions based on it. We behave according to our own impulses, cultural conditioning, and relationships to people in the world. None of that is dependent on a particular religious view.

I say *we* invented religion. You may disagree, but must admit there's a human hand in it, because religious claims can't all be true. So are the Buddhists just crazy, or dumb-lucky? They came up with a good system, with no help from your god.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv No. It's not an either/or. All sorts of philosophies and religions participate in the truth to varying degrees. In fact, I take it as a strong support for my position that a basic ethical consensus exists across cultures and religions.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - I take it as support for my position as well. Human beings make religion, and when they do it, they come up with some pretty good guidelines -- not perfect, often too obsessed with certain aspects of life (sex, language taboos, etc.), but pretty good.

Let me try this: if there is some sort of transcendent, universal standard, and all religions are just approximations of it, then why does one need religion at all? Why can't I just divine what's right and wrong on my own...

[bheadh]

@wordonfirevideo Bravo for you! Here is another "thought experiment" If humanity ultimately arose from some "mud puddle struck by lightning" then the atrocities commited by Hitler, Stalin..etc mean nothing more than "wiping mud off ones shoes". But, if we were "created" and have moral choices, than these things are rightly horrific. Nothing would have real meaning if we were "just an accident of nature".

[Deadlift750]

Another awesome video!

[dccsvd55]

While I agree with most of what you say, I wish to point out a different take on the topic. It must be noted that on the level of morality (moral living), persons of other faith traditions (or no faith tradition) can, and in many cases, do live better moral lives that Christians. SO, more reflection is needed on this issue. It needs to be expressed in such a way that is respectful of the experience and wisdom of others.

[pisumalu]

True, but don't hold your breath.

[pisumalu]

I know of several Buddhists who have forgone material possessions and risk their lives daily to live in areas racked by war in an effort to be a voice for peace, unity and compassion. It would be interesting to ask them if they would live their lives any differently, if God existed.

[anXVI]

Very enlightening as always, Fr. Barron.

[pauljosephherman]

Thanks for the good insights and encouragement. Vatican II was meant to bring a new Pentecost of Evangelization and in many ways it has. However, I suppose Satan's counter attack was Liberalism or as you define it, "making the autonomous self primary." There is a spiritual war going on with many casualties and collateral damage. The biggest difference God makes is that without the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; we would autonomously self-destruct. Imagine a world without Jesus Christ.

[jesuskopp]

If you saw a wounded man on the side of the street would you help him or walk on by?

[raguiler1234]

I think It's great that you finally address Vatican II and how it drifted away from the Traditions of the church...BUT you still haven't public discussed the turning away of the Latin Mass after Vatican II (and now the return and thirst for its resurgences Motu Proprio!!). You haven't addressed THE SYLLABUS OF ERRORS which is an immensely important lens that we must look through to view the modern world . The good intentions of ecumenism and it's unintended consequences and failures.

[CarcharodonMeg]

Fr Barron, will you be commenting on the Anglicanorum Coetibus process at any time in the near future?

It is intriguing, but I have yet to read or hear anything in relation to it except on Catholic Online.

[Jugglable]

I wish I were better at talking about the difference God makes. This week I talked to an atheist friend and tried to explain why the existentialists were right, and why life is meaningless without God, but I was bad at it.

[Nemesis000000]

Maybe your friend didnt appreciate the implication that his life was meaningless

[Jugglable]

Nemesis -- that wasn't my implication. In fact I do think his life is meaningful and an atheist can do meaningful things. My point was that the existentialists were right and if there is not god any meaning, value or purpose is illusory and futile. I believe in God, though, so I don't think that's the case.

[HammerofHeretics]

Good apologetics takes a lot of prayer, practice and study. You keep working at it Jugglable. You seem to have a good heart that cares about people and that is something God can work with to do beautiful things.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Consider the absurdity of trying to convince someone that life is meaningless (w/o God), or of trying to rationally deduce such a claim from some set of theoretical background assumptions. It's not a theorem, and there isn't a truth of the matter about the question. Theist or atheist, one either finds one's life meaningful, or not. Existentialism doesn't view meaning as something imposed from on high, but rather as an existential question embedded in an individual's actual process of living.

[Jugglable]

VeryEvil -- but if one person says life has one meaning, and another says it has another, who is right? Life doesn't take on a meaning just because you decide to give it one, and doesn't take on meaninglessness just because you say you find it so.

"there isn't a truth of the matter about the question"

This is your own claim to the truth of the matter!

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

So you're telling me there's some stone I can look under and find life's meaning? A few experiments in a chemistry lab and I'll have it? Maybe I can feed a bunch of propositions into a computer program that will then generate a logical proof that the meaning of life is XYZ? Of course there's no "fact of the matter" here. You've invoked the existentialists without really listening to them. It's not a theoretical or factual question, but an experiential one. Yeah or nay, you LIVE your answer.

[Jugglable]

"you LIVE your answer"

Camus said once you realize the meaninglessness of life, the only relevant question left is whether to commit suicide. I do think I've listened carefully to existentialism. You can assert your own meaning and live on, but your feet are planted in mid-air. It's not just experiential and subjective. If somebody said he felt the meaning of life was to maximize his pleasure and be cruel to others, surely you'd think he was wrong?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Camus wasn't the only existentialist. And whether it was Camus soldiering on in the face of absurdity, Nietzsche's exalting individual vibrancy in the face of God's death, Kierkegaard's rejection of Hegel's all encompassing rationalism, or Sartre's declaring that existence precedes essence, all would say that life's meaning is found not as a true proposition grounded in some theory, but rather as a manifestation of an individual's confrontation with life's circumstances. It's found in living.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

I disagree. Life's meaning is precisely experiential and subjective - ESPECIALLY on the existentialist's account. If a serial killer declares his life's meaning is found in his cruelty, he isn't wrong - as there isn't a proposition at stake for him to be wrong about - so much as twisted, perverse, sick, and evil.

[Anglolund]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo Man circumstances are nothing more than the chemical and biological processes of the Brain, if objective meaning is not a reality. Extentialism like all other philosophies is just another opition in which social darwinism trumps all and is the final truth, no matter how you spin it.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

@Anglo

W/o objective meaning, existentialism affirms social darwinism as the final truth? The only existentialist's view I know having any resemblance to that was Nietzsche "will to power" concept, but that wasn't affirmation of social darwinism. He lamented the frequent success of the small and petty in bringing down the great and admirable. Furthermore, he didn't even believe there was a "final truth". Your post was devoid of argument, or if intended to be descriptive, was rather ignorant.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Are you sure that "objective meaning is a reality" isn't just a gibberish phrase? If God exists, and created us with the intention that we find and love him, eternally worshiping him in heaven, would that fact make objective meaning a reality? Suppose, assuming all that's true, and that you believe it, you still view your life as having some other meaning, or still consider it to be (eternally) meaningless. Would that make you wrong? Is it the kind of thing you can even be wrong about?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Re "nothing more than the chemical and biological process of the brain"

Don't be such a fraidy cat. Whatever you are, that's what you are. Whatever reality is, that's what it is. How you want reality to be doesn't do squat to make reality that way, does it? Pretend for a moment that your worst nightmare is true, and that you're "nothing more than the chemical and biological process" of your brain. You're still here! You still love & hate, succeed & fail, show courage & cowardice, right?

[Jugglable]

@VeryEvilPettingZoo "It's found in living."

Yes. Found, not created. Life doesn't take on a meaning just because you give it one.

"twisted, perverse, sick, and evil"

Doesn't this judgment imply that belief in an objective reality that applies to people regardless of the meaning they themselves assert?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re: Life doesn't take on a meaning just because you give it one.

No, that's exactly the case. I think you're using words without considering what they mean. NO MATTER the supernatural truth (in other words, even if all your religious view were absolutely correct), life's meaning is about each specific individual's understanding of it - their sense of the matter. It's not a factual propositional question. I encourage you to reflect on the topic.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Re: Doesn't this judgment imply that belief in an objective reality that applies to people regardless of the meaning they themselves assert?

Judging a serial killer to be "twisted, perverse, sick, and evil" is an evaluation of their character and deeds. It says absolutely 100% completely totally nothing about the meaning of their life. Again, I think you're just reflexively throwing around the phrase "the meaning of life" without reflecting on what those words are about.

[Jugglable]

If everybody just makes their own meaning in life, then every person's view of life is equal. Surely you don't think this?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

1) I don't know if we "make" meaning for our lives so much as combine the concrete experience of living with our reflections about that living, ourselves, and our mortality, to come to some kind of personal understanding. It's more an organic revealing than a decision followed by an action of "making" (though the later can be relevant).

2) "View of life" is abstract, open-ended, and general. "My understanding of the meaning of MY life" is specific and organically part of the individual.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

3) What makes you think there's an issue of equality of positions here? It's an individual matter, so how are comparisons applicable? Again, I think you're treating life's meaning as some type of propositional knowledge, rather than what the question actually suggests.

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Ex: Suppose on your theology you've a really great answer to the meaning of your life. You've got a killer answer. But some brilliant theologian - Augustine, Aquinas, or someone unknown - understands your theology better than you. It turns out that you're, at least in many parts, "wrong". Now reflect: does that make any sense? Can someone "disprove" the meaning of your life - a meaning you know, understand, LIVE, and feel completely content with - based on a superior argument you've never heard?

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

(cont)

Is there a book out there that will undo you? Maybe in all the world, there's just one old guy in an NYC cellar apartment who knows "the true" meaning of life? You're wrong, and someone's more right, unless you fancy yourself the greatest theologian ever. Even then, surely God would correct you. If you treat it as universal propositional knowledge, and divorce it from its organic connection TO your life, you'll have absurdly rendered yourself impotent to trust your own view on the matter

[Rsx6speed]

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but you need to work on your writing because its very incoherent. Please, don't take it personally, but I read your comments several times and I cannot unravel what you are trying to say.

*this is coming from a researcher who analyzes texts all day for a living...

[VeryEvilPettingZoo]

Rsx6speed

I've just reread my posts. My writing is fine; you need to work on your reading. That's coming from someone, me, who has credentials in both reading and logical analysis.

I do take it personally, because I think you're being dishonest. I don't believe your claim that after several honest attempts, you can't unravel what I'm trying to say. If you were really motivated, I'm sure that you could paraphrase me quite well.

Can you provide a specific comment, criticism, or question?

[jontv]

On the Suhard quote, what's an example of good Catholic behavior that would be rendered senseless if God didn't exist?

This statement sounds striking, perhaps, and might inspire greater feelings of faith, but it seems to have no practical value -- much like the idea that one should bend one's will to God's.

Deferring to what one believes to be God's will is still an individual choice. You can't *not* choose your own path. You can only pretend that's not what you're doing (which seems silly).

[NwZ2]

I like David Hume's take on it: to live your life as morally as possible and act as if God didn't exist. That way, you're being moral for the sake of being moral.

[HammerofHeretics]

And how does one create a human morality that is not subject to human whims? If there is not a transcendent judge, what's to stop us from deciding that evil is good if it's convenient? This, in fact, has been the way man has operated both in the presence and in the absence of religion. The main difference being that in a religious environment, such abuses and excesses are usually condemned at some point using the very religion that was used as an excuse to commit them in the first place.

[jontv]

@HammerofHeretics - How, specifically, does this transcendent judge help to stop evil? Are you talking about revelation through scripture, or some kind of direct intervention? Either way, how does one know for sure what the judge thinks is "good" and what is "evil"?

Even if all that were possible, humans can still choose to do evil, and if one is inclined to do so, I don't expect the notion of a transcendent judge is going to stand in the way.

[HammerofHeretics]

There are two ways that a transcendent judge would stop evil. One would be by writing on every human heart a sense of right and wrong, IOW, instilling a conscience in everyone. The interesting thing about this is that it doesn't depend on a person believing in or knowing about revelation to have an impact. Obviously, if this were all God did it would be a little vague, however, Christianity also teaches that God did reveal, in human language exactly what he expected in terms of human behavior

[HammerofHeretics]

This was done most notably through the 10 commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ. You can say what you will about Christians, but I defy you find a better moral teacher than Jesus Christ. If everyone followed his teachings perfectly (or even if all Christians followed them perfectly) earth would be paradise.

[jontv]

@Hammer - Revelation is one of many religious concepts that I have trouble with. The existence of a conscience installed by God to make me a better person is another. If it's true, then God's handiwork is a little shoddy, because many people's consciences seem pretty faulty.

I am well familiar with the teachings of Jesus as portrayed in the Gospels, and I will agree with you that he's a great ethical model. Aside from occasional outbursts about damnation, I have no argument with the big J.

[HammerofHeretics]

I don't disagree with you regarding the shoddiness of some people's consciences, but that's where the concept of sin comes in. I don't know if this is going to sound odd to you or if you can relate, but here it goes. When a person works to improve his character, and attempts to avoid behavior he considers negative, it seems that he becomes more aware of other things he could improve upon. Conversely, if he goes with his bad behavior making no attempt to improve himself, evil becomes easier.

[HammerofHeretics]

My point being that dysfunctional consciences are often connected to habitual bad behavior. It's as if a thick scar is formed on the conscience and it numbs it from its normal and proper function. The conscience works better when it is treated with respect, and it tends to lose its effectiveness when abused. In product liability cases, you usually blame the user for malfunctioning products if he or she abused the product prior to the malfunction, not the manufacturer.

[jontv]

Okay, user error may not be the maker's fault. I guess that works as a metaphor, if you accept the basic premise. The existence of the conscience is, of course, one of those metaphysical concepts that are impossible to prove one way or another.

[HammerofHeretics]

It's also not possible to prove that thought occurs in the mind, and yet I believe it does quite whole-heartedly. The most delicious mysteries in life are those that cannot be detected through the scientific method--love, friendship, joy. That's why we have fields of human endeavor like art, philosophy, theology, and poetry. Sometimes understanding certain things requires a little "faith" and an indirect way of "knowing".

[jontv]

Yeah, I agree with all that. What matters is what you choose to have faith in (if it *is* a choice, which is also debatable), and what you do in response to that faith, that way of "knowing", or what have you.

[HammerofHeretics]

Agreed.

[DangeloM27]

@NwZ2 the only problem with that is , without supernatural grace, there is no true morality, rather an external morality that has no foundational basis for the love of man, but rather it's basis lays in the preservation of one's own life, and the exaltation of one's own ego.

[jontv]

@DangeloM27 - I have to disagree. Maybe you feel you need the notion of the supernatural to care, deeply and genuinely, about others, but there are millions of people who don't believe in God or the supernatural, and yet are decent, caring people.

You must have quite a low opinion of human beings, to think that we all need the idea of God to behave decently for good reasons. I guess if you need God to be a good person, then by all means, please continue to believe in God.

[DangeloM27]

@jontv The moral law is written on human hearts Jontv. What I'm saying is that the perfection of this law, it's true and complete fulfillment comes through God's grace. Since man is so weighed down by sin, He need's God's grace to overcome his own selfish inclinations that tend towards self glorfication.

[jontv]

Well, I have a magic ant in my pocket, and I say that humans need *him* to overcome their selfish inclinations. Can you prove me wrong?

[christianman73]

@jontv:

Your analogy is actually a laughable non-analogy. A "magic ant" does not even have the level of consciousness and understanding that a human being has-- let alone that of a Supreme Being.

A "magic ant" cannot do the following things, which God can do: bring the universe into existence, tell us what right and wrong are (in an objective sense that is irregardless of one's personal opinions), and establish the preconditions for the intelligibility of the universe. Next argument?

[jontv]

How do you know what the magic ant can or can't do? He's really exceptionally magical, honest.

He doesn't write moral law on the human heart, though. He taps out messages in Morse code on your kneecap.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Jon, this kind of comment is just tiresome and totally unhelpful.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv What we call the conscience is the experience of being grasped by the truly unconditioned good. The will seeks particular good things, but the ground of the will--the reason the will chooses at all--is Goodness Itself, which drives us at every stage toward moral excellence. This properly unconditioned reality is about as far from a "magic ant" as you can get.

[jontv]

Because God is, by your definition, the source of all goodness, I am, by definition, doing God's will every time I do something you define as "good"? And your definitions are not something you're willing to reconsider?

How do we know that God is good? Even if Aquinas is right and there must be prime mover, that doesn't speak to goodness. If you believe that God created everything, then God gets credit for evil, too. I just don't see a way into this self-referential system from the outside.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv You're mostly right here. The way out of the dilemma you pose is to recognized evil as a species of non-being, as a corruption of the good that ought to be there. Therefore, God is never the cause of evil. But what you say about desire is quite right: whenever you seek the good, you are, consciously or unconsciously, seeking God, who is the Unconditioned Good.

[jontv]

The one who gets to define the terms will always be incontrovertibly right. I don't accept your terms, so I still don't see what this worldview has to offer me.

And I certainly see no grounds for the kind of no-ethics-w/o-God talk we've seen here.

This is really the crux of my problem with religious thought: it seeks to define what can't really be defined, and then proceeds very confidently as though it can. Faith fills the gaps, but if one is not inclined toward faith, the gaps remain.

[jontv]

As for the stuff about evil, I think that's a classic example of working forward from implausible definitions. God can't be evil, but you have to account for evil in some way, and so the contortions commence.

I think the Buddhist view of good and evil is much more rational. How we apply these terms is mostly a product of our limited perspectives. I know you are speaking about good and evil mostly in the abstract, but ultimately, these kinds of abstractions are not all that useful.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Give me one example of evil that is not a privation of the good.

[jontv]

I don't think good and evil are concepts you can quantify like that; e.g. how would you gauge the difference in "absence" between child abuse and neglect? It just seems absurd.

Most actions are a mixture of both. And most of the time, we don't know exactly what that mixture is -- probably can't know. What seems good to me now may turn out to be evil. What seems evil to you may seem good to me.

I understand the desire for a universal scale to make sense of all this, but it's just so abstract.

[jontv]

I think child abuse is a good test case for why it seems weird to define evil as an absence. What is the good that's absent? Sure, it's good not to hit your child. So what makes child abuse evil is the fact that you are not not hitting your child?

It just seems like a semantic game created to support the notions that there's good and there's evil, and they are separate things, and God gets all the credit for good and none of the blame for evil.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv No! The absent good is the love that ought to be expressed toward a child. Even the word "abuse" gives away the game: it is a corruption of proper use or proper behavior.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Jon, I agree with all of your observations, except that I can't see why they tell against the basic point I'm making. Sure, it's hard to distinguish grades of absence, but you seem to be agreeing that both child abuse and child neglect are indeed privations of the good.

[jontv]

I understand what you're saying, too. And I do think that for most, if not all, instances of "evil", it would be possible to define that as an "absence" of good, somehow.

I guess my main point is that, as usual, I don't see the value in these kinds of definitions. As I said, their function seems to be mostly to rationalize a particular metaphysical view. I just don't find it useful, otherwise.

Why should I, in your opinion? Is there a non-theological reason I'm missing?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv First of all, why should you consider it a "rationalization" if you can't find any ground for disagreeing with it? And second, it allows us to get around the very dilemma that you posed a few days ago! It permits us to affirm the existence of God and the presence of evil.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - "It permits us to affirm the existence of God and the presence of evil." That's exactly what I mean by "rationalization". It feels to me as though this definition of evil is reverse-engineered for the purpose of affirming God. That would not qualify as a "non-theological" reason to accept this definition.

If affirming God is not the goal, would it really make sense to define evil as the absence of good? I don't see why.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv But the only question that finally matters is whether it's true. Is it true that evil is a privation of the good? I maintain that it is. And what is wrong with the use of that truth to hold off the objection that God's existence is irreconciliable with the presence of evil? When St. Augustine grasped this principle, it helped him enormously in his journey toward Christianity.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - It matters to you, because you want to believe in a God who is the source of good and not evil. Since I feel no personal stake in that belief, I don't see the point. Defining evil that way doesn't shed any light on the topic.

I guess I have this problem with apologetics in general. You starts from the assumption that God exists as described, and the goal is to make everything else fit that assumption. I think it is to philosophy what "intelligent design" is to science.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Is it true? If it is, I don't see the slightest problem in using it for apologetic purposes. And by the way, it was you who posed the challenge. When I offer an entirely coherent rebuttal, you tell me I'm engaging in special pleading! I mean, I know you don't like religion, but you're putting me in a perfect double bind here.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - As I've suggested, I think trying to classify moral actions using a quantitative conception (absence = 0 = "evil"?) of a qualitative judgment ("good") breaks down into absurdity when you try to apply it to real life.

What about all those actions that are in the middle somewhere--both good AND evil to some degree, or NEITHER, really? If an action has no "good" in it, is it then automatically "evil"? Can't it be neutral?

See, it just gets weird.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Sure, it's difficult to make precise judgments of the "quantity" of evil in particular cases, but so what? The principle remains that evil is a privation of the good. And as I recall, that's how this discussion got going: how to reconcile God's existence with evil.  This principle is an important first step in articulating that reconciliation.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - Well, like I said, it doesn't matter much to me. We are talking about it because I somehow triggered your response to the charge that evil and God shouldn't coexist. But I didn't actually make that charge, and I wouldn't.

I am trying to respond to your points as best I can on their own terms. Basically, I am kicking the tires on a car that I have no desire to drive. It's like I'm extolling the merits of mass transit and you're still trying to sell me this particular car.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Bottom line:  I don't believe you when you say that you're just kicking tires on a car you don't want. There is no way that you would show such interest in these questions unless God has gotten under your skin.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - You don't believe me? Oh, ye of little faith.

I'm not sure why you're so comfortable telling other people what they REALLY believe or want, whether they know it or not. You certainly wouldn't tolerate that kind of thing in return. Is it just that you wouldn't be wasting your time with me if you didn't think I was salvageable?

Here's my bottom line: I'm interested in ideas. For me, religion is about ideas.

For you, ideas are about religion. You're interested in religion.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Your testy reaction proves my point! I'm just teasing with you, man. But it remains true that I don't believe you.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - You think I doth protest too much? I thought my response was pretty light-hearted, actually. But it's hard to get tone across in an electronic forum.

Do you have an important point to make based on this evil-as-absence-of-good thing? I've said that I don't see the significance, except to an apologist. But I will grant that definition of evil for the sake of argument (I thought I had, actually). Since I'm not an apologist, can you make it relevant to me?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv How soon they forget! I formulated the principle in response to your objection that God's existence was irreconciliable with the presence of evil. You started this; so I presume it's relevant to you!

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo: I may have touched on that, but I don't believe I raised it as a serious objection. That's not my game. The existence of what we call "evil" is not really why I don't believe in God (although I find the theology around it kind of amusing).

I question the use value of "evil" -- not because I deny that people do stupid, mean, bad things, but because (as usual) I see it as groundless Platonic thinking. Giving good & evil a special metaphysical provenance does nothing for me.

[jontv]

The main reason why I don't see "evil" as an objection to God's existence is free will. I think free will, by itself, is sufficient to explain the existence of "evil". If we are not free to do evil, we are not free, and I like to imagine that I'm free.

I do think that Christianity does have some serious problems stemming from the concept of free will, but I respect the Christian commitment to free will (though it is self-serving in a way), and I think it explains "evil" well enough.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Well yes, the evil that flows from free will is the result of a twisting or deformation of that will. Once again, evil is a privation of the good.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv I'm afraid, Jon, that this is going nowhere. I don't know how I can possibly make my position clearer.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - Well, you can't possibly agree with me, because your life is dedicated to the idea that belief in God is primary and everything flows from that. I question that assumption. In order for you to acknowledge my position, you would have to admit yours is questionable.

It's just frustrating because I am willing to admit that your position makes sense based on the assumptions you make -- but you won't do the same for me, probably because you are so committed to your assumptions.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - Would you at least confirm my reading of your assumptions about free will?

I infer that for you, what makes free will a good thing is that it allows us the opportunity to freely do God's will. It seems that except for that, you wouldn't have much use for it, because true purpose of being alive is to do God's will. Am I right?

If so, can you understand, just a little, why that is exactly the kind of oddly constrictive view of human existence that I refuse to accept?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Jon, people who accept the general proposition that evil is a privation of the good can disagree till the cows come home about the specifics of particular moral acts. So what? It doesn't tell against the principle; in point of fact, the principle is the condition for having the conversation in the first place!

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo: This discussion is like most of ours. You assert that there is one universal standard, that believing so is helpful, and Catholicism is a good description of it. I assert that life is more complicated, that we need to constantly negotiate our standards as a society, and that no religion has all the answers.

You are invested in your belief system in a way that transcends my desire to do what seems right. You need it to BE right, in some supposedly indisputable way. I don't.

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Jon, you just seem to have a gene in your DNA for condescension! Cut the simplistic and self-serving psychologizing and return to the argument. You've given me absolutely no good reason for discounting my claim that evil is a privation of the good.

[jontv]

@wordonfirevideo - So you get to be condescending, but I don't. Perhaps to you, it's not condescending, because believing in God is inherently superior, so it's a compliment to say I secretly want to believe. Thanks, I guess.

We got to this tangent about selling cars and the primacy of religion from an off-hand comment I made. The gist was that I don't care if you define evil as the absence of good. I have explained why I don't think that's necessary or helpful. What more is there to discuss?

[wordonfirevideo]

@jontv Okay, let me know when you want to pick up the strand.

[sterlingrose33]

@wordonfirevideo: what's interesting is that Kahlil Gibran said basically the same thing in his book "The Prophet". He wrote: "For what is evil but good tortured by its own hunger and thirst? Verily when good is hungry it seeks food even in dark caves, and when it thirsts it drinks even of dead waters."

Interesting, no?

[DangeloM27]

@jontv HAHA . Just because you call God by some crazy name doesnt change the fact of his nature , essence or Power. . Jontv , Im assuming your looking for answer's thus the reason your on a catholic video page, if that's the case I highly suggest reading thomas Aquinas works , or Mere Christianity by Cs lewis.

God bless you!

[jontv]

I'm looking for Christians who are able to live in harmony with non-Christians. Most contemporary Catholics are pretty good about that, so it makes sense for non-Christians to reach out to them.

I'm disappointed whenever I see anyone making claims that amount to: "My system of belief is the only valid one, so those who don't share it either can't be good people, or can only be considered good because they are following our program whether they realize it or not". That is inherently divisive.

[DangeloM27]

jon,all people have a form of goodness due to the fact that there made in Gods image. Also we all have an inherent morality that leads us to the truth, and tells us what's good and bad, called our conscience. God speaks to us through our conscience .But since we struggle with sin, we can't carry out the holiness we need to merit heaven on our own, since we all sin. We all fall short. This is why Jesus came to pay for our sins and at the same time give us the power to conquer sin

[jontv]

That's one interpretation, but there are others.

I don't believe I was made in God's image--rather, that God was made in humanity's image: a projection.

I can't prove I'm right, but you can't prove I'm wrong. We can still get along. I have never claimed that your beliefs are illegitimate or--somehow, bizarrely--an unintentional affirmation of MY beliefs.

For the sake of social welfare and intellectual honesty, I suggest we all extend that respect to each other. The magic ant says he agrees.

[NwZ2]

foundational?

Sorry but I ground my ethics in the real: Stopping human suffering seems like a good enough universal to me. (extended to: living suffering, etc etc).

[DangeloM27]

@NwZ2  No kidding that's why Christians do more then anyone to elevate human suffering then any other Organization on the planet. The Catholic Church does more for the poor, the hungry, the sick then all the private organizations combined. All these following Organizations have been started by Christians...RED CROSS, UNITED WAY, SALVATION ARMY, CATHOLIC RELIEF SERVICES ALL CHRISTIAN.

[johnpaulfan]

What's your kind of Christianity? I am Episcopalian. I was just wondering what you are. Catholic?

[wood9670]

Yes, he is Catholic.

[Childinfaith]

Lol, he's kind of a priest.

[urplereen]

I love your videos!