A strong adherence to the belief in God is narrow- minded. There are plenty of great things in life that make life worth living. It just takes a mind with depth. It takes a genuine curiosity for the beauty hidden in the truth of nature. The narrow-minded don't see it and are emotionally forced to invoke the supernatural.
You say no matter how many goods we attain, we're never really satisfied. Is that not different for each person? There are plenty of people who claim(ed) to be "really satisfied" with the world / their life. Do you deny that they are?
Secondly, I don't see that the world is inherently imbued with meaning. I would say, rather, that our minds, perceiving the world, seek to imbue it with meaning, and do so.
Also, your arguments are for a spiritual reality, but not for the personal God.
The biggest predictor of what a person believes is where in the world they happen to be born. Almost no one comes to a belief in a god via sophisticated sounding theological arguments. If they serve any purpose, it is to reassure other believers that someone on their own side has the answers to all these tricky questions non-believers ask. That and the authors of these arguments get to feel like they are fighting the good fight. Problem is all of the arguments in this video are incredibly weak.
@cavalrycome I would suggest you come out to Southern California. I guarantee that you will find that there is a variety of faiths to choose from. And if your analysis were true, I didn't become Catholic into I was 19, and I was not raised with any faith. So where do I fit in the "it comes from where in the world they are from" theory? Not everyone is simply a product of their environment. Everyone has a choice no matter how much they deny it.
@Stitchman3875 ", I didn't become Catholic into I was 19, and I was not raised with any faith. So where do I fit in the "it comes from where in the world they are from" theory"
Yeah but did you go are research all the major faiths before making that decisions.. Did you go visit a mosque and a buddist temple etc..
@badpanda84 That is a long story, as there are many elements to dissect. I was myself was not raised in any particular religion, as such I spent a lot of my earlier years searching for what I believed. I was exposed to different New Age ideas, and even for a time declared myself to be an Atheist, though not in the Dawkins sense, as it was more from indifference to any idea. To explain it better, the evolution etc, didn't really matter, and I would have ruled it out as a coward's atheism and
@Stitchman3875 and a poor excuse to justify a position. This is certainly an inauthentic way to approach. It was more, "this is what I am, and I don't care what you think of it." However, as I progressed, I saw that many of other beliefs possess a light of truth to one degree or another. The folly was as a teen, I was brought to being a Born-Again Fundamentalist. This was one that really conflicted, because I was tolerant of other people's beliefs as they were not. At the time, believing
@Stitchman3875 in Jesus fit me best but it seemed like an incomplete theology as Born Again Christians taught it. As I researched the history of Christianity, I found that the Catholic Church was the one that goes back to the beginning of Christianity. And I decided at the time to go and convert. No friends encouraged it or anything. In fact if I was to go any place it would have been Mormon as I had more exposure to them than Catholicism at the time. Plus I was reading more Anti-Catholic
@Stitchman3875 material than pro-Catholic. But the level of tolerance I found in the Catholics, and that I didn't have to compromise intellectual ideas such as Evolution, Big Bang etc, as the Church accepts all these, I found that Catholicism was more complete. Furthermore, I saw no real reason to change because everything I wanted spiritually I found it in Catholicism. However, these are just my experiences and my path in the journey. Many people have different pathways they took to arrive
@Stitchman3875 at where they are in life. A person's faith is based on their own personal histories, not the environment of where they live. Variances are always present no matter the environment. Everyone has a story that led them where they are, whether it is faith, politics, and preference. Ergo, it is not my place to judge people based on their ideas, beliefs etc. Like I said it's a long story as to my story, and I trying to condense it here for limited space. Hopefully this explains.
@wordonfirevideo Hello, I was recently reading into stories of the apparitions of Our Lady of Garabandal. I was wondering if you had an opinion if the stories of these apparitions are true or not.
Fr. Barron, It is possible that my desire for justice and truth and beauty comes from God. But it could also just be a result of evolution without God. If God didn't exist those desires might still be there anyway. So why not use Occam's razor in believe in the scenario that doesn't require God?
If our desire for justice were simply the product of evolution, then it would be no more than a desire. It would not be a moral imperative. It could have no authority. If our consciences tell us for example that we should not kill, that is not quite the same as wanting not to kill. If the command not to kill comes simply from genetics, then no matter how strong its emotional content, it has no true authority.
@Rocketryman The problem with your approach here is the attempt to use linear answers to explain an abstract. The 2+2=4 does not encompass all the answers, it especially doesn't account for the deeper meaning behind things. All the concepts like why are we here, and meanings, are truths that cannot be explained by the use of mathematical approaches, it is far more difficult because there are a plethora or ideas. But they are no less true then the linear and direct answers.
@Rocketryman Abstracts do not convert once one understand what he or she is experiencing. Once again you are placing concrete answers on abstracts. You're example of a Bic lighter is not a good example. When dealing with non-physical, non-measurable concepts, there is no way to measure what it is through a concrete answer. For instance you cannot measure love in such a way as there are an infinite amount of ways to express it and no too experiences are the same.....
@Stitchman3875 Other concepts like preference, value, feelings, and pain cannot be expressed through a concrete reasoning. These experiences even personally felt are always open to reflection and reinterpretation. One can think his feeling is one way, and then realize later that it was a different feeling. Material things are always gonna be the same as there is a generally accepted identity to be given, but non material things are completely different.
@Stitchman3875 And yes 2+2=4 can give an absolute direction as to relying on a theoretical base, however it has often been seen that because of the variances, that the absolute black and white rarely if ever shows what is actually true.
@Rocketryman Well, I can assure that I am not a flat-earther. And if you actually study history, most Greek Scholars didn't believe the Earth was round. Most Christian Scholars knew the Earth was round and were within a few feet of knowing the circumference of the Earth. And no, this is not an appeal to non-physical concept. And your statement of thought simply proved my point, ergo, concrete reasoning does not account for everything that needs to be known
im an athiest and im 16. my mom and dad divorced when i was 2 and i mainly live with my mom and she is a athiest as well but i was not infuenced by her. she let me decide and go to church with my grandparents and dad. i went for about 2 years and srtill didnt find an answer. and at school when i ask kids. well y do u believe in god? its well my parents do. just because as a human we r not smart enough to understand everything doesnt mena oh there must be a god. just cuz we dont have the answer
@MW3Insomnia Well, there are some answers that are available to us. One of them is this: there has to be, finally, a non-contingent ground for the contingent universe. Nothing in the universe explains itself. Everything has its being from another. Thus, nothing would exist unless the universe were, ultimately, grounded in some reality whose very nature is to be. And this is what Catholic philosophy means by "God."
One should never forget all the religions that existed before Christianity. At that time there was talk of Gods. What happened to all of them? Are not we humans able to show respect and love for each other without involving God? and if so, why involve God?
"...In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son..." - the authority of & claims for Christ do *not* depend on His living at the beginning of religion. He is the Source & Goal of all history & all creation - He is before all created things, not in the time of His historical existence, but in importance; because He is not only man, but God also. All good in anything is good for *His* sake - so even "God-free" goodness depends on Him. God is "involved" b/c only God is Real
@5355vbxjbj76rvn God sounds to me like an excuse to not be able to explain what the universe is and what lies beyond. Admit that without God in your life you would feel bad. Well... I am not you. Peace
@Dnamsak B/c God is the only reason to show respect & love for each other. If there is no God, it does not matter if I am a nihilist, a moral relativist, a christian, or an atheist because there is no God and there is no meaning in the Universe. It won't matter if I am a sinner or a saint if there isn't God as there is no way to say what is right . To say that we should show respect for others without God is like saying I should objectively never step on a crack; there really is no basis for it.
@MagicMartin5 Tell me. Do dogs believe in a god? How about bonobos, our closest living relative? Interestingly, both of those species---indeed every advanced social species---has "rules of order" within the group to ensure that individuals "show respect" to each other. Why? The propensity to social order has evolved with each of these species to ensure reproductive success. If dogs and all other social animals live well without a god, are you saying that humans cannot? I'd challenge that.
@ContrabassClar If there is no God, there is no reason I should value order over chaos. Just because you like social order doesn't mean I am morally obligated to value order over chaos, and even then I do not have to love, like or respect you if there is no God and if everyone does not have intrinsic value. Without God, there is no reason I should continue living, there is no reason to be kind to anyone (except for selfish reasons) and there is no reason to respect anyone.
@MagicMartin5 You must be kidding me! My DOG values order over chaos and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't accept the existence of a deity. He deeply values the social order of his human family as shown in his behavior and distress when the order is disrupted. If he were still a wolf (dogs are descended from wolves) living in the wild, he'd be part of a complex social structure. Nope. No god is necessary for social order, rules, "respect," affiliation, "the law"....the list goes on.
@ContrabassClar It doesn't matter what your dog does. Your dog sniffs other dog's butts, should I sniff your butt if I were to meet you? Your dog is also simply following his instincts? Should I always follow my instincts which usually tell me to be a selfish person & to do what I want. Most atheists I have met say the conscience arises because of evolution which is caused by natural selection which has no meaning or design. So, I should value order because meaningless existence bred it into me?
@MagicMartin5 If you understood ANYTHING about animal behavior---you should actually do some reading b/c it might help you----you'd know that animals are in part instinctual, as we are, and in part cognitive, as we purport to be. You should value order because your life is BETTER if you do, just as my dog's life is better because he values it! You may want to google: "altruism in animals" for something very revealing to you!
@ContrabassClar Well that doesn't mean I should respect or love you. Atheism supports more of a utilitarian society in which there is no need to love or respect you. And besides, there is no reason to like order better than chaos. I might prefer chaos, who is to say I am wrong? If everything has come from blind chance and not from God, then the want for order is just an opinion. I don't like following blind opinions that come without any meaning. It's just my opinion like your God-less morality.
@MagicMartin5 So you'd prefer to find "meaning" under the auspices of a delusion which has no verifiable evidence whatever to support it? Why is it not possible to find meaning as part of Nature / the magnificent Cosmos----even if it has come about through chance alone? My dog's life is a good one for him. He understands his place in the family. He does his work. He has a sense of fair play. His physical and emotional needs are met. Why isn't such a life wonderful?
@ContrabassClar If I come from nothing and will eventually become nothing once again, then what I do now means nothing. Nothing matters if there is no God. Your dog does nothing to change that. Your dog simply follows what the universe has bred into him from evolution which is not an infallible source. Your dog was taught by nothing meaning what he does is based on nothing. I don't have to follow your morality if there is no God as there is nothing binding or universal about it.
@MagicMartin5 So believe in some god and follow Sharia law! LOL Do you see how ridiculous it is to put credence in the "teachings" of men who thought the earth was flat and lived in the Iron Age? And then, how even more absurd it is to think that because those teaching were "from a god" that they have to be correct and they give "meaning" to your life when you'd otherwise have no "meaning?" Life is the gift of our Cosmos--we are fortunate to be here--even if by chance! Rejoice at that!
@ContrabassClar Well, without God, I see no reason I should be here going through the boredom, suffering, anger, and sadness that everyone experiences. Personally, I find that the only place to find true meaning and joy is in belief, faith and specifically Christianity. I want to be like the saints who walked towards there martyrdom with a smile on their face. There may be good reason to have morality without God, but I see perfect joy as only residing within the saints of Christianity.
@MagicMartin5 Well, you're certainly welcome to that point of veiw. From my perspective, it's absurd and delusional. Why are you so afraid to live in the "not knowing?" Isn't it better to live skeptically, aware that no one can really HAVE all the answers, than to live with pat answers and illusory certainty? Frankly, my life is FILLED with meaning and beauty. I'm a skeptic. I doubt everything. Only verifiable evidence is valuable. Supernaturalism, superstion, magic? Worthless.
@ContrabassClar Well friend, I don't like the "not knowing" because I see no meaning without a discernable purpose to everything. If there is no over-arching purpose, then I see this as a need-less span of time I could do without. And I find beauty and meaning in the virtues, in stories of love and compassion, in the prophets, and in Christ.
@MagicMartin5 Many people find meaning and beauty in the plays of Shakespeare, in the stories of the Q'uran, in the poetry of Keats, or in the mythology of the Greeks. It's all fiction. But if it gives you pleasure to live in delusion...well.... As for myself, such a life would be boring, without challenge, with NO meaning because there's no verifiable evidence of any of it, and very much like living as a character in a novel rather than living a REAL human life. Oh well.
@ContrabassClar I see beauty in most of these things because there is truly beauty in this world (a reason I believe in God). And I am usually disgusted by Atheism (whether it is a delusion or not) because of the pride and disdain it usually produces in its members. Which is why I'm getting tired of carrying this dialogue with you. Good luck, God bless, and I hope you find the truth (whatever it is).
@MagicMartin5 Ah! Disdain? Pride? Hmm. It seems to me that the real disdain for one's humanity comes in accepting notions without verifiable evidence for those notions. The real pride is to demand that others accept those notions without evidence. It seems to me that skepticism is neither disdainful nor prideful. It simply demands verifiable evidence before it accepts "stuff." If supernaturalists dislike that---well, what can I say?
@MagicMartin5 And as a Christian one must have an answer for everything... Is that what you're saying? I respect you without believing in a God. Much like I enjoy to celebrate Christmas without believing in either Jesus or Santa.
@Dnamsak I'm sorry friend, but I don't understand what you are trying to say by the first sentence. I just think it is foolish to say that I should love and respect others w/o God. If you can believe there is a moral authority without God, then great but I find that if there is no God, then a morality similar to a nietzschian view is the only smart "morality" you can have. To try and have a christian love and respect for each other if we are not equal or of value is foolish in my opinion.
@MagicMartin5 But why? just because you don't belive it's possible? Please answer this question ... Is it possible to celebrate Christmas without believing in Santa?
@Dnamsak Yeah you can celebrate Christmas, first because Christmas is more about Christ than Santa to me, and second because it is about the spirit of Christmas and the love that it creates. But that is because I believe in the value of those things that are caused by God, not simply because it's a part of the season or a tradition.
@MagicMartin5 I still marvel over your sworn duty to someone you have been taught to believe in, but if you just feel good, it's ok for me. I'm not going to say "God bless you" I would rather say "I bless you". Peace
@MagicMartin5 I do not want you to say "God bless" to me. If you can not wish me good luck without involving God I can not see you as anything other than the result of brainwashing. you of anyone should know that no one, whether Christian or not have found the truth yet (if ever)
@Dnamsak It was a sign of good will. Would you rather me ask God to curse you? If you can't take a sign of good will, I can't see you as anything other than a prideful atheist who is afraid of God.
And we both believe to have found the truth. I believe it is Christ, you believe it is your atheism. If you don't think Atheism is truth, you should probably reevaluate your life and change belief systems. So, since I don't want to hurt your feelings, I'll just say farewell and wish you good luck.
@MagicMartin5 Then keep your mouth shut while you are walking on the earth. Damn tired to listen to your fairy tales! we atheists have to endure your churches and other crap, is it any wonder that we explode in anger!? :@
@Dnamsak What happened to loving and respecting humans without God? This is the mentality that Atheism tends to create: Pride and disdain to those who don't agree with them.
@MagicMartin5 "And we both believe to have found the truth". You maybe, but not me!
"If you don't think Atheism is truth, you should probably reevaluate your life and change belief systems" What exactly do you mean by that!? Christianity came and called anyone who did not convert "pagans and sinners". Is it to show respect when one notes that I made the wrong choice when I do not even chosen. Atheism = life itself. Christianity = think they are superior
@Archangel866 Yes, I become damn irritated when a so-called believers can not follow his own golden rules and turn the other cheek! Now, I will not talk about this more in English. finds it exhausting. We can continue in Swedish
@Dnamsak If you are deadly serious about trying to destroy God, then why not register for an undergraduate course in Theology at the University of Leuven (I think the Pope was a Professor there). The teaching is world class, and your counter-arguments will then have even more potency.
@gwalj Eller så kan vi prata om det på mitt språk vilket tordes göra det något lättare. I've already done it in my language. However, I end up really at a disadvantage when trying to argue in English, because I read the Bible in Swedish and Swedish only. But thanks for your tip.
I think maybe what you don't understand is that, in fact, 'justice' is enough. Thereafter, it really is up to you. Live and explore this strange life as you will.
What you are trying to do is masochistically submit to an imaginary force. Why? Because culturally your institution has given you 'power' with one hand but taken the truth of life away with the other. The power you are given is 'power' over others. That is not good. That is a self -deception.
@wordonfirevideo Oh cool!!! what part of Australia? and what for? bcuz if your gonna be doing a sermon or a mass or any thing like that and your around my area, ill try come to it. :)
Hi this is God. Hi thanks for the video, good job true believers. For you none-believers, trust the Lord, I sure did created the universe. You should be thankfull to that and, since I am running a little low on cash, send some money to my current adress: God, Tranekaervej 58, 8240 Risskov, Denmark. Otherwise, burn in hell.
if you dont know i will mention it for you the bible has been changed 100s of times by man...so how come you think its based on anything but a way to control people...
@Studmuffen4444 You claim the universe was made from nothing, your point of view isn't even provable through reason, empirical observable means or otherwise and you call adonelahi irrational?
@GeneralGaius You claim the universe was made by god, and god from nothing, your point of view isn't even provable throught reason, empirical observable means or otherwise and you call my position irrational?
@Studmuffen4444 The universe just happening isn't provable at all. If you examine the universe and you study it's complexity then it is obvious that it wasn't just random atoms coming together. If you study the universe then you can realize that nothing can exist in itself. nothing on earth is the cause of it's own existence there is something that caused that existence and it clearly is not a random explosion.
@Ontheblockent Random explosin?? Thats how you view it? It is a FACT that the universe expanded 13.7 billion years ago. Theres no arguing that. Again your aguing that everything has to have a cause, but you say god can exist in itself? Why not save the magical step and say the universe can exist in itself?
@Studmuffen4444 We know the universe can not exist in itself. In fact if it was cause by atoms colliding. where did these atoms come from? and how can you say there is no arguing that when there really is no proof the earth is that old. God is the necessary being. He is the cause we are the effect. in fact there is too much order and plan for this world to be the subject of the coming together of atoms.
So the universe accidentally came to existence? Yeah, right! Well, why don't we just say that the big bang was just the universe farting through its butt. Or there was an accident which produced elemental accidents which created life accidentally. So we are all accidentally here living life accidentally. LIKE WHATEVER! Well I suppose this should make us more people of love & understanding, hey. In other words, we should be more kind saying "Relax, brother, remember it was all an accident."
@wordonfirevideo Don't bother, Father. He's proud because he doesn't know better. Youtube is filled with wannabe-atheists who don't even know the basics of their position.
@Studmuffen4444 Good for you! You might consider whether you're really a skeptic rather than merely an atheist, though. "Skeptic" is a much broader term and I think much more accurately reflects the position of those of us who reject supernaturalism, magic, and superstition as having insufficient evidence for rational acceptance. Supernaturalist is an excellent term for all religionists---considering that their variety is so enormous.
@NoobyDavid No. And he can't "make" 2 + 2 = 5 either. To say that God is omnipotent is to say that he can do anything. The rock in question and the equation in question are not things.
@NoobyDavid asking can god make a rock so large that not even he himself could lift it has way too many logical contradictions. First, a rock has to be a certain size to be a rock. Any smaller and its a stone. Any larger and its not a rock. Secondly, theists assume that god is infinite. So asking whether god can make a rock so large that not even he himself could lift it is basically asking is there a rock out there thats larger than infinity. Nothing can be larger than(continued)
@NoobyDavid infinity, because infinity is endless. Its like saying that because there isn't a number larger than infinity, then concluding that the numeral system has a limit because of that. It makes not logical sense. And 2+2=4 regardless of what out perception of the equation is or isn't. If we didn't exist, 2+2=4 would stand irrespective of our existence or our perception of it
Do people feel smarter or better when they don't believe in God ? I think its much more meaningful to have a purpose and live in God's light and wisdom.
Fr. Barron, re: the argument from desire. I eat food, I'm full for a while, and always hungry again. It seems my hunger can't be satisfied by the food of the world. That doesn't mean that there is a transcendent "food itself" that corresponds to the holy longing of my belly. Why does our dissatisfaction with the justice that we achieve, then, point to a transcendental justice?
@Mystagogia87 Well, I don't desire unconditioned food! I'm perfectly content with sufficient and even satisfying food. But my mind does indeed seek unconditioned truth and my will unconditioned goodness.
Paul was at odds against Peter. Peter's church Israel was put away for the gentiles. Peter is not the first pope.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,... 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
1 Timothy However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
Im not sure i can believe in the bible, but there is something that leads me in life. It led me to where I am now. Things have happened that didn't make sense at the time, but looking back, it seems as if i have been guided to where i am now. And if things work out, I will never be able to repay the happiness that i have been given.
I think that people should do good in life depending on if there's a god or not...... people argue or compromise....but really its what one persons belief is.....cause all people cant be supported by others beliefs.....so every one is right in there own way...depending on what others believe in....I'm not arguing, its just my opinion......=)
So did anyone actually listen to this with an open mind? No? Didn't think so.
If you just want the jist of what he says till about 2:14 , its that God is a someone we need to look up to. There is so much injustice in the world that we need that divine and perfect being to strive towards. He doesn't say anything about whether god is real or not (up till around 2:14) he just says that people believe in a god as a symbol of hope.
@2Maccabees the proof is that no one's ever seen or heard god... he's made up... there's absolutely zero proof that he exists. theres so many different gods that different people believe in.. they 'know' their god exists just like you 'know' your god does. and theres nothing wrong with being atheist.. the only difference between us is that i believe in one less god than you do .
@SlapThatNoob How about some more cliches borrowed from Hitchens and Dawkins. God's existence can be demonstrated reasonably through the argument from contingency.
@wordonfirevideo dawkins knows what he's talking about. i shared his views before i even knew who he was. god doesnt exist. spend your life doing something more worthwhile
Because there is historical facts, events, and people that back up who our God is. Are there any historical ties like that to any of the other gods you're alluding to, or are they purely mythical, unlike Jesus Christ?
(contd) word "invention," you find: "An invention is a novel composition, device, or process. In addition, there is cultural invention, which is an innovative set of useful social behaviors adopted by people and passed on to others. Inventions often extend the boundaries of human knowledge or experience. An invention that is novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field may be able to obtain the legal protection of a patent." That is far broader than your concept. (contd)
@Nodelusionnow I realize here that "invention" is a somewhat ambiguous term that allows for a certain degree of variable interpretation, and I'm not even sure right now precisely where I myself am drawing the lines (this is a dialogue, so I don't claim to have all the answers). But I do think the Einstein example is the best one to convey the difference where I (and you) are coming from. It is a philosophical difference. The scientific method may be an invention; physical theories are not.
@The9Nazgul I adamantly disagree with you about Einstein, Darwin, Newton and all other scientists as they FORMULATE (invent) expressions of evidence about the Universe. The act of formulation is invention by the definitions that I've given you---as is a musical composition. Scientific "laws" or highly robust theories (like evolution) do not exist UNTIL someone formulates them. How can they possibly exist without the human imgination (at least on Earth--not considering (contd)
@Nodelusionnow So, you are saying then that gravity, evolution, black holes, electromagnetic fields, etc., did not exist until Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, et al. came along?
@The9Nazgul (contd) intelligent alien life forms). "Invention" is not an ambiguous term--it is a well-defined English word. Theories are merely broad, testable, falsifiable explanations---invented by humans! Where do you think theories come from? Re: the monotheistic god--and we'd better stick with the Christian god, and exlude Yahweh and Allah---which are very different gods---it bears every mark of an invention. You may call it metaphysical; I'd call it the product of human (contd)
@Nodelusionnow The Christian concept of God is similar to the other monotheistic religions. It is most similar to the Hebrew Yahweh, being both transcendent and imminent; it has less in common with the Islamic God in that Allah is transcendent, but not necessarily imminent. Like Relativity, it was not "invented."
The term "invention" IS ambiguous -- I know I am not the only one out there who would hold that theories such as Relativity are not "invented," but rather "discovered."
@Nodelusionnow I've never heard of someone referring to "Einstein's invention of Relativity," or "Einstein invented the Theory of Relativity," and if I did, I would immediately correct the person who said it.
I like how all the religious people respond with simple comments like "Oy vey.", covering up there ignorance of the message presented to them. This is obvious in the fact that none of these people actually post information on why they think that way, and instead try to use the illusion of being a brilliant person. Oh, religious people.
"Where did I state that any of those 10,000 religions is "false" or for that matter, "true?"
--Then why consistently bring up the topic of the alleged "origin" of religious belief in the first place? Your remarks are once again irrelevant to the topic of the video.
Just an additional note. I learned on NPR's "Science Friday" today that every human culture examined to date has engaged in study of the night sky. Some were quite sophisticated and analytic, others not. Given that an interest in "astronomy" is so prevalent among humans, I'd be very interested in its evolutionary roots,even if the origins were incidental to other human qualities of intelligence--such as a propensity to seek out agency. The parallels to religion here are quite startling.
@Nodelusionnow Well I agree that both science and religion are interested in questions of causality, science in proximate causality and religion in ultimate causality.
@wordonfirevideo Hmm. Well, the distinction between proximate and ultimate causality is spurious in my estimation. Science is interested simply in causality. Period. But that's not all science investigates. As I've mentioned before, the evidence is quite convincing that while science is not everything, it seems to be ABOUT everything.
Given that humans have invented >10,000 gods, there are really two mildly interesting questions here: 1) why do we believe in a god? and 2) why do we believe in a particular god from among the 10,000? Psychologists and evolutionary biologists have data that suggest that the propensity to accept invisible agency is part of membership in our species. That seems plausible to me. "Belief" in a god, then, is rooted in evolution and has conferred selective advantage on our progenitors Does it now?
@Nodelusionnow No. That's the genetic fallacy. Even if it were true, it would prove absolutely nothing about the objective value of belief in God. More to it, belief in God is altogether credible, once we've grasped the radically contingent nature of finite existence. And the many religions of the world are not "wrong" tout court. They are participations, to varying degrees, in the fullness of faith.
@wordonfirevideo You miss my point. The data are the data. The evidence is the evidence. Humans have invented tens of thousands of gods and religions throughout history. There is significant data that "belief" in invisible agency is a powerful tool in alleviating anxiety and in providing societal cohesion.. Both are obviously useful to human beings, and therefore likely to be selected. As for "fullness of faith," it would seem that many religionists are not nearly as generous as you.
@Nodelusionnow I didn't miss your point at all, and in fact you just reiterated it. It's called the genetic fallacy, namely, that the discovery of the origin of an idea in any way determines the truth or falsity of an idea. Religion might be useful and it might be useless--and finally who cares. What matters is: is religion true. This is why I'm drawing you back to rational argument.
@wordonfirevideo Where did I state that any of those 10,000 religions is "false" or for that matter, "true?" As a scientist, it's not my job to "prove" that any particular god among all those thousands doesn't exist. Such would be a futile undertaking. As a biolgist, I am fascinated by the evolutionary adaptations of all organisms, humans included. An adaptation, even one selected incidentally, that is found in highly diverse forms among every examined human group is particularly fascinating.
@Nodelusionnow Precisely how does belief in a non-existent personal entity, namely God (N.B., not "10,000 gods" -- this is a strawman given that the numbers of individuals who presently believe in and worship such gods are what may be considered statistical outliers, if any exist at all) correspond to any significant adaptive advantage that would transmit to a universal species-wide characteristic pattern of thought? Are the growing numbers of atheists and agnostics indicative of devolution?
@The9Nazgul Excellent questions! For a more thorough analysis, consult Dan Dennett's videos. First off, Hinduism is polytheistic, as is Taoism and other similar religions which emphasize ancestor worship. The immense variety of the world's religions is startling and testifies to the creative, inventive imagination of humans. Therefore, 10,000+ gods is not a "strawman." There are even individuals in Europe who have returned to the worship of the Olympian gods. (cont'd)
@Nodelusionnow First off, my understanding of Hinduism and Taoism is that they are pantheistic, NOT polytheistic, these two being mutually exclusive belief systems. My understanding of pantheism is basically that it is like unto monotheism, except believes that the "One God" is not transcendent. And these individuals in Europe that you speak of, assuming they truly do exist, are statistical outliers. So I still maintain that "10,000 gods" (if by "god" you mean "religion") is a strawman.
@The9Nazgul You should investigate Hinduism and the so-called "pagan" religions more thoroughly. Hinduism is most certainly polytheistic, though as with most polytheistic religions, there are dominant and less-dominant (influential) gods and goddesses. Hinduism is not pantheistic. Perhaps the most famous person who might qualifiy as a pantheist was Albert Einstein--- his god was very much akin to that of the famous Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza.
@Nodelusionnow Again, my understanding of Hinduism is that, fundamentally, the universe is thought to be a part of God (the definition of pantheism), not multiple gods who are merely powerful beings within the world (polytheism). I do not consider Hinduism to be a pagan religion. Regardless, my original point is not so much whether humans have "invented" thousands of polytheistic gods, but rather there r a limited number of mutually exclusive belief systems that have withstood the test of time.
@The9Nazgul Do me a favor? Read virtually any description of Hinduism and its panoply of gods. Wikipedia is a very good source. Hinduism is simply not pantheistic. What makes you think that monotheism is any more enlightened than any other religion? Please prove that, or at least provide evidence for the assertion. Finally, I have never asserted that "religious belief" evolved in humans. I have asserted that the propensity to invent gods and religions (contd)
@Nodelusionnow I have taken a look at Wikipedia, and unfortunately it doesn't shed much light on what it fundamentally is. I had learned that underneath the surface it was still essentially an Eastern pantheistic religion -- that the world is, fundamentally, is, or a part of, God (or Deity, if you prefer).
"Evidence for the assertion"? That's quite a challenge on a 500 char limit youtube "blog." But I'm up for it: Simply put, monotheism is compatible with natural science; polytheism is not.
@The9Nazgul (cont'd) Now for your main question. Religions are useful to human groups. They provide: 1) societal cohesion; 2) assistance in governing; 3) common purpose against adversaries; 4) reduction in anxiety (pie in the sky bye and bye); 5) enhancement of "appropriate" anxiety (what could happen to you if you're not "good"); 6) organizing life principles. Given this value, the tendency to invent gods and religions would be advantageous, and therefore potentially selectable.(cont'd)
@Nodelusionnow The reasons you have just supplied all assume something, namely that the "invented religion" in question is somehow "believable" (i.e., something that is grounded in reality). For example, a religion that proclaimed that the "water god" lives beneath the sea demands humans to join him there... such a religion would never get off the ground (pardon the pun), as it would fly in the face of reality. Thus, a religious belief system must be rooted in reality to be "successful."
@The9Nazgul There is no evidence whatever that "a religious belief system must be rooted in reality to be successful." Indeed, there is much evidence to the contrary. One of the most successful religious systems---one that supported the Roman Empire---was Greco-Roman mythology. Millions worshipped the Olympian gods for centuries. The religion provided societal glue and wonderful stories to convey values. Yet, in our view, there was no "reality" to it whatever. "Belief" is like that.
@Nodelusionnow I beg to differ. The Greco-Roman gods were considered the "movers" behind visible phenomena of nature. At the time, probably the best belief system explaining these phenomena on the market. For various reasons, have since gone the way of the dinosaur, precisely because they have been revealed as untenable to rational creatures (men). These "problems" do not exist in the more enlightened belief systems (specifically monotheism) that came later.
@The9Nazgul (cont'd 3) Is "religiousity" selected per se? No one knows.We do know from separated identical twin studies that a tendency to be "religious" has 50% heritability, the same as musicality and sexual orientation. Perhaps the tendency of societies to invent religions is selected along with other human traits such as a tendency to seek agency. Dennett points out that atheists should not blithely maintain that ALL humans don't need religion.Religion clearly supplies something. (contd)
This has been flagged as spam show
Just so happens, my name is Robert E Barron as well. See my video response "Who Created God?"
reb618 1 day ago
Comment removed
reb618 1 day ago
A strong adherence to the belief in God is narrow- minded. There are plenty of great things in life that make life worth living. It just takes a mind with depth. It takes a genuine curiosity for the beauty hidden in the truth of nature. The narrow-minded don't see it and are emotionally forced to invoke the supernatural.
itzahazylife 5 days ago
You are directed by the Holy Spirit, and therefore you are speaking the truth!
GlobalFaith 6 days ago
You say no matter how many goods we attain, we're never really satisfied. Is that not different for each person? There are plenty of people who claim(ed) to be "really satisfied" with the world / their life. Do you deny that they are?
Secondly, I don't see that the world is inherently imbued with meaning. I would say, rather, that our minds, perceiving the world, seek to imbue it with meaning, and do so.
Also, your arguments are for a spiritual reality, but not for the personal God.
ApeLuck 1 week ago
The biggest predictor of what a person believes is where in the world they happen to be born. Almost no one comes to a belief in a god via sophisticated sounding theological arguments. If they serve any purpose, it is to reassure other believers that someone on their own side has the answers to all these tricky questions non-believers ask. That and the authors of these arguments get to feel like they are fighting the good fight. Problem is all of the arguments in this video are incredibly weak.
cavalrycome 1 week ago
@cavalrycome I would suggest you come out to Southern California. I guarantee that you will find that there is a variety of faiths to choose from. And if your analysis were true, I didn't become Catholic into I was 19, and I was not raised with any faith. So where do I fit in the "it comes from where in the world they are from" theory? Not everyone is simply a product of their environment. Everyone has a choice no matter how much they deny it.
Stitchman3875 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stitchman3875 ", I didn't become Catholic into I was 19, and I was not raised with any faith. So where do I fit in the "it comes from where in the world they are from" theory"
Yeah but did you go are research all the major faiths before making that decisions.. Did you go visit a mosque and a buddist temple etc..
badpanda84 6 days ago
@Stitchman3875 But just out of curoiousity why did you convert to catholism.
badpanda84 6 days ago
@badpanda84 That is a long story, as there are many elements to dissect. I was myself was not raised in any particular religion, as such I spent a lot of my earlier years searching for what I believed. I was exposed to different New Age ideas, and even for a time declared myself to be an Atheist, though not in the Dawkins sense, as it was more from indifference to any idea. To explain it better, the evolution etc, didn't really matter, and I would have ruled it out as a coward's atheism and
Stitchman3875 5 days ago
@Stitchman3875 and a poor excuse to justify a position. This is certainly an inauthentic way to approach. It was more, "this is what I am, and I don't care what you think of it." However, as I progressed, I saw that many of other beliefs possess a light of truth to one degree or another. The folly was as a teen, I was brought to being a Born-Again Fundamentalist. This was one that really conflicted, because I was tolerant of other people's beliefs as they were not. At the time, believing
Stitchman3875 5 days ago
@Stitchman3875 in Jesus fit me best but it seemed like an incomplete theology as Born Again Christians taught it. As I researched the history of Christianity, I found that the Catholic Church was the one that goes back to the beginning of Christianity. And I decided at the time to go and convert. No friends encouraged it or anything. In fact if I was to go any place it would have been Mormon as I had more exposure to them than Catholicism at the time. Plus I was reading more Anti-Catholic
Stitchman3875 5 days ago
@Stitchman3875 material than pro-Catholic. But the level of tolerance I found in the Catholics, and that I didn't have to compromise intellectual ideas such as Evolution, Big Bang etc, as the Church accepts all these, I found that Catholicism was more complete. Furthermore, I saw no real reason to change because everything I wanted spiritually I found it in Catholicism. However, these are just my experiences and my path in the journey. Many people have different pathways they took to arrive
Stitchman3875 5 days ago
@Stitchman3875 at where they are in life. A person's faith is based on their own personal histories, not the environment of where they live. Variances are always present no matter the environment. Everyone has a story that led them where they are, whether it is faith, politics, and preference. Ergo, it is not my place to judge people based on their ideas, beliefs etc. Like I said it's a long story as to my story, and I trying to condense it here for limited space. Hopefully this explains.
Stitchman3875 5 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo Hello, I was recently reading into stories of the apparitions of Our Lady of Garabandal. I was wondering if you had an opinion if the stories of these apparitions are true or not.
GregariousGorilla 1 week ago
Fr. Barron, It is possible that my desire for justice and truth and beauty comes from God. But it could also just be a result of evolution without God. If God didn't exist those desires might still be there anyway. So why not use Occam's razor in believe in the scenario that doesn't require God?
Mystagogia87 2 weeks ago
@Mystagogia87 Because our sense of moral demand is not merely conditioned but properly unconditioned.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
@Mystagogia87
If our desire for justice were simply the product of evolution, then it would be no more than a desire. It would not be a moral imperative. It could have no authority. If our consciences tell us for example that we should not kill, that is not quite the same as wanting not to kill. If the command not to kill comes simply from genetics, then no matter how strong its emotional content, it has no true authority.
roxykatt.blogspot.com
roxykattx 3 days ago
Mr. Barron, you seem like a very nice man (should not be used as a selling point).
But what you have to say is nothing but emotional and personal opinion.
Unlike 2+2=4 <------ That is what it is, no matter how I feel or what I "feel".
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
@Rocketryman Not so! I've proposed rational arguments. Tell me precisely where they're wrong.
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago
“We human beings desire the truth.” Speculative and opinionated.
We desire an answer. Not necessarily the truth.
Our "will" seek the “good”. A function of survival.
There is something in us… That pushes us beyond this world.
Speculative and opinionated.
"And that’s who god is"… Is that suppose to be fact because you wear a collar?
Speculative and opinionated.
You provide no answer, just motivational words for the wishful thinker.
Wanting to believe does not make it real.
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
@wordonfirevideo But why belive in the catholic God specifically..
badpanda84 6 days ago
@Rocketryman The problem with your approach here is the attempt to use linear answers to explain an abstract. The 2+2=4 does not encompass all the answers, it especially doesn't account for the deeper meaning behind things. All the concepts like why are we here, and meanings, are truths that cannot be explained by the use of mathematical approaches, it is far more difficult because there are a plethora or ideas. But they are no less true then the linear and direct answers.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
@Rocketryman Abstracts do not convert once one understand what he or she is experiencing. Once again you are placing concrete answers on abstracts. You're example of a Bic lighter is not a good example. When dealing with non-physical, non-measurable concepts, there is no way to measure what it is through a concrete answer. For instance you cannot measure love in such a way as there are an infinite amount of ways to express it and no too experiences are the same.....
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 Other concepts like preference, value, feelings, and pain cannot be expressed through a concrete reasoning. These experiences even personally felt are always open to reflection and reinterpretation. One can think his feeling is one way, and then realize later that it was a different feeling. Material things are always gonna be the same as there is a generally accepted identity to be given, but non material things are completely different.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 And yes 2+2=4 can give an absolute direction as to relying on a theoretical base, however it has often been seen that because of the variances, that the absolute black and white rarely if ever shows what is actually true.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stitchman3875 - The Bic lighter is a bad example only to someone that lacks understanding or the desire to understand.
The world once being precived as flat was a "non-physical, non-measurable concept"
You sound like a flat-earther.
"For instance you cannot measure love"
Or know what thought taste like. A nonsensical point.
Rocketryman 2 weeks ago
@Rocketryman Well, I can assure that I am not a flat-earther. And if you actually study history, most Greek Scholars didn't believe the Earth was round. Most Christian Scholars knew the Earth was round and were within a few feet of knowing the circumference of the Earth. And no, this is not an appeal to non-physical concept. And your statement of thought simply proved my point, ergo, concrete reasoning does not account for everything that needs to be known
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
@Stitchman3875 Type O, most greek scholars didn't believer the Earth was flat.
Stitchman3875 2 weeks ago
im an athiest and im 16. my mom and dad divorced when i was 2 and i mainly live with my mom and she is a athiest as well but i was not infuenced by her. she let me decide and go to church with my grandparents and dad. i went for about 2 years and srtill didnt find an answer. and at school when i ask kids. well y do u believe in god? its well my parents do. just because as a human we r not smart enough to understand everything doesnt mena oh there must be a god. just cuz we dont have the answer
MW3Insomnia 2 weeks ago
@MW3Insomnia Well, there are some answers that are available to us. One of them is this: there has to be, finally, a non-contingent ground for the contingent universe. Nothing in the universe explains itself. Everything has its being from another. Thus, nothing would exist unless the universe were, ultimately, grounded in some reality whose very nature is to be. And this is what Catholic philosophy means by "God."
wordonfirevideo 2 weeks ago 5
@MW3Insomnia You got lucky otherwise Father Roberts DingDong would already stick in you're butt.
StalinMyLenin 2 weeks ago
@StalinMyLenin (BIG SIGH) Cmon mate! sounds like you cant give a counter argument to Father Barron :P
so all you can do is name call and bully.
Daniel151jesus 1 week ago
Believers doesnt need to see more then they already see in there brains. God is great.
dirtykeskin 1 month ago
One should never forget all the religions that existed before Christianity. At that time there was talk of Gods. What happened to all of them? Are not we humans able to show respect and love for each other without involving God? and if so, why involve God?
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak
"...In the fullness of time, God sent forth His Son..." - the authority of & claims for Christ do *not* depend on His living at the beginning of religion. He is the Source & Goal of all history & all creation - He is before all created things, not in the time of His historical existence, but in importance; because He is not only man, but God also. All good in anything is good for *His* sake - so even "God-free" goodness depends on Him. God is "involved" b/c only God is Real
5355vbxjbj76rvn 1 month ago
@5355vbxjbj76rvn God sounds to me like an excuse to not be able to explain what the universe is and what lies beyond. Admit that without God in your life you would feel bad. Well... I am not you. Peace
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak B/c God is the only reason to show respect & love for each other. If there is no God, it does not matter if I am a nihilist, a moral relativist, a christian, or an atheist because there is no God and there is no meaning in the Universe. It won't matter if I am a sinner or a saint if there isn't God as there is no way to say what is right . To say that we should show respect for others without God is like saying I should objectively never step on a crack; there really is no basis for it.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 Tell me. Do dogs believe in a god? How about bonobos, our closest living relative? Interestingly, both of those species---indeed every advanced social species---has "rules of order" within the group to ensure that individuals "show respect" to each other. Why? The propensity to social order has evolved with each of these species to ensure reproductive success. If dogs and all other social animals live well without a god, are you saying that humans cannot? I'd challenge that.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar If there is no God, there is no reason I should value order over chaos. Just because you like social order doesn't mean I am morally obligated to value order over chaos, and even then I do not have to love, like or respect you if there is no God and if everyone does not have intrinsic value. Without God, there is no reason I should continue living, there is no reason to be kind to anyone (except for selfish reasons) and there is no reason to respect anyone.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 You must be kidding me! My DOG values order over chaos and I'm pretty sure that he doesn't accept the existence of a deity. He deeply values the social order of his human family as shown in his behavior and distress when the order is disrupted. If he were still a wolf (dogs are descended from wolves) living in the wild, he'd be part of a complex social structure. Nope. No god is necessary for social order, rules, "respect," affiliation, "the law"....the list goes on.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar It doesn't matter what your dog does. Your dog sniffs other dog's butts, should I sniff your butt if I were to meet you? Your dog is also simply following his instincts? Should I always follow my instincts which usually tell me to be a selfish person & to do what I want. Most atheists I have met say the conscience arises because of evolution which is caused by natural selection which has no meaning or design. So, I should value order because meaningless existence bred it into me?
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 If you understood ANYTHING about animal behavior---you should actually do some reading b/c it might help you----you'd know that animals are in part instinctual, as we are, and in part cognitive, as we purport to be. You should value order because your life is BETTER if you do, just as my dog's life is better because he values it! You may want to google: "altruism in animals" for something very revealing to you!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar Well that doesn't mean I should respect or love you. Atheism supports more of a utilitarian society in which there is no need to love or respect you. And besides, there is no reason to like order better than chaos. I might prefer chaos, who is to say I am wrong? If everything has come from blind chance and not from God, then the want for order is just an opinion. I don't like following blind opinions that come without any meaning. It's just my opinion like your God-less morality.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 So you'd prefer to find "meaning" under the auspices of a delusion which has no verifiable evidence whatever to support it? Why is it not possible to find meaning as part of Nature / the magnificent Cosmos----even if it has come about through chance alone? My dog's life is a good one for him. He understands his place in the family. He does his work. He has a sense of fair play. His physical and emotional needs are met. Why isn't such a life wonderful?
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar If I come from nothing and will eventually become nothing once again, then what I do now means nothing. Nothing matters if there is no God. Your dog does nothing to change that. Your dog simply follows what the universe has bred into him from evolution which is not an infallible source. Your dog was taught by nothing meaning what he does is based on nothing. I don't have to follow your morality if there is no God as there is nothing binding or universal about it.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 So believe in some god and follow Sharia law! LOL Do you see how ridiculous it is to put credence in the "teachings" of men who thought the earth was flat and lived in the Iron Age? And then, how even more absurd it is to think that because those teaching were "from a god" that they have to be correct and they give "meaning" to your life when you'd otherwise have no "meaning?" Life is the gift of our Cosmos--we are fortunate to be here--even if by chance! Rejoice at that!
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar Well, without God, I see no reason I should be here going through the boredom, suffering, anger, and sadness that everyone experiences. Personally, I find that the only place to find true meaning and joy is in belief, faith and specifically Christianity. I want to be like the saints who walked towards there martyrdom with a smile on their face. There may be good reason to have morality without God, but I see perfect joy as only residing within the saints of Christianity.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 Well, you're certainly welcome to that point of veiw. From my perspective, it's absurd and delusional. Why are you so afraid to live in the "not knowing?" Isn't it better to live skeptically, aware that no one can really HAVE all the answers, than to live with pat answers and illusory certainty? Frankly, my life is FILLED with meaning and beauty. I'm a skeptic. I doubt everything. Only verifiable evidence is valuable. Supernaturalism, superstion, magic? Worthless.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar Well friend, I don't like the "not knowing" because I see no meaning without a discernable purpose to everything. If there is no over-arching purpose, then I see this as a need-less span of time I could do without. And I find beauty and meaning in the virtues, in stories of love and compassion, in the prophets, and in Christ.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 Many people find meaning and beauty in the plays of Shakespeare, in the stories of the Q'uran, in the poetry of Keats, or in the mythology of the Greeks. It's all fiction. But if it gives you pleasure to live in delusion...well.... As for myself, such a life would be boring, without challenge, with NO meaning because there's no verifiable evidence of any of it, and very much like living as a character in a novel rather than living a REAL human life. Oh well.
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@ContrabassClar I see beauty in most of these things because there is truly beauty in this world (a reason I believe in God). And I am usually disgusted by Atheism (whether it is a delusion or not) because of the pride and disdain it usually produces in its members. Which is why I'm getting tired of carrying this dialogue with you. Good luck, God bless, and I hope you find the truth (whatever it is).
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 Ah! Disdain? Pride? Hmm. It seems to me that the real disdain for one's humanity comes in accepting notions without verifiable evidence for those notions. The real pride is to demand that others accept those notions without evidence. It seems to me that skepticism is neither disdainful nor prideful. It simply demands verifiable evidence before it accepts "stuff." If supernaturalists dislike that---well, what can I say?
ContrabassClar 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 And as a Christian one must have an answer for everything... Is that what you're saying? I respect you without believing in a God. Much like I enjoy to celebrate Christmas without believing in either Jesus or Santa.
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak I'm sorry friend, but I don't understand what you are trying to say by the first sentence. I just think it is foolish to say that I should love and respect others w/o God. If you can believe there is a moral authority without God, then great but I find that if there is no God, then a morality similar to a nietzschian view is the only smart "morality" you can have. To try and have a christian love and respect for each other if we are not equal or of value is foolish in my opinion.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 But why? just because you don't belive it's possible? Please answer this question ... Is it possible to celebrate Christmas without believing in Santa?
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak Yeah you can celebrate Christmas, first because Christmas is more about Christ than Santa to me, and second because it is about the spirit of Christmas and the love that it creates. But that is because I believe in the value of those things that are caused by God, not simply because it's a part of the season or a tradition.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 I still marvel over your sworn duty to someone you have been taught to believe in, but if you just feel good, it's ok for me. I'm not going to say "God bless you" I would rather say "I bless you". Peace
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak You marvel over my faith in Christ, I marvel at your faith in chance. Good luck, God bless, and I hope you find the truth.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 I do not want you to say "God bless" to me. If you can not wish me good luck without involving God I can not see you as anything other than the result of brainwashing. you of anyone should know that no one, whether Christian or not have found the truth yet (if ever)
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak It was a sign of good will. Would you rather me ask God to curse you? If you can't take a sign of good will, I can't see you as anything other than a prideful atheist who is afraid of God.
And we both believe to have found the truth. I believe it is Christ, you believe it is your atheism. If you don't think Atheism is truth, you should probably reevaluate your life and change belief systems. So, since I don't want to hurt your feelings, I'll just say farewell and wish you good luck.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
@MagicMartin5 Then keep your mouth shut while you are walking on the earth. Damn tired to listen to your fairy tales! we atheists have to endure your churches and other crap, is it any wonder that we explode in anger!? :@
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak What happened to loving and respecting humans without God? This is the mentality that Atheism tends to create: Pride and disdain to those who don't agree with them.
MagicMartin5 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@MagicMartin5 "And we both believe to have found the truth". You maybe, but not me!
"If you don't think Atheism is truth, you should probably reevaluate your life and change belief systems" What exactly do you mean by that!? Christianity came and called anyone who did not convert "pagans and sinners". Is it to show respect when one notes that I made the wrong choice when I do not even chosen. Atheism = life itself. Christianity = think they are superior
Dnamsak 1 month ago
@Dnamsak --"explode in anger"....you mean like the how atheist regimes do toward believers?
Archangel866 2 weeks ago
@Archangel866 Yes, I become damn irritated when a so-called believers can not follow his own golden rules and turn the other cheek! Now, I will not talk about this more in English. finds it exhausting. We can continue in Swedish
Dnamsak 2 weeks ago
@Dnamsak If you are deadly serious about trying to destroy God, then why not register for an undergraduate course in Theology at the University of Leuven (I think the Pope was a Professor there). The teaching is world class, and your counter-arguments will then have even more potency.
gwalj 2 weeks ago
@gwalj Eller så kan vi prata om det på mitt språk vilket tordes göra det något lättare. I've already done it in my language. However, I end up really at a disadvantage when trying to argue in English, because I read the Bible in Swedish and Swedish only. But thanks for your tip.
Dnamsak 2 weeks ago
I think maybe what you don't understand is that, in fact, 'justice' is enough. Thereafter, it really is up to you. Live and explore this strange life as you will.
What you are trying to do is masochistically submit to an imaginary force. Why? Because culturally your institution has given you 'power' with one hand but taken the truth of life away with the other. The power you are given is 'power' over others. That is not good. That is a self -deception.
Sarusource 1 month ago
google "peter kreeft 20 arguments for the existence of God" for a pretty good summary of some philospophical proofs for God
MZITinfo 1 month ago
Im a 15 year old from Australia and i love father barron, your like my hero! :) cant wait to watch Catholicism.
Daniel151jesus 1 month ago
@Daniel151jesus I'm coming to Australia in March of 2012. Thanks for your kind words.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 3
@wordonfirevideo Oh cool!!! what part of Australia? and what for? bcuz if your gonna be doing a sermon or a mass or any thing like that and your around my area, ill try come to it. :)
Daniel151jesus 1 month ago
@wordonfirevideo --watch out for rabid wallabies!
Archangel866 2 weeks ago
@Daniel151jesus Father Roberts loves you also.
StalinMyLenin 2 weeks ago
@StalinMyLenin Yes, but not the love your talking about, rather he agape me!
ah-gah-pay meaning > To want whats best for another person. and im preety sure he dose.
Daniel151jesus 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hi this is God. Hi thanks for the video, good job true believers. For you none-believers, trust the Lord, I sure did created the universe. You should be thankfull to that and, since I am running a little low on cash, send some money to my current adress: God, Tranekaervej 58, 8240 Risskov, Denmark. Otherwise, burn in hell.
wazzupimgod 1 month ago
if you dont know i will mention it for you the bible has been changed 100s of times by man...so how come you think its based on anything but a way to control people...
dcacnc 1 month ago
Thanks!!! Skeptic probably is a better word for it plus it takes away a bit of the hate associated with atheist
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
Christians: Go read Feuerbach and Marx.
Atheists: Go read Kierkegaard and Dostoevsky.
excel958 1 month ago
@excel958 I've read both Feuerbach and Marx. In fact, I did my Masters thesis in philosophy on Marx. I'm still a Christian and still a priest.
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 10
Brilliant!
adonelahi 1 month ago
Christian and proud:D
adonelahi 1 month ago
@adonelahi How can you be proud of such an irrational position?
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
@Studmuffen4444 You claim the universe was made from nothing, your point of view isn't even provable through reason, empirical observable means or otherwise and you call adonelahi irrational?
GeneralGaius 1 month ago
@GeneralGaius You claim the universe was made by god, and god from nothing, your point of view isn't even provable throught reason, empirical observable means or otherwise and you call my position irrational?
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
@Studmuffen4444 The universe just happening isn't provable at all. If you examine the universe and you study it's complexity then it is obvious that it wasn't just random atoms coming together. If you study the universe then you can realize that nothing can exist in itself. nothing on earth is the cause of it's own existence there is something that caused that existence and it clearly is not a random explosion.
Ontheblockent 1 month ago
Comment removed
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
@Ontheblockent Random explosin?? Thats how you view it? It is a FACT that the universe expanded 13.7 billion years ago. Theres no arguing that. Again your aguing that everything has to have a cause, but you say god can exist in itself? Why not save the magical step and say the universe can exist in itself?
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
@Studmuffen4444 We know the universe can not exist in itself. In fact if it was cause by atoms colliding. where did these atoms come from? and how can you say there is no arguing that when there really is no proof the earth is that old. God is the necessary being. He is the cause we are the effect. in fact there is too much order and plan for this world to be the subject of the coming together of atoms.
Ontheblockent 1 month ago
I believe in God.
moveaxebx 1 month ago
So the universe accidentally came to existence? Yeah, right! Well, why don't we just say that the big bang was just the universe farting through its butt. Or there was an accident which produced elemental accidents which created life accidentally. So we are all accidentally here living life accidentally. LIKE WHATEVER! Well I suppose this should make us more people of love & understanding, hey. In other words, we should be more kind saying "Relax, brother, remember it was all an accident."
Coredeemer 1 month ago
I believe in God *--*
slowep6 1 month ago
Atheist and proud:D
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago 7
@Studmuffen4444 How can you be proud of such an irrational position?
wordonfirevideo 1 month ago 17
@wordonfirevideo Don't bother, Father. He's proud because he doesn't know better. Youtube is filled with wannabe-atheists who don't even know the basics of their position.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wordonfirevideo I'll ask you the same question
Studmuffen4444 1 month ago
@Studmuffen4444 Good for you! You might consider whether you're really a skeptic rather than merely an atheist, though. "Skeptic" is a much broader term and I think much more accurately reflects the position of those of us who reject supernaturalism, magic, and superstition as having insufficient evidence for rational acceptance. Supernaturalist is an excellent term for all religionists---considering that their variety is so enormous.
bassclarinet2000 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why do humans believe in god?"
There is only one answer, ignorance.
AssassinOfIgnorance 1 month ago
If God is all powerful, could he create a rock he himself cannot lift?
NoobyDavid 2 months ago
@NoobyDavid No. And he can't "make" 2 + 2 = 5 either. To say that God is omnipotent is to say that he can do anything. The rock in question and the equation in question are not things.
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago 5
@wordonfirevideo Wtf, if a rock is not a thing, then what is it?
NoobyDavid 2 months ago
@NoobyDavid asking can god make a rock so large that not even he himself could lift it has way too many logical contradictions. First, a rock has to be a certain size to be a rock. Any smaller and its a stone. Any larger and its not a rock. Secondly, theists assume that god is infinite. So asking whether god can make a rock so large that not even he himself could lift it is basically asking is there a rock out there thats larger than infinity. Nothing can be larger than(continued)
jamaicanification 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wordonfirevideo
@NoobyDavid infinity, because infinity is endless. Its like saying that because there isn't a number larger than infinity, then concluding that the numeral system has a limit because of that. It makes not logical sense. And 2+2=4 regardless of what out perception of the equation is or isn't. If we didn't exist, 2+2=4 would stand irrespective of our existence or our perception of it
jamaicanification 2 months ago in playlist More videos from wordonfirevideo
And 2+2=4 only because of perception, so he actually can.
NoobyDavid 2 months ago
@NoobyDavid I think your mental capacity can only handle the complexity of Bieber's songs.
Don't ask a question if you aren't ready to hear the answer.
SmokiSounds 1 month ago
@NoobyDavid I was thinking more along the lines of He would always be bigger than the rock.
kubrox91 1 month ago
Do people feel smarter or better when they don't believe in God ? I think its much more meaningful to have a purpose and live in God's light and wisdom.
Physicskid1000 2 months ago
to me the ultimate worship is trying to understand that source
as God said: "i am within u and u are within me"
i know that im part of God i know that im his body
truw me God understands herself
im the eyes and the fingers of God
if i suffer God suffers if im in joy God has joy
i know u heard it all before but if this isnt the truth then what is?
what is?
here i am...and i am u... u think u dont know me but i know u
who am i father? who am i?
RaymGhost 2 months ago
Good ol' Summa Contra Gentiles eh Father?! I love it!
AdversusHaereses 2 months ago
hey .. been seeing all your videos .. your cool .... check out the show "dexter" season 6 .. give thoughts :)
vimalj89 2 months ago
Fr. Barron, re: the argument from desire. I eat food, I'm full for a while, and always hungry again. It seems my hunger can't be satisfied by the food of the world. That doesn't mean that there is a transcendent "food itself" that corresponds to the holy longing of my belly. Why does our dissatisfaction with the justice that we achieve, then, point to a transcendental justice?
Mystagogia87 3 months ago
@Mystagogia87 Well, I don't desire unconditioned food! I'm perfectly content with sufficient and even satisfying food. But my mind does indeed seek unconditioned truth and my will unconditioned goodness.
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
Comment removed
rojasrory 3 weeks ago
Paul was at odds against Peter. Peter's church Israel was put away for the gentiles. Peter is not the first pope.
2 And I went up by revelation, and communicated to them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,... 4 And this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage),
nickma71 3 months ago
Matthew 10:5 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: “Do not go into the way of the Gentiles, and do not enter a city of the Samaritans. 6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
1 Timothy However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life.
nickma71 3 months ago
Im not sure i can believe in the bible, but there is something that leads me in life. It led me to where I am now. Things have happened that didn't make sense at the time, but looking back, it seems as if i have been guided to where i am now. And if things work out, I will never be able to repay the happiness that i have been given.
NatureGnome 3 months ago
I think that people should do good in life depending on if there's a god or not...... people argue or compromise....but really its what one persons belief is.....cause all people cant be supported by others beliefs.....so every one is right in there own way...depending on what others believe in....I'm not arguing, its just my opinion......=)
halo3fifty15 3 months ago
So did anyone actually listen to this with an open mind? No? Didn't think so.
If you just want the jist of what he says till about 2:14 , its that God is a someone we need to look up to. There is so much injustice in the world that we need that divine and perfect being to strive towards. He doesn't say anything about whether god is real or not (up till around 2:14) he just says that people believe in a god as a symbol of hope.
krunkaintdead69 3 months ago
theres nothing more annoying than people trying to convert you... god doesnt exist.. stop wasting your lives ...
SlapThatNoob 3 months ago
@SlapThatNoob being annoyed at people who believe in something you say doesn't exist is truly a sign of denial. i hope you find peace.
FaithandReason101 3 months ago
@FaithandReason101 im not in denial about anything... i know that god doesnt exist. i dont need a fake god to be happy. my life couldnt be better.
SlapThatNoob 3 months ago
@SlapThatNoob Sure sounds like you're blissfully happy!
wordonfirevideo 3 months ago
@SlapThatNoob : You possess empirical proof that God does not exist? I'd sure be interested in seeing it.
2Maccabees 2 months ago
@2Maccabees the proof is that no one's ever seen or heard god... he's made up... there's absolutely zero proof that he exists. theres so many different gods that different people believe in.. they 'know' their god exists just like you 'know' your god does. and theres nothing wrong with being atheist.. the only difference between us is that i believe in one less god than you do .
SlapThatNoob 2 months ago
@SlapThatNoob How about some more cliches borrowed from Hitchens and Dawkins. God's existence can be demonstrated reasonably through the argument from contingency.
wordonfirevideo 2 months ago
@wordonfirevideo dawkins knows what he's talking about. i shared his views before i even knew who he was. god doesnt exist. spend your life doing something more worthwhile
SlapThatNoob 2 months ago
@SlapThatNoob
Because there is historical facts, events, and people that back up who our God is. Are there any historical ties like that to any of the other gods you're alluding to, or are they purely mythical, unlike Jesus Christ?
MorbidlyDeceased 2 months ago
This guy along with Fr. Corapi are the smartest people I've ever heard speak.
MorbidlyDeceased 2 months ago 4
this guy is good haha... i am 100% a beleiver now
brennanjohnify 3 months ago
(contd) word "invention," you find: "An invention is a novel composition, device, or process. In addition, there is cultural invention, which is an innovative set of useful social behaviors adopted by people and passed on to others. Inventions often extend the boundaries of human knowledge or experience. An invention that is novel and not obvious to others skilled in the same field may be able to obtain the legal protection of a patent." That is far broader than your concept. (contd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow I realize here that "invention" is a somewhat ambiguous term that allows for a certain degree of variable interpretation, and I'm not even sure right now precisely where I myself am drawing the lines (this is a dialogue, so I don't claim to have all the answers). But I do think the Einstein example is the best one to convey the difference where I (and you) are coming from. It is a philosophical difference. The scientific method may be an invention; physical theories are not.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul I adamantly disagree with you about Einstein, Darwin, Newton and all other scientists as they FORMULATE (invent) expressions of evidence about the Universe. The act of formulation is invention by the definitions that I've given you---as is a musical composition. Scientific "laws" or highly robust theories (like evolution) do not exist UNTIL someone formulates them. How can they possibly exist without the human imgination (at least on Earth--not considering (contd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow So, you are saying then that gravity, evolution, black holes, electromagnetic fields, etc., did not exist until Einstein, Newton, Maxwell, Darwin, et al. came along?
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul (contd) intelligent alien life forms). "Invention" is not an ambiguous term--it is a well-defined English word. Theories are merely broad, testable, falsifiable explanations---invented by humans! Where do you think theories come from? Re: the monotheistic god--and we'd better stick with the Christian god, and exlude Yahweh and Allah---which are very different gods---it bears every mark of an invention. You may call it metaphysical; I'd call it the product of human (contd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow The Christian concept of God is similar to the other monotheistic religions. It is most similar to the Hebrew Yahweh, being both transcendent and imminent; it has less in common with the Islamic God in that Allah is transcendent, but not necessarily imminent. Like Relativity, it was not "invented."
The term "invention" IS ambiguous -- I know I am not the only one out there who would hold that theories such as Relativity are not "invented," but rather "discovered."
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow I've never heard of someone referring to "Einstein's invention of Relativity," or "Einstein invented the Theory of Relativity," and if I did, I would immediately correct the person who said it.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
sigh i wish god really existed..it would be awesome if he was.excluding the hell and kill the witches and all that of course.
chrisviolet13 3 months ago
I like how all the religious people respond with simple comments like "Oy vey.", covering up there ignorance of the message presented to them. This is obvious in the fact that none of these people actually post information on why they think that way, and instead try to use the illusion of being a brilliant person. Oh, religious people.
FlashProduktions 3 months ago
Can someone please give me a good reason to believe in a god?
I don't care which god, I just any good reason to believe in ANY god.
If you can't speak clearly, & give me good reason to believe, go away...Don't bother...
Zentz29 3 months ago
@Zentz29 to feel like you know everything, to feel like you're not ignorant when you really are
smwExpert 3 months ago
@smwExpert That's the first real answer I have ever got to that question.
Zentz29 3 months ago
@Zentz29 Still isnt a good reason. Reminds me of cults.
FlashProduktions 3 months ago
"Where did I state that any of those 10,000 religions is "false" or for that matter, "true?"
--Then why consistently bring up the topic of the alleged "origin" of religious belief in the first place? Your remarks are once again irrelevant to the topic of the video.
grunderlyme 3 months ago
i wish i could believe in god >.>
naveslaikss 4 months ago
Just an additional note. I learned on NPR's "Science Friday" today that every human culture examined to date has engaged in study of the night sky. Some were quite sophisticated and analytic, others not. Given that an interest in "astronomy" is so prevalent among humans, I'd be very interested in its evolutionary roots,even if the origins were incidental to other human qualities of intelligence--such as a propensity to seek out agency. The parallels to religion here are quite startling.
Nodelusionnow 4 months ago
@Nodelusionnow Well I agree that both science and religion are interested in questions of causality, science in proximate causality and religion in ultimate causality.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Hmm. Well, the distinction between proximate and ultimate causality is spurious in my estimation. Science is interested simply in causality. Period. But that's not all science investigates. As I've mentioned before, the evidence is quite convincing that while science is not everything, it seems to be ABOUT everything.
Nodelusionnow 4 months ago
@Nodelusionnow Oy vey.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago
Given that humans have invented >10,000 gods, there are really two mildly interesting questions here: 1) why do we believe in a god? and 2) why do we believe in a particular god from among the 10,000? Psychologists and evolutionary biologists have data that suggest that the propensity to accept invisible agency is part of membership in our species. That seems plausible to me. "Belief" in a god, then, is rooted in evolution and has conferred selective advantage on our progenitors Does it now?
Nodelusionnow 4 months ago
@Nodelusionnow No. That's the genetic fallacy. Even if it were true, it would prove absolutely nothing about the objective value of belief in God. More to it, belief in God is altogether credible, once we've grasped the radically contingent nature of finite existence. And the many religions of the world are not "wrong" tout court. They are participations, to varying degrees, in the fullness of faith.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo You miss my point. The data are the data. The evidence is the evidence. Humans have invented tens of thousands of gods and religions throughout history. There is significant data that "belief" in invisible agency is a powerful tool in alleviating anxiety and in providing societal cohesion.. Both are obviously useful to human beings, and therefore likely to be selected. As for "fullness of faith," it would seem that many religionists are not nearly as generous as you.
Nodelusionnow 4 months ago
@Nodelusionnow I didn't miss your point at all, and in fact you just reiterated it. It's called the genetic fallacy, namely, that the discovery of the origin of an idea in any way determines the truth or falsity of an idea. Religion might be useful and it might be useless--and finally who cares. What matters is: is religion true. This is why I'm drawing you back to rational argument.
wordonfirevideo 4 months ago
@wordonfirevideo Where did I state that any of those 10,000 religions is "false" or for that matter, "true?" As a scientist, it's not my job to "prove" that any particular god among all those thousands doesn't exist. Such would be a futile undertaking. As a biolgist, I am fascinated by the evolutionary adaptations of all organisms, humans included. An adaptation, even one selected incidentally, that is found in highly diverse forms among every examined human group is particularly fascinating.
Nodelusionnow 4 months ago
@Nodelusionnow Precisely how does belief in a non-existent personal entity, namely God (N.B., not "10,000 gods" -- this is a strawman given that the numbers of individuals who presently believe in and worship such gods are what may be considered statistical outliers, if any exist at all) correspond to any significant adaptive advantage that would transmit to a universal species-wide characteristic pattern of thought? Are the growing numbers of atheists and agnostics indicative of devolution?
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul Excellent questions! For a more thorough analysis, consult Dan Dennett's videos. First off, Hinduism is polytheistic, as is Taoism and other similar religions which emphasize ancestor worship. The immense variety of the world's religions is startling and testifies to the creative, inventive imagination of humans. Therefore, 10,000+ gods is not a "strawman." There are even individuals in Europe who have returned to the worship of the Olympian gods. (cont'd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow First off, my understanding of Hinduism and Taoism is that they are pantheistic, NOT polytheistic, these two being mutually exclusive belief systems. My understanding of pantheism is basically that it is like unto monotheism, except believes that the "One God" is not transcendent. And these individuals in Europe that you speak of, assuming they truly do exist, are statistical outliers. So I still maintain that "10,000 gods" (if by "god" you mean "religion") is a strawman.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul You should investigate Hinduism and the so-called "pagan" religions more thoroughly. Hinduism is most certainly polytheistic, though as with most polytheistic religions, there are dominant and less-dominant (influential) gods and goddesses. Hinduism is not pantheistic. Perhaps the most famous person who might qualifiy as a pantheist was Albert Einstein--- his god was very much akin to that of the famous Jewish philosopher, Baruch Spinoza.
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow Again, my understanding of Hinduism is that, fundamentally, the universe is thought to be a part of God (the definition of pantheism), not multiple gods who are merely powerful beings within the world (polytheism). I do not consider Hinduism to be a pagan religion. Regardless, my original point is not so much whether humans have "invented" thousands of polytheistic gods, but rather there r a limited number of mutually exclusive belief systems that have withstood the test of time.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul Do me a favor? Read virtually any description of Hinduism and its panoply of gods. Wikipedia is a very good source. Hinduism is simply not pantheistic. What makes you think that monotheism is any more enlightened than any other religion? Please prove that, or at least provide evidence for the assertion. Finally, I have never asserted that "religious belief" evolved in humans. I have asserted that the propensity to invent gods and religions (contd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow I have taken a look at Wikipedia, and unfortunately it doesn't shed much light on what it fundamentally is. I had learned that underneath the surface it was still essentially an Eastern pantheistic religion -- that the world is, fundamentally, is, or a part of, God (or Deity, if you prefer).
"Evidence for the assertion"? That's quite a challenge on a 500 char limit youtube "blog." But I'm up for it: Simply put, monotheism is compatible with natural science; polytheism is not.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul (cont'd) Now for your main question. Religions are useful to human groups. They provide: 1) societal cohesion; 2) assistance in governing; 3) common purpose against adversaries; 4) reduction in anxiety (pie in the sky bye and bye); 5) enhancement of "appropriate" anxiety (what could happen to you if you're not "good"); 6) organizing life principles. Given this value, the tendency to invent gods and religions would be advantageous, and therefore potentially selectable.(cont'd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow The reasons you have just supplied all assume something, namely that the "invented religion" in question is somehow "believable" (i.e., something that is grounded in reality). For example, a religion that proclaimed that the "water god" lives beneath the sea demands humans to join him there... such a religion would never get off the ground (pardon the pun), as it would fly in the face of reality. Thus, a religious belief system must be rooted in reality to be "successful."
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul There is no evidence whatever that "a religious belief system must be rooted in reality to be successful." Indeed, there is much evidence to the contrary. One of the most successful religious systems---one that supported the Roman Empire---was Greco-Roman mythology. Millions worshipped the Olympian gods for centuries. The religion provided societal glue and wonderful stories to convey values. Yet, in our view, there was no "reality" to it whatever. "Belief" is like that.
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago
@Nodelusionnow I beg to differ. The Greco-Roman gods were considered the "movers" behind visible phenomena of nature. At the time, probably the best belief system explaining these phenomena on the market. For various reasons, have since gone the way of the dinosaur, precisely because they have been revealed as untenable to rational creatures (men). These "problems" do not exist in the more enlightened belief systems (specifically monotheism) that came later.
The9Nazgul 3 months ago
@The9Nazgul (cont'd 3) Is "religiousity" selected per se? No one knows.We do know from separated identical twin studies that a tendency to be "religious" has 50% heritability, the same as musicality and sexual orientation. Perhaps the tendency of societies to invent religions is selected along with other human traits such as a tendency to seek agency. Dennett points out that atheists should not blithely maintain that ALL humans don't need religion.Religion clearly supplies something. (contd)
Nodelusionnow 3 months ago