The only reason the Catholic population has remained relatively stable in the last few decades is because of the huge influx of immigrants from south of the border who are poorly educated in all fields including their Catholic religion. Clearly legions of educated Catholics have left the Church. In the United States, the most poorly educated and most religious country in the First world, atheism has grown faster than any religion, doubling in less than 20 years.
@Apacalola Ah yes, the secularization thesis...which has been proven wrong over and over again. The most Christian nation in the world is (wait for it) The United States of America, a place where liberal ideas and modern education are fully on offer. Get past this early twentieth century prejudice and look at the reality on the ground.
Here are a few additional facts of interest. 1) Referring to atheism as a "denomination" is like referring to baldness as a hair color; 2) While the number of Catholics in the U.S. has held constant, due to immigration, 1/3 of the respondents to the PEW survey said they were raised Catholic, but no longer are; 3) 10% of the adult U.S. population call themselves former Catholics; 4) 25% of 18-29 year olds have no religion.
aren't american catholics stable because of the influx of poor and not very well educated lationos? -what was said about the genesis of the Nones surly is not false- but religion is in a tricky spot here - a re-dogmatisation or re-fundamentalisation - will drive away more anti-atheists into the categorie of Nones - then there will be world of atheists and Nones and a world of fundamentalists -and they will be separated
Wrd: I'm surprised that you would use such circular reasoning! You, yourself, in your previous response ascribed "humility" to your god and described exactly how this god is hampered by the blasphemy laws of Isalm! Be VERY careful. I've noticed that Christians, more than others, enjoy explaining the way the world is by such phrases as "the will of god." The evidence indicates that a "god" didn't put the drive to INVENT fantastic religions into humans---but Darwinian NATURAL selection did!
@BrentGrainger2000 Actually despite speculations on the part of Daniel Dennet and co, memetic evolution is relatively discredited and certainly not a focus of significant evolutionary study. The 'evidence' has pretty much nothing to say about the 'hard' problem consciousness. Dennet is confident we 'will' explain it, but that's no evidence at all, plus his current views are harshly critiqued. The 'hard' problem is directly connected to the issue of human creativity, so the 'evidence; says little
@MrWildbill20056 Why are you talking about consciousness? The facts: 1) every group of humans has invented a god or gods; 2) this indicates that humans, for whatever reason, have evolved a drive to invent gods and religions; 3) why might this be? One very good explanation: humans have a drive to explain things and to project "agency" or "will" onto Nature, even if the explanations only involve fantastical ideas, invisible friends, or "ground of being" sky wizards. Quite simple, really.
@Mike96727 Why am I invoking consciousness? It is the root of such acts of imaginative creativity, and if we want to speak about its 'evolution' we should be able to establish it can be governed by natural selection. As things stand at least, despite Penrose's heroic attempts there is even remotely useful biological model. Thus talk of evolution of 'creative drives' is dubious at best. Any consquent resort to memes fails on the best of it being at best dubious and at worst debunked, science.
@MrWildbill20056 By your standards, no behavior could be judged to fall under the aegis of natural selection! Yet, that is patently false. The most casual consideration of advanced social animals provides abundant evidence for the selection of behaviors that clearly confer selective advantage. The invention of tools, words, interactive social rules, or gods is all the same! All could be useful for survival. The manifold invention of gods and religions in every culture speaks for itself.
@Mike96727 Ah now you are making an understanable error. Behaviour, with a genetic basis, which functionally relates to the environment a species evolves in is automatically subject to natural selection ie kin selection with the 'green beard' effect.Products of the creative imagination have no identifiable genetic basis, which has led to 'Memetics' being regarded as modern day 'Lamarckism.' 'Creating' a contingent belief system is thus in no way safely attributed to any evolutionary process.
@MrWildbill20056 . The brain structure (& its genetic basis) required to invent a tool (a creative act of significant intelligence) is surely the subject of Nat. Sel.. Similarly, the brain structure required to invent a god or religion (a similar creative act) is also subject to Nat. Sel. If the propensity to see imaginary agency has survival value, the brain sturucture will certainly be retained. It is the PROPENSITY, not the SPECIFIC belief that is retained.--hence untold numbers of gods!
@Mike96727 Ah you are pretty much skirting consciousness altogether. There is no adequate model for the emergence of consciousness in a biological system. It may well be an exaptation which is under no direct genetic influence. Brain structure alone is not sufficient to answer the 'hard problem' of consciousness, which put simply is 'why is there an I?' If the 'I' as seems the case, is not under direct genetic regulation, then any propensity to state 'I believe' cannot be naturally selected for.
@MrWildbill20056 The origins / characteristics of consciousness is YOUR issue, not MINE! While not an uninteresting problem, its solution will be interdisciplinary & a product of a much more detailed understanding of the relationship between cognition and brain function at every level from molecular to anatomical. Could a computer be conscious? :-) The OBSERVABLE facts about humans and gods are quite simple. They convince me that humans invent gods, mostly to explain stuff, & to control others.
@Mike96727 Actually no, if you want to invoke evolution by natural selection, you must demonstrate that there is heritable variation within the population. If the capacity to create a model of 'God' does not have a genetic basis then describing it as evolutionally emergeny is distinctly unsafe. Further you may not assert it will have a solution, only that it may, and that's something many scientists in the field doubt hugely. Correlation does not imply Causation :)
@MrWildbill20056 Of course I can assert that the problem will have a solution! All problems have a solution--though it may not be realized soon by science. I stand by my point. The capacity to invent gods clearly has a genetic basis, as does EVERY OTHER CAPABILITY of H. sapiens. Are the SPECIFICS of the molecular biology elucidated? Clearly not. Is it a capability that has evolved--like every other capability? Undoubtedly! Your theism is getting in the way of your science. Wishful thinking.
@Mike96727 I think we will find I am the molecular zoologist here :P First it is not a safe assumption that humans will ultimately 'know everything.' Quantum physics already holds that certain things are unknowable, so it's no leap at all to believe that the solutions to certain problems may not be 'knowable.' Second you are confusing 'genetic basis' with 'variation based on heritable genetic elements.' If conscious 'ideas' are not selectable, they cannot be termed evolutionary adaptations.
@MrWildbill20056 You have no idea what my training is in. But I continue to doubt your ability to separate theistic bias from good science. First, science must BEGIN with the notion that everything is explainable naturally. Otherwise one is defeated before one begins. Second, we are NOT talking about a SPECIFIC invention (idea) here. We are talking about 1) the CAPABILITY and 2) the PROPENSITY to invent invisible agents to explain natural events. As a theist, that's what YOU do yourself! QED
@Mike96727 I infer you are no adept of evolutionary theory from your commentary. First I would say that I disagree with your first premise. A good scientist questions even the above, but works on a rule of thumb. Secondly I would argue that you are refuting 'knowability' with 'explicability' which are not synomymous. Thirdly Capability I grant as belief is clearly a function of consciousness. The only 'evidence' ie from Hamer, is widely regarded as bad science and non repeatable.
@MrWildbill20056 I'm not certain where you received your academic training in biology but it seems to me sadly lacking in the basics. This discussion, like our last when you refused to acknowledge the actual practice of religionists as defining the religion, is leadingus nowhere. You cast unsupported aspersions on the research of others and give up on the scientific method without even using it! You divert a discussion of the invention of gods into the nature of consciousness. Ridiculous.
@Mike96727 Really, you resort to invective, always a sign of a winning argument :P How you failed to understand the difference between what a religion teaches and the individual beliefs of 'religionists' confuses me. Try Zimmer for an accessible refutation of the 'God gene,' every other theory is simply an evolutionary 'just so story' in the absence of hard evidence. That you fail to see that 'belief' is inherent to consciousness forces me to agree the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere.
Wrd: Sorry. Your answer makes no sense to me. If this poor HUMBLE scientist wants his discoveries to be known, with as limited value as they have, wouldn't your all-perfect god, if it existed, make sure that it used EFFECTIVE means to disseminate the "truth" of its "triune-ness." Only after intense study of comparative religion did I become atheist. That study convinced me that religions, and gods, are CREATIONS of PEOPLE, for good or ill--just as NATURAL as the drives for sex and knowledge.
@BrentGrainger2000 So now you know how God "should" act! Take a good look at chapters 38-40 of the book of Job and then tell me that we lowly human beings have the foggiest notion of how God is supposed to act. My study of world religions convinces me that the longing for God is absolutely universal and that it has been "hard-wired" into the human soul by God himself.
@BrentGrainger2000 You're confusing two separate arguments: The question of the existence of God on the one hand, and the question of organized religion on the other. Aristotle and Spinoza both argued for the existence of God, but neither were real believers in any religion.
@trajan75 A difference does exist between believing in some kind of god vs. accepting a complex religion invented by others or alternatively inventing a new, original religion oneself. It seems to me that the more "stuff" a god "does," the more complex the religion that has to be invented---and probably the more authority-based it becomes. From that analysis,acceptance of only the most do-nothing (contemporaneously), stripped down god would NOT lead to some kind of organization / religion.
Wrd:You posit that your god is "perfect." Any good scientist would make certain that his / her excellent work was (a) reproducible and (b) disseminated globally so that ALL scientists could employ the results for the progress of humankind. Your god, if it exists, does a disservice to worldwide religionists by NOT revealing itself globally in a way that would dispel all reasonable doubt. e.g.. your god fails to reveal itself compellingly to Muslims as triune. Why? Does your god not care, then?
@BrentGrainger2000 But part of God's perfection is that he allows his human creatures to be rational and free. He doesn't impose himself on his creation. He has chosen, humbly, to use such instruments as fragile Christians to carry his message to the ends of the world. And if Muslims haven't heard the message of the Trinity, don't blame God; blame the brutal blasphemy laws that obtain throughout the Muslim world!
@BrentGrainger2000 But God exists in an Eternal dimension. The beginning and end of the world is simultaneous for Him. We exist in time. His revelation enfolds for us through time.. God has no concern to dispel reasonable doubt. Revelation to humans is on an individual basis and can always be doubted.
@trajan75 My goodness, bud. You certainly assert a lot about this god of yours. I'm amazed that you can know so much about it---and with such a high degree of certainty, too! Frankly, I'll stick with physics, cosmology, and mathematics.
@ContrabassClar The language of your reply leads me to the following conclusions: 1) You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are; 2) You are not particularly knowledgeable about science or mathematics; 3)You read but did not understand my post; 4 You're on this blog because you're obsessed with the question of God but you're too sophomoric and self satisfied to engage in real discussion. I'm offering a thesis for discussion I don't claim that I have the final answer. I'm not your bud.
@trajan75 Hmm...your statements were not articulated in a way that provided an opening for discussion. They were statements of "fact"---though of course without evidence. You have an amazing proclivity, bud, to make assertions about gods and commentators with no evidence whatever, which is certainly not compelling. What is an "eternal dimension?" How do you know that "god has no conern to dispel..doubt?" Prove that "revelation to humans is on an individual basis." Evidence, please!
@ContrabassClar I told you I'm not your bud - jerk. I see you learned the word "proclivity" in your vocabulary class. I also noticed that you responded to my posts within an hour. Don't you have anything else to do? Guys like you are depressing. Get a life, and don't expect any more replies. Unlike you I do have real things to do. Have a nice day
@trajan75@trajan75 No answers to my questions? Could that be because...hmmmm.....you have no answers? No evidence? Just assertions that make you happy? Far be it from me to question you further and rock your intellectual boat. If your assertions provide you with comfort and raison d'etre, so be it! As a former theist and religionist myself, I understand the comfort of the evidence-free zone. Unfortunately, it has many drawbacks as well.
Wrd: My only point about the immense diversity of belief among the 1000 world religions is NOT to condemn the diversity. Afterall, it arises from the richness of culture, evolutionary experiments, the human search for what works,, the search for meaning, etc. My point is this if specific theo-philosophical "truth" actually exists (triune god, etc. ad infinitum), AND your god exists, AND your god is concerned that humans UNIVERSALLY know this "truth," your god is NOT doing a good job at it.
@BrentGrainger2000 But why in the world would you come to that conclusion?! Does the variety of political parties prove that there is no truth in politics? Does the variety of moral convictions mean that there is no objective truth to morality? There are many religions, born of all sorts of personal and cultural particularities. There are many points of contact among them and many points of divergence. Does any of that prove that there is no final religious truth?
@BrentGrainger2000 But how does that follow? God isn't responsible for the bad moves made by his creatures. If some have fallen away from the fullness of truth, that isn't his fault.
Wrd: You've forgotten any comparative religion you learned in seminary.Did you check the web site that I recommended? ONE EXAMPLE: "Surely, unbelievers are those who said, "Allah is the third of the three [in a Trinity]". But there is no god but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the unbelievers among them." (Quran 5,73). Oddly, you're citing specious similarities now but when you religionists bicker with each other, you like differences!
@BrentGrainger2000 There are significant points of agreement and significant points of disagreement. That's obvious. I was simply responding to your extreme claim that the religions are nothing but mutually exclusive.
wrd: Reductionist or not, beauty ONLY exists in the firing of neurons. A concept of beauty exists ONLY in the firing of neurons--and neurons fire through biochemistry--and chemistry happens because of physics. It may be comforting to think that something else is there, just as a child is comforted by his fantasy friend. I don't judge that need. With regard to the 1000 religions, you are fooling yourself if you think there is much commonality. One source: Google: Many Paths to One Goal.
@BrentGrainger2000 Come on, friend, now you're going totally over the top. Vision takes place because of chemical and neural reactions in the eye; does that mean that there are no physical objects to be seen?! As to the many religions: how about beliefs in the Creator God, Providence, and objective morality which are shared by Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics? And how about the deep correspondance between Christian and Buddhist contemplation?
Wrd: You totally underestimate modern biology, which speaks to the evolution of morality, the neurological perception of beauty, and even the origiin of justice. (Dogs have a sense of justice, shown in recent experiments!) I don't know where you studied comparative religion but my research shows NO SUCH alignment with Chrisitanity. Even the monotheistic gods are completely inconsistent. No Muslim would agree to a triune god! Aspects of some myths are similar but that's about it (Campbell).
@BrentGrainger2000 I don't underestimate it at all, but I recognize its limits. You are a complete scientistic reductionist, or better, imperialist. The neurological perception of beauty is one thing, but the nature of the beautiful itself is something else altogether. And even if dogs have a perception of justice, there is something objectively real that they are perceiving. There is no perfect alignment of the religions, but they do come together on a number of important points.
Wrd: or empirically measured Universe(S)! As a biologist, I'm beginning to think that a felt need for "metaphysics" / religion / god(s) versus no such need is likely influenced by our individual genetic makeup. Clearly, biology is showing us that many humans (but not all) have a proclivity for creating unique religions and other untestable explanations. So we've dealt with that. Now tell me why your own god doesn't make certain that the 1000 world religions are aligned in your "Truth."
@BrentGrainger2000 Oy vey! More reductionism. I love the sciences and I have great respect for scientists, but man, there is more to reality than the sciences can know! Beauty, justice, the quality of a moral act, what it means to know, why there is something rather than nothing, the nature of logic: all of these are questions that science, qua science, simply cannot adjudicate. And to your last point, the great religions are to a large degree aligned to the truth of Christianity.
Word: But the metaphysics of previous metaphysicians has been repeatedly wrong in the face of evidence! Science has seeminly unlimited power to shatter our delusions, illusions, and preconceived notions.Consider the 20th century in physics & biology. We view the world entirely differently in 2011 than in 1900! I stand by my words: the young physics of cosmology has surprises that neither of us can fathom---including perhaps something from nothing! No god, ancient or modern, is required.
@BrentGrainger2000 Absolutely not! This is just more scientism. "Science" has indeed advanced beyond, say, Aristotle's physics, but it hasn't touched (because it can't) Aristotle's metaphysics or philosophy of being. The sciences just don't address what Heidegger or Whitehead or Hegel are doing when they do metaphysics. We indeed view "the world" differently today than in 1900 if by "the world" you mean events in the empirically measurable universe.
Word: Ah, humility! How can you POSSIBLY know that with such certainty? Aristotle would undoubtedly have said with equal certainty that the earth was the center of the universe and yet barely two millenia later, everything was DIFFERENT based on Copernican EVIDENCE! Surely that example alone would be sufficient for you to understand that metaphysics must always give way to verifiable evidence. The physics of cosmology is very young in 2011 but even now there are wonderful hints of reality!
@BrentGrainger2000 Again, a typical scientistic mistake! Metaphysics is not primitive science; it is something other than science. It is looking at a different dimension of reality and using a different method. The sciences can tell us a lot about objects, events, and phenomena within the empirically measurable universe; but they can't pronounce at all on why there is something rather than nothing. That's a question of an entirely different order.
Word: Only within the framework and definitions of scholastic philosophy are we not permitted to consider something arising from nothing. Within the framework of science and mathematics, it's still an option. As Aristotelian cosmology faded in the face of Copernican evidence, so might your scholasticism fade in the face of physics. Given that real alternative set of options, your arguments are not sufficient evidence, at least not for me and millions of others, for the existence of a "god."
@BrentGrainger2000 No. What scientists mean when they say "nothing" is not what metaphysicians mean by the term. Scientists intend a very thin vacuum, which has physical extension and is capable of fluctuation (cf. Stephen Hawking); metaphysicians intend absolute non-being. The contingent universe cannot simply burp itself into being from absolute nothingness. That's just incoherent.
Wolrd (contd): If something "caused" the Universe, what caused the cause? Isn't it MUCH easier and more economical to posit that the Universe arose from nothing, just as quantum particles can arise from nothing? Or, if your mind requires something infinite, why not simple enegy? If energy always existed, that could be your first cause. Your god could be energy. Modern science is generating many options.Philosophical arguments pale by comparison to verifiable evidence--as we've seen before.
@BrentGrainger2000 No! Energy is like Aristotle's prima materia in the measure that it is pure potentiality; it can assume an infinite variety of forms. Therefore, whatever form it happens to take is, necessarily, contingent, or dependent on some cause extrinsic to itself. If you can say in regard to some reality that it could be otherwise, you know you're not dealing with the properly unconditioned.
Word: Despite the fact that you NEVER address my commentary, I will address yours. Arguments from philosophy may be internally consistent, and follow pre-defined rules of logic, and still be FALSE based on later verifiable evidence about the Cosmos. Why is the Universe contingent? We have no idea whether the Universe is one or infinite in number. We do know that particles appear and disappear apparently uncaused--- they can move from one position to another without intervening existence.
@BrentGrainger2000 Forget "the universe" for a moment and just concentrate on yourself. You're contingent because you breathe and eat. Where do air and food come from? Are they absolutely existent, or do they come from external causes? We cannot endlessly appeal to similarly contingent causes and so have to come to some reality which does exist through itself. I'm continually amazed how people think that "nothing" is a more satisfying answer than God! Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Word: You NEVER address the issues that I pose. Why? You make no comment about the 1000's of insconsistent, contradictory religions. You make no comment about the findings of modern scence that indicate that religions are merely a byproduct of human evolution. You make no comment that your ideas of a "god" are very different from the ideas of most global religionists. You make no comment about the bickering among religionists that leads nowhere. Why?
Word: Again, that old cosmological / first cause argument has been around forever---as you know. For me, it proves that Odin exists :-). In the light of MANY other cosmological possibilities, I do not find i a compelling explanation at all. It's always interesting to me that religionists become tightly focused on THEIR religion and THEIR god(s), never caring that their "explanations" don't ring true for other religionists. Scientists DO worry that their evidence is compelling globally.
@BrentGrainger2000 But where precisely does the argument fail? Mind you, I'm not referencing the Bible in any way here. I want you to tell me where you think the argument for an unconditioned ground of contingency fails. My contention is that we can rationally demonstrate the existence of a reality whose very nature it is to be. Bracket the word "God" if you want. Like many people, you seem allergic to it!
Word: So, first I specified "evidence-based" reason. I just gotta have evidence, man! Second, modern neurobiology, molecular genetics, and evolutionary biology are all helping us to understand that humans have this proclivity to create religions, We have lots of them. Religions may even have had some survival benefit in the past. I'm open to that. But in the modern age, when we have science, I'm hard pressed to see any value in these 1000's of relgions--and some real danger (israel / Iran).
@BrentGrainger2000 Well, it depends on what you mean by "evidence." You're not going to find physical traces within the universe of the spiritual power that made the universe! You won't be able to put some "evidence" for God under a microscope or over a bunson burner. But there is indeed evidence for God in the very contingency of things around us. You don't explain yourself; we can't endlessly appeal to other contingent things to explain you. Therefore there must be a non-contingent cause.
Word: The history of the RCC exhibits anything but a quest for verifiable evidence, evidence-based reason, or logic or compassion. Just ask all those burned heretics. Whether you like it or not, the RCC is just one religion among thousands that have existed previously and new ones that will exist in future. Religion is a byproduct of human evolution. I grant you that the RCC is a very well-designed religion, but so are Islam and Buddhism. It will be fascinating to see how they fare in future.
@BrentGrainger2000 Come on, man. You're basically quoting from the Golden Book of Anti-Catholicism here. Yes, people have done bad things in the name of religion, just as people have done bad things in the name of America. So what? Read any two pages of Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman or Karl Rahner or St. Augustine and tell me that those figures were uninterested in reason.
You claim that atheism is "irrational," which I suppose is your counter to many who, like Einstein, consider organized religion to be "childish superstition." You would certainly NOT think that disbelief in Zeus, Thor or Allah was irrational. But a disbelief in YOUR "god" MUST be "irrational." You might be more effective by being more gracious in your argument. While atheists find no evidence that compels them to believe in ANY god, they do favor evidence, reason, logic and compassion.
@BrentGrainger2000 The Catholic tradition is for evidence, logic, reason, and compassion--which is why it has proposed serious arguments for God's existence. Thor and Zeus are neither here nor there. What matters is that a radically contingent universe cannot adequately explain itself without recourse to some reality whose very nature is to be.
I been watching your video's and truly appreciate them because you are honest and consistent. To be honest if everyone of faith had his mind set in the US in regards to science and media I wouldn't be such an active atheist. I would probably just mark of none on that survey as well.
Where do 'Nones' come from? It has nothing to do with the secular climate of this country, but the intellectual climate. Fr. Barron incorrectly asserts that atheists are 'explicitly [stating] there is no god', when in fact, this has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Atheism is a -lack- of belief in god or gods. No assertion is necessary. So, I hate to break it to you, but any of those 'Nones' who don't assert the existence of a god are in the Atheist category.
@NGOrchestra Friend, you'll have to parse the difference for me between "explicitly stating there is no God" and "a complete lack of belief in God." That seems to be a distinction without a difference. And no, the "nones" are those who are affiliated with no institutional religion. Many of the "nones" profess belief in God.
First of all, in response to the 'nones' issue- I said "any of those nones who don't assert the existence of a god are in the atheist category", not "all of the nones are atheists". I'm sure many of them do profess belief in god. I'm sure that many of them don't. As for the difference between lack of belief and asserting non-existence...well, I mean, there you have it. You can simply "not believe" whilst not saying that you know for certain that no god exists.
I used to be a Byzantine Catholic. I left and became an atheist because it's the same thing over and over again. What you are taught depends mostly on which priest is assigned to your parish. The basic teachings of Catholicism are deeply irrational (i.e. A God who has the power to create the whole universe needs an animal blood sacrifice to atone for some minor human violations. He then sees this system isn't working so he sacrifices his son instead) etc.
@elzoog Friend, what you're presenting as authentic Christian teaching is a complete caricature. You've learned this much more from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens than from Thomas Aquinas! Get a good basic introduction to Catholic dogma, read it, and then we'll talk.
@wordonfirevideo that's what happens when you bribe the Ukrainian bishops to submit to Rome. I kid. But to elzoog, I do hope you will take the time to really study the theology of the Church on its own terms.
my issue with father barron: i simply disagree with most of his fundamental points that he assumes when making any argument i.e. that humans are wired for god, or that atheism is a "deeply irrational viewpoint". He builds off of these ideas very articulately and intelligently and makes perfect sense, but only in light of those fundamental assumptions. Im an atheist and i watch all his vids and he never actually convinces me of his most basic ideas. he simply MUST debate dawkins, itd be epic
@cphines1 Well friend, I can't do everything in one eight minute video! Watch my videos on God's existence and my videos in answer to Hitchens. I think you'll find what you're looking for.
@cphines1 It seems to me that atheism is a "deeply irrational viewpoint" is not a fundamental point, in fact it is a very disappointing conclusion. Atheism as defined by the new atheists can't really be irrational unless the evidence for god is completely obvious, it is not! I just stated that last thing as fact without arguing for it, but aside from some subjectivity in evaluation of evidence it is quite clear imo.
Atheism if defined as a believe that there is no god can be irrational of course
Thank you. So agree with the softening. I don't think we need to be hardcore conservative evangelical calvinists/arminians to respect God's word and think about it.
Aren't you really saying that catholics have to work at religion and atheists are lazy? In my experience, unbelief as you may describe it is very hard work - almost as hard as trying to interpret the bible and the guff that surrounds it and make reasonable sense of the contradictory messages. Are you not really misinterpreting this lazyness for the fact that people are finally beginning to see through organised religion and can no longer accept its relevance?
Woah. I am as close to atheist as one can come. I prefer to say agnostic, but I've liked listening to Father Baron until this video. To say that atheism is totally irrational is just such an incorrect statement. Father, if you are viewing this I would like you to explain why it is so irrational.
@Handsdown09 Atheism has inescapable philosophical consequences on knowledge, morality, reason, truth, etc. Atheism is irrational because these philosophical consequences are irrational. And atheist thinkers agree. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist existentialist, is famous for his saying "life is absurd." Atheism also happens to be wrong. Defiance of truth is irrational. :p
He's drawing conclusions on his own whims. Not on facts. "The nones might even say they believe in god" he says. But ....they don't. That's not what the survey asked. So he's taking a survey that actually shows that those without religion are rising, and from his own "faith" (imagination) drawing the conclusion that it's all positive news for the people who wish to see more religion. Since he has faith, he doesn't care about evidence. Since I have evidence, I don't need faith.
Evangelical Christianity and Islam is the new big faith for the Latinos now - most of them former Catholics - what happens to the Catholic Church when that group are part and parcel of America? Will they go where our Catholic brethren before have gone? I believe it is former Catholics who make up the highest number of NONES - Lapsed Catholics are second highest number after the number of Catholics in America!
Why is it that the Catholic faith that sustained the Irish, German and Italian immigrants not something that can sustain them now? Right now only the Latins are the ones in the churches and even their numbers are diminishing as the second and third generation Latinos see the church as irrelevant as their non-Latino counterparts
Oh comon father! I'm sure you know that the only reason the Catholic numbers are stable is cos they are being replaced by the immigrants (mostly Catholic) coming from the Latin Amer. countries. Stop that flow, and Catholicism has lost the highest number of adherents compared to any of the other faiths, including the Protestants! I expect you of all people to mention that and at least tell us why?
Killing, death into life you change! O lamps of fiery lure, In whose shining transparence The deep cavern of the senses, Blind and obscure, Warmth and light, with strange flares, Gives with the lovers caresses! How tame and loving Your memory rises in my breast, Where secretly only you live, And in your fragrant breathing, Full of goodness and grace, How delicately in love you make me feel! St. John of the Cross
Love's Living Flame (Songs that the soul sings in her intimate union with God, her beloved Bridegroom.) O Loves living flame, Tenderly you wound My souls deepest center! Since you no longer evade me, Will you, please, at last conclude: Rend the veil of this sweet encounter! O cautery so tender! O pampered wound! O soft hand! O touch so delicately strange, Tasting of eternal life And canceling all debts!
Nov. 3, hi, Fr. Barron i'm tracey, i'm living 200 wellesley st. E. #1911, my legal name is chun-nu xu, my son's name is zhen-guo cao. we got offer jobs by UN president Pioli but send by insurance company people come from korean catholic church. email took away, over 11 Ys terrible criminal harassment give to us. we suttled already. i want bring my ideas to UN to change this world and same time doing some bussiness. whould you like take us go NY city with pope Fr mckenna 416 414 2497. can help.
. Again, this danger you refer to. Danger?! Yes, to an institution. There is no danger to God, there is no danger to souls, by trying to worship and love Him in our hearts at all times instead of in church buildings on Sundays. As a lover of God, why are you displeased to know that people choose to love God in such an intensely personal way? Why not rejoice?
The church can guide one to an inner path, the church is extremely useful to many, but the church is not God. God is God. God does not care whether you worship in a church, by the riverside or in your home or on the street. What is important is that you DO. And I know you know this, of course. I am just trying to say how a None like me hears what you say.
. I bother with my personal relationship with the Lord, I dont bother with institutions established in His name. I hope this makes sense to you. Not having a membership in a church does not mean I love God any less than those who do. You are expressing this: the church is more important than the faith. There is always the danger of losing our distinctiveness. So be it! The distinctions are the cause of all the strifes. The church stresses the superfluous more than the nitty-gritty.
an important phenomenon for you, as bringing people to the church is your livelihood, profession, funding, paycheck and passion. Yes, rather urgent from your point of view I would say. But from a simple Nones point of view, generic spirituality is as it should be. People believing and loving God, and practicing their faith by the quality of their lives. What else matters? I think you are in error to perceive Nones as why bother people.
I dont know where the Nones are coming from, but that was rather interesting about the Protestant churches. The thing that caught my attention is your worry over generic spirituality.
Generic: of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general. God IS generic! God is applicable to all things and beings in creation.
God IS completely irrational for He is beyond our finite human minds. God is not in the mind, thats why atheists cant find him there. The mind is a tool, and a good one, if used properly for the expression of the heart. Just my humble opinion and thats all I have to say about that, as I believe the topic is about Nones. (cont.)
I love your sermons and website and youtube videos, which I accidentally discovered a year or so ago. Your riveting and compelling and wonderously intelligent insight and the depth of your sharing are not to be dismissed and I am hooked. I may not agree with you on many points, but I feel those points are insignificant overall. With that said, I am responding here as a None.
Regarding atheism being irrational I think it is completely rational! That is the problem. (cont)
Did not say anything about atheism, did not even mention the word athiest in the text of my post, merely stated the fact that less ppl believe the establish superstitous dogma's. I do hope all who do not become agnostic/ atheist do adopt this personal god you speak of and cease suported corrupt manmade pyramid schemes and all churches/ mosques/ synagouges/ temples, ecetera/ excretia close due to lack of interest, the world will be a better place then.
Not a "wish" but but a sincere hope for a better future for the human species free from the stupidity, fear, hatred, and tyranny of all superstitous beliefs. Imagine, children educated to deal with the natural changes in their body chemistry instead of being told they are perverts for biological urges. Imagine child molesters not being able to hide behind fantasy rituals, imagine no suicide bombers, imagine decent ppl who are gay being held in higher esteem than televangilist, a better world
That's way too easy a distinction. The only spirituality that you know was taught to you in a religious context. Try to get rid of religion, and you will find yourself re-inventing it the next day.
@wordonfirevideo I disagree: I think you can separate religion and spirtuality, though it may be hard for most people. Prayer is religion's main form of spiritualism (meditation is another way, but it's more by the eastern religions), but there are other means (meditation, yoga, etc.) that can be accessed by the non-religious.
Not at all. The "nones" say that they are not members of organized religions. My guess is that most of them would claim some level of spirituality and that the vast majority would believe in God. I say this because the poll numbers concerning belief in God are still remarkably high.
no there are a few who may claim some sort of non religioius spirituality (but keep in mind that basically means that their belief holds no tenets, rules or belief strucuture" which means that religion is not an effective part of their life.
what do you mean? atheism IS sharply rising Atleast where I live (Canada) especially the younger, and higher level of education the target group. Unfortunately atheism is plagued as a social stigma in many countries so there is a tendency for atheists to remain "in the closet" so to speak, even as a force of habit rather than a fear in some cases. For instance, I stopped believing in god but for years I still marked down christian as a sort of mental habit.
Show me the concrete statistics that indicate a rise in atheism. The study that I'm commenting on here--a thorough analysis of religious attitudes in America--shows no such increase.
Atheists ARE nonbelievers...however statiscs include that option as an alternative ususally because of the negative connotations of the word atheism. (No thanks to religious propaganda)
There is no difference between "Not believing in and gods" and "believing there is no gods" It is a dicotomy
Before you attempt to say well one affirms there is no gods, and one isnt certain, That has no bearing on the actual stance. Thats is a level of certainty, not a stance on whether gods exist or not.
People forget that the prefix "a" literally translates to "non" So calling someone a non-theist or nonbeliever in god is identical to an a(non)-theist(believer)
Religious people try to draw negative connotations to the word atheist by implying it means fundamentalist nonbeliever....which it doesnt. It infact has no bearing whatsoever on how sure the person is, whether they be fundamentalist, or open to discussion.
boorens18: what do you love the most with your whole heart? Whatever that is; that is your god. could be money, fame, cars, guns, hunting, shopping, anything.
if you define god simply as what you love most then why bother with the word god in the first place? Further it has really nothing to do with things we can only imagine and not really demonstrate such as omnipotent beings.
You did not answer my question; you answer questions just like a public offical; by not answering them. What do you love with your entire heart? I know why I am here; to know, to love and serve God. That is why we are all here but it is for you to find him. Why bother with the Word of God; because it is absolute Truth. It is for you to decide if you want to love the true God or things of the world that is not truth. You can only serve one Master; so choose your Master; mine is God almighty.
your question is meaningless. It is an attempt to draw the conversation away from god so you dont need to defend that idea. What does you knowing what I love most have to do with god existing or not? Nothing. Im not so stupid as to fall for a lame debate tactic like changing the subject you moron. Sheesh that works on kids maybe.
Dont you find it slightly suspicious that your religion is PERFECTLY designed to control you? Never questioning because of faith, giving money to ur church?
read the poem I posted by St. John of the Cross; there is your answer. What you love does is not take away from God; because love is God, Truth is God and Hope is God. Three things make up God: Truth, Hope and Love. The Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Three persons one God. The Son comes from the Father and Spirit is the love they share and that we share too; that is called a grace from God.
no thanks, I could give to shits about your poem. I prefer LOGIC reason and conversation. If you cant answer the question with those terms, you cant answer the question Thank you very much.
Oh, by the way, I would like to thank you for keeping your comments and ratings enabled. Most pro-religious videos don't do that for some reason. Would you happen to know why?
Let's face it, religion is a failed science. It's hard for me to fathom that any remotely rational person would believe in any religion if they were taught it for the first time as an adult. People tend to believe things for a long time or forever when they are taught it as a child. When I was a kid I used to think my Dad was Superman. Then as I got older I realized that he was just a regular guy(that sometimes liked to wear a cape). Get it? Show me 1 shred of evidence for God and I will believe
I'm not too bright so please explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old if you would. You believe in virgin births and talking snakes and the earth is approximately 6,000 years old right? And the Atheists are the ones that are deeply irrational? Is this correct? I'm a little confused.
Isn't there a CHANCE that the "nones" are Atheists in the closet that don't want to come out because they are afraid of being shunned by the same kind of people that thought the earth was flat 500 years ago?
No I don't think the earth is 6000 years old and I don't believe there was a talking snake, but I do believe in the virgin birth. The genres and purposes of the biblical accounts vary.
If the earth is not 6000 years old(like it says in the bible) than how old do you believe the earth is? Genesis starts off "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." On the very next page Eve is talking to a snake. If the beginning of Genesis 3 is not Eve talking to a snake than who exactly is talking to her? In the entire bible there is not 1 single mention of dinosaurs that I am aware of yet I'm pretty sure they were around longer than man ever was. Did God create them? Cont...
Friend, like so many others on these forums, you mistake Catholics for fundamentalists. Catholics are not biblical literalists. As for dinosaurs and the age of the earth, etc., I don't consult the Bible but the latest science. Religion and science are compatible precisely because they pose qualitatively different kinds of questions.
I have to admit that I do make that mistake I suppose. To me it's just different levels of nonsense. If Catholics do not take the entire bible literally, then how do you know which parts to take literally? Weren't all the prophets speaking the word of God? Would you agree with me that dinosaurs were around a lot longer than humans were? How come there is not a single mention of them in the bible? That just seems a bit odd to me. Especially since the bible starts off with "In the beginning.."
Holden 1971. What really seems odd is the fact that you are testing the credibility of the Bible on the basis of dinosaurs.
The Bible is not an account of the history of the earth. It is the divinely inspired account of the history of God's relationship with humanity and the fulfillment of the work of salvation by Jesus.
I'm not testing the credibility of the Bible on the basis of dinosaurs. That's just 1 example. I could give around 500 examples of how the bible is not credible. You say "The Bible is not an account of the history of the earth." Why does it start off as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That sure sounds like a history book to me. I can't think of single thing that makes the bible even remotely credible. Please give me an example if you will.
I probably shouldn't assume that you believe that dinosaurs existed but if you do why was there no mention of them in the bible? How long were they around? Are you familiar with the stories of Mithra and Horus? They are strikingly similar to the story of Jesus yet they came before the story of Jesus. How do you account for this? If Mary actually existed isn't there a CHANCE that she was lying about being a virgin? Should the bible be read literally or is it ok to pick and choose what you like?
Take a look at my video on the Zeitgeist nonsense. Don't listen to the debunkers; take a very good, long look at the stories of Mithra and Horus, and you'll see just how radically different they are from the Christian story.
Primitive man painted what he saw on the side of caves. We have many pictures of wolly mammoths, mastadons, saber tooth tigers that we don't have today, yet NOT A SINGLE Painting of a dinosaur b/c man did not see them b/c the evolved and became extinct tens of millions of years prior to humanity.
Latinos are here to stay, their children are filling up churches. SIt is not like they are here and will leave anytime soon. So, there is a big future for the Catholic Church in the USA in terms of numbers. A very different case is the one with mainline Protestant churches, they are dying by the day. And atheists, mmm, they have been saying that God is dead for almost 200 years now... losers.
Fr. Barron I am a long time admirer of yours. I have heard you say that only 6% of native born Catholics go to Mass. Recently arrived Hispanics boost the number to 25%. Doesn't that indicate that native born Catholics have gone the way of mainline Protestants in this country? Keep up your wonderful work. Flatbushjack
I also really like your analogy about healthy organisms. Saying yes to something means having the courage to say no to something else which has become increasingly rare these days.
I believe a pew survey said ex catholics are one of the largest religious demographics in the US. I believe evangelical/born agains will go a similar way as the other denominations because of the intertwining with conservatism where being a Christian becomes a way to out Republican your neighbor. I would say the political component is similar to what you were saying about the liberalization of the mainline denominations.
also I do not think the world is self-explanatory.... yet ^^ thats the difference I do not try to believe but to know as much as I possibly can and from that draw my conclusions ;) however I was planning on writing to you anyway so this seems a good opurtunity ^^
nooffensebut, thanks for your response. Perhaps I should have been more specific, however, as I'm not talking about sheer numbers. Let's focus on the percentages. I'd invite you to take a look at the study I cited. Catholic priests, or even overall clergy, for that matter, are not a statistically significant class of perpetrators. That's empirical fact. My original point still stands, though. There is no correlation or causal relation between celibacy and the sexual abuse of children.
Really? So how does one explain the vastly larger number of child sexual abuse cases by non-celibates (in public schools, married family members & friends, etc.)? (See, specifically, the Child Mistreatment 2006 report from the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services.) Blaming the Church's sexual abuse crisis on celibacy is like blaming marital fidelity for adultery.
Praise Christ for your ministry, as your work has nourished many faith journeys. As for survey trends, while your commentary helps explain the increase in the number of "nones," the Catholic numbers are troubling underneath. They're relatively stable, sure, but I wonder how much is attributed to immigration (particularly Hispanic) and not generational catechesis & faith-rearing. Previous strongholds, like northern New England, have largely produced a stunning # of unchurched folks.
mjr256 said "back when fewer critics were pointing out the utter absurdities of Christianity...now that critics are more vocal"
Were the critics not vocal when they murdered over 20,000 monks, nuns, and priests under Communism? What about priest block at Dachau? The French Revolution? Nero ring a bell?
Perhaps your contempt for Christianity isn't as cutting adge as you'd like to think....just sayin'
The only reason the Catholic population has remained relatively stable in the last few decades is because of the huge influx of immigrants from south of the border who are poorly educated in all fields including their Catholic religion. Clearly legions of educated Catholics have left the Church. In the United States, the most poorly educated and most religious country in the First world, atheism has grown faster than any religion, doubling in less than 20 years.
Apacalola 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Apacalola Ah yes, the secularization thesis...which has been proven wrong over and over again. The most Christian nation in the world is (wait for it) The United States of America, a place where liberal ideas and modern education are fully on offer. Get past this early twentieth century prejudice and look at the reality on the ground.
joetufano719 1 month ago
Here are a few additional facts of interest. 1) Referring to atheism as a "denomination" is like referring to baldness as a hair color; 2) While the number of Catholics in the U.S. has held constant, due to immigration, 1/3 of the respondents to the PEW survey said they were raised Catholic, but no longer are; 3) 10% of the adult U.S. population call themselves former Catholics; 4) 25% of 18-29 year olds have no religion.
ContrabassClar 3 months ago
quaquer??? what is that?
aramanx 4 months ago
Great Video, Blessed John Henry Newman, pray for us.
redbaron998 6 months ago
aren't american catholics stable because of the influx of poor and not very well educated lationos? -what was said about the genesis of the Nones surly is not false- but religion is in a tricky spot here - a re-dogmatisation or re-fundamentalisation - will drive away more anti-atheists into the categorie of Nones - then there will be world of atheists and Nones and a world of fundamentalists -and they will be separated
wildhias 8 months ago
Wrd: I'm surprised that you would use such circular reasoning! You, yourself, in your previous response ascribed "humility" to your god and described exactly how this god is hampered by the blasphemy laws of Isalm! Be VERY careful. I've noticed that Christians, more than others, enjoy explaining the way the world is by such phrases as "the will of god." The evidence indicates that a "god" didn't put the drive to INVENT fantastic religions into humans---but Darwinian NATURAL selection did!
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Actually despite speculations on the part of Daniel Dennet and co, memetic evolution is relatively discredited and certainly not a focus of significant evolutionary study. The 'evidence' has pretty much nothing to say about the 'hard' problem consciousness. Dennet is confident we 'will' explain it, but that's no evidence at all, plus his current views are harshly critiqued. The 'hard' problem is directly connected to the issue of human creativity, so the 'evidence; says little
MrWildbill20056 8 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Why are you talking about consciousness? The facts: 1) every group of humans has invented a god or gods; 2) this indicates that humans, for whatever reason, have evolved a drive to invent gods and religions; 3) why might this be? One very good explanation: humans have a drive to explain things and to project "agency" or "will" onto Nature, even if the explanations only involve fantastical ideas, invisible friends, or "ground of being" sky wizards. Quite simple, really.
Mike96727 8 months ago
@Mike96727 Why am I invoking consciousness? It is the root of such acts of imaginative creativity, and if we want to speak about its 'evolution' we should be able to establish it can be governed by natural selection. As things stand at least, despite Penrose's heroic attempts there is even remotely useful biological model. Thus talk of evolution of 'creative drives' is dubious at best. Any consquent resort to memes fails on the best of it being at best dubious and at worst debunked, science.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 By your standards, no behavior could be judged to fall under the aegis of natural selection! Yet, that is patently false. The most casual consideration of advanced social animals provides abundant evidence for the selection of behaviors that clearly confer selective advantage. The invention of tools, words, interactive social rules, or gods is all the same! All could be useful for survival. The manifold invention of gods and religions in every culture speaks for itself.
Mike96727 7 months ago
@Mike96727 Ah now you are making an understanable error. Behaviour, with a genetic basis, which functionally relates to the environment a species evolves in is automatically subject to natural selection ie kin selection with the 'green beard' effect.Products of the creative imagination have no identifiable genetic basis, which has led to 'Memetics' being regarded as modern day 'Lamarckism.' 'Creating' a contingent belief system is thus in no way safely attributed to any evolutionary process.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 . The brain structure (& its genetic basis) required to invent a tool (a creative act of significant intelligence) is surely the subject of Nat. Sel.. Similarly, the brain structure required to invent a god or religion (a similar creative act) is also subject to Nat. Sel. If the propensity to see imaginary agency has survival value, the brain sturucture will certainly be retained. It is the PROPENSITY, not the SPECIFIC belief that is retained.--hence untold numbers of gods!
Mike96727 7 months ago
@Mike96727 Ah you are pretty much skirting consciousness altogether. There is no adequate model for the emergence of consciousness in a biological system. It may well be an exaptation which is under no direct genetic influence. Brain structure alone is not sufficient to answer the 'hard problem' of consciousness, which put simply is 'why is there an I?' If the 'I' as seems the case, is not under direct genetic regulation, then any propensity to state 'I believe' cannot be naturally selected for.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 The origins / characteristics of consciousness is YOUR issue, not MINE! While not an uninteresting problem, its solution will be interdisciplinary & a product of a much more detailed understanding of the relationship between cognition and brain function at every level from molecular to anatomical. Could a computer be conscious? :-) The OBSERVABLE facts about humans and gods are quite simple. They convince me that humans invent gods, mostly to explain stuff, & to control others.
Mike96727 7 months ago
@Mike96727 Actually no, if you want to invoke evolution by natural selection, you must demonstrate that there is heritable variation within the population. If the capacity to create a model of 'God' does not have a genetic basis then describing it as evolutionally emergeny is distinctly unsafe. Further you may not assert it will have a solution, only that it may, and that's something many scientists in the field doubt hugely. Correlation does not imply Causation :)
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 Of course I can assert that the problem will have a solution! All problems have a solution--though it may not be realized soon by science. I stand by my point. The capacity to invent gods clearly has a genetic basis, as does EVERY OTHER CAPABILITY of H. sapiens. Are the SPECIFICS of the molecular biology elucidated? Clearly not. Is it a capability that has evolved--like every other capability? Undoubtedly! Your theism is getting in the way of your science. Wishful thinking.
Mike96727 7 months ago
@Mike96727 I think we will find I am the molecular zoologist here :P First it is not a safe assumption that humans will ultimately 'know everything.' Quantum physics already holds that certain things are unknowable, so it's no leap at all to believe that the solutions to certain problems may not be 'knowable.' Second you are confusing 'genetic basis' with 'variation based on heritable genetic elements.' If conscious 'ideas' are not selectable, they cannot be termed evolutionary adaptations.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 You have no idea what my training is in. But I continue to doubt your ability to separate theistic bias from good science. First, science must BEGIN with the notion that everything is explainable naturally. Otherwise one is defeated before one begins. Second, we are NOT talking about a SPECIFIC invention (idea) here. We are talking about 1) the CAPABILITY and 2) the PROPENSITY to invent invisible agents to explain natural events. As a theist, that's what YOU do yourself! QED
Mike96727 7 months ago
@Mike96727 I infer you are no adept of evolutionary theory from your commentary. First I would say that I disagree with your first premise. A good scientist questions even the above, but works on a rule of thumb. Secondly I would argue that you are refuting 'knowability' with 'explicability' which are not synomymous. Thirdly Capability I grant as belief is clearly a function of consciousness. The only 'evidence' ie from Hamer, is widely regarded as bad science and non repeatable.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 The last point being with regards to propensity, I should have said.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@MrWildbill20056 I'm not certain where you received your academic training in biology but it seems to me sadly lacking in the basics. This discussion, like our last when you refused to acknowledge the actual practice of religionists as defining the religion, is leadingus nowhere. You cast unsupported aspersions on the research of others and give up on the scientific method without even using it! You divert a discussion of the invention of gods into the nature of consciousness. Ridiculous.
Mike96727 7 months ago
Oh dear.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
@Mike96727 Really, you resort to invective, always a sign of a winning argument :P How you failed to understand the difference between what a religion teaches and the individual beliefs of 'religionists' confuses me. Try Zimmer for an accessible refutation of the 'God gene,' every other theory is simply an evolutionary 'just so story' in the absence of hard evidence. That you fail to see that 'belief' is inherent to consciousness forces me to agree the discussion is unlikely to go anywhere.
MrWildbill20056 7 months ago
Wrd: Sorry. Your answer makes no sense to me. If this poor HUMBLE scientist wants his discoveries to be known, with as limited value as they have, wouldn't your all-perfect god, if it existed, make sure that it used EFFECTIVE means to disseminate the "truth" of its "triune-ness." Only after intense study of comparative religion did I become atheist. That study convinced me that religions, and gods, are CREATIONS of PEOPLE, for good or ill--just as NATURAL as the drives for sex and knowledge.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 So now you know how God "should" act! Take a good look at chapters 38-40 of the book of Job and then tell me that we lowly human beings have the foggiest notion of how God is supposed to act. My study of world religions convinces me that the longing for God is absolutely universal and that it has been "hard-wired" into the human soul by God himself.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 You're confusing two separate arguments: The question of the existence of God on the one hand, and the question of organized religion on the other. Aristotle and Spinoza both argued for the existence of God, but neither were real believers in any religion.
trajan75 4 months ago
@trajan75 A difference does exist between believing in some kind of god vs. accepting a complex religion invented by others or alternatively inventing a new, original religion oneself. It seems to me that the more "stuff" a god "does," the more complex the religion that has to be invented---and probably the more authority-based it becomes. From that analysis,acceptance of only the most do-nothing (contemporaneously), stripped down god would NOT lead to some kind of organization / religion.
ContrabassClar 3 months ago
Wrd:You posit that your god is "perfect." Any good scientist would make certain that his / her excellent work was (a) reproducible and (b) disseminated globally so that ALL scientists could employ the results for the progress of humankind. Your god, if it exists, does a disservice to worldwide religionists by NOT revealing itself globally in a way that would dispel all reasonable doubt. e.g.. your god fails to reveal itself compellingly to Muslims as triune. Why? Does your god not care, then?
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 But part of God's perfection is that he allows his human creatures to be rational and free. He doesn't impose himself on his creation. He has chosen, humbly, to use such instruments as fragile Christians to carry his message to the ends of the world. And if Muslims haven't heard the message of the Trinity, don't blame God; blame the brutal blasphemy laws that obtain throughout the Muslim world!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 But God exists in an Eternal dimension. The beginning and end of the world is simultaneous for Him. We exist in time. His revelation enfolds for us through time.. God has no concern to dispel reasonable doubt. Revelation to humans is on an individual basis and can always be doubted.
trajan75 3 months ago
@trajan75 My goodness, bud. You certainly assert a lot about this god of yours. I'm amazed that you can know so much about it---and with such a high degree of certainty, too! Frankly, I'll stick with physics, cosmology, and mathematics.
ContrabassClar 3 months ago
@ContrabassClar The language of your reply leads me to the following conclusions: 1) You're not nearly as intelligent as you think you are; 2) You are not particularly knowledgeable about science or mathematics; 3)You read but did not understand my post; 4 You're on this blog because you're obsessed with the question of God but you're too sophomoric and self satisfied to engage in real discussion. I'm offering a thesis for discussion I don't claim that I have the final answer. I'm not your bud.
trajan75 3 months ago
@trajan75 Hmm...your statements were not articulated in a way that provided an opening for discussion. They were statements of "fact"---though of course without evidence. You have an amazing proclivity, bud, to make assertions about gods and commentators with no evidence whatever, which is certainly not compelling. What is an "eternal dimension?" How do you know that "god has no conern to dispel..doubt?" Prove that "revelation to humans is on an individual basis." Evidence, please!
ContrabassClar 3 months ago
@ContrabassClar I told you I'm not your bud - jerk. I see you learned the word "proclivity" in your vocabulary class. I also noticed that you responded to my posts within an hour. Don't you have anything else to do? Guys like you are depressing. Get a life, and don't expect any more replies. Unlike you I do have real things to do. Have a nice day
trajan75 3 months ago
@trajan75 @trajan75 No answers to my questions? Could that be because...hmmmm.....you have no answers? No evidence? Just assertions that make you happy? Far be it from me to question you further and rock your intellectual boat. If your assertions provide you with comfort and raison d'etre, so be it! As a former theist and religionist myself, I understand the comfort of the evidence-free zone. Unfortunately, it has many drawbacks as well.
ContrabassClar 3 months ago
Wrd: My only point about the immense diversity of belief among the 1000 world religions is NOT to condemn the diversity. Afterall, it arises from the richness of culture, evolutionary experiments, the human search for what works,, the search for meaning, etc. My point is this if specific theo-philosophical "truth" actually exists (triune god, etc. ad infinitum), AND your god exists, AND your god is concerned that humans UNIVERSALLY know this "truth," your god is NOT doing a good job at it.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 But why in the world would you come to that conclusion?! Does the variety of political parties prove that there is no truth in politics? Does the variety of moral convictions mean that there is no objective truth to morality? There are many religions, born of all sorts of personal and cultural particularities. There are many points of contact among them and many points of divergence. Does any of that prove that there is no final religious truth?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 But how does that follow? God isn't responsible for the bad moves made by his creatures. If some have fallen away from the fullness of truth, that isn't his fault.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Wrd: You've forgotten any comparative religion you learned in seminary.Did you check the web site that I recommended? ONE EXAMPLE: "Surely, unbelievers are those who said, "Allah is the third of the three [in a Trinity]". But there is no god but One God. And if they cease not from what they say, verily, a painful torment will befall the unbelievers among them." (Quran 5,73). Oddly, you're citing specious similarities now but when you religionists bicker with each other, you like differences!
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 There are significant points of agreement and significant points of disagreement. That's obvious. I was simply responding to your extreme claim that the religions are nothing but mutually exclusive.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
wrd: Reductionist or not, beauty ONLY exists in the firing of neurons. A concept of beauty exists ONLY in the firing of neurons--and neurons fire through biochemistry--and chemistry happens because of physics. It may be comforting to think that something else is there, just as a child is comforted by his fantasy friend. I don't judge that need. With regard to the 1000 religions, you are fooling yourself if you think there is much commonality. One source: Google: Many Paths to One Goal.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Come on, friend, now you're going totally over the top. Vision takes place because of chemical and neural reactions in the eye; does that mean that there are no physical objects to be seen?! As to the many religions: how about beliefs in the Creator God, Providence, and objective morality which are shared by Jews, Muslims, Protestants, and Catholics? And how about the deep correspondance between Christian and Buddhist contemplation?
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Wrd: You totally underestimate modern biology, which speaks to the evolution of morality, the neurological perception of beauty, and even the origiin of justice. (Dogs have a sense of justice, shown in recent experiments!) I don't know where you studied comparative religion but my research shows NO SUCH alignment with Chrisitanity. Even the monotheistic gods are completely inconsistent. No Muslim would agree to a triune god! Aspects of some myths are similar but that's about it (Campbell).
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 I don't underestimate it at all, but I recognize its limits. You are a complete scientistic reductionist, or better, imperialist. The neurological perception of beauty is one thing, but the nature of the beautiful itself is something else altogether. And even if dogs have a perception of justice, there is something objectively real that they are perceiving. There is no perfect alignment of the religions, but they do come together on a number of important points.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Wrd: or empirically measured Universe(S)! As a biologist, I'm beginning to think that a felt need for "metaphysics" / religion / god(s) versus no such need is likely influenced by our individual genetic makeup. Clearly, biology is showing us that many humans (but not all) have a proclivity for creating unique religions and other untestable explanations. So we've dealt with that. Now tell me why your own god doesn't make certain that the 1000 world religions are aligned in your "Truth."
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Oy vey! More reductionism. I love the sciences and I have great respect for scientists, but man, there is more to reality than the sciences can know! Beauty, justice, the quality of a moral act, what it means to know, why there is something rather than nothing, the nature of logic: all of these are questions that science, qua science, simply cannot adjudicate. And to your last point, the great religions are to a large degree aligned to the truth of Christianity.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: But the metaphysics of previous metaphysicians has been repeatedly wrong in the face of evidence! Science has seeminly unlimited power to shatter our delusions, illusions, and preconceived notions.Consider the 20th century in physics & biology. We view the world entirely differently in 2011 than in 1900! I stand by my words: the young physics of cosmology has surprises that neither of us can fathom---including perhaps something from nothing! No god, ancient or modern, is required.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Absolutely not! This is just more scientism. "Science" has indeed advanced beyond, say, Aristotle's physics, but it hasn't touched (because it can't) Aristotle's metaphysics or philosophy of being. The sciences just don't address what Heidegger or Whitehead or Hegel are doing when they do metaphysics. We indeed view "the world" differently today than in 1900 if by "the world" you mean events in the empirically measurable universe.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: Ah, humility! How can you POSSIBLY know that with such certainty? Aristotle would undoubtedly have said with equal certainty that the earth was the center of the universe and yet barely two millenia later, everything was DIFFERENT based on Copernican EVIDENCE! Surely that example alone would be sufficient for you to understand that metaphysics must always give way to verifiable evidence. The physics of cosmology is very young in 2011 but even now there are wonderful hints of reality!
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Again, a typical scientistic mistake! Metaphysics is not primitive science; it is something other than science. It is looking at a different dimension of reality and using a different method. The sciences can tell us a lot about objects, events, and phenomena within the empirically measurable universe; but they can't pronounce at all on why there is something rather than nothing. That's a question of an entirely different order.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: Only within the framework and definitions of scholastic philosophy are we not permitted to consider something arising from nothing. Within the framework of science and mathematics, it's still an option. As Aristotelian cosmology faded in the face of Copernican evidence, so might your scholasticism fade in the face of physics. Given that real alternative set of options, your arguments are not sufficient evidence, at least not for me and millions of others, for the existence of a "god."
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 No. What scientists mean when they say "nothing" is not what metaphysicians mean by the term. Scientists intend a very thin vacuum, which has physical extension and is capable of fluctuation (cf. Stephen Hawking); metaphysicians intend absolute non-being. The contingent universe cannot simply burp itself into being from absolute nothingness. That's just incoherent.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Wolrd (contd): If something "caused" the Universe, what caused the cause? Isn't it MUCH easier and more economical to posit that the Universe arose from nothing, just as quantum particles can arise from nothing? Or, if your mind requires something infinite, why not simple enegy? If energy always existed, that could be your first cause. Your god could be energy. Modern science is generating many options.Philosophical arguments pale by comparison to verifiable evidence--as we've seen before.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 No! Energy is like Aristotle's prima materia in the measure that it is pure potentiality; it can assume an infinite variety of forms. Therefore, whatever form it happens to take is, necessarily, contingent, or dependent on some cause extrinsic to itself. If you can say in regard to some reality that it could be otherwise, you know you're not dealing with the properly unconditioned.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: Despite the fact that you NEVER address my commentary, I will address yours. Arguments from philosophy may be internally consistent, and follow pre-defined rules of logic, and still be FALSE based on later verifiable evidence about the Cosmos. Why is the Universe contingent? We have no idea whether the Universe is one or infinite in number. We do know that particles appear and disappear apparently uncaused--- they can move from one position to another without intervening existence.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Forget "the universe" for a moment and just concentrate on yourself. You're contingent because you breathe and eat. Where do air and food come from? Are they absolutely existent, or do they come from external causes? We cannot endlessly appeal to similarly contingent causes and so have to come to some reality which does exist through itself. I'm continually amazed how people think that "nothing" is a more satisfying answer than God! Ex nihilo nihil fit.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: You NEVER address the issues that I pose. Why? You make no comment about the 1000's of insconsistent, contradictory religions. You make no comment about the findings of modern scence that indicate that religions are merely a byproduct of human evolution. You make no comment that your ideas of a "god" are very different from the ideas of most global religionists. You make no comment about the bickering among religionists that leads nowhere. Why?
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
Word: Again, that old cosmological / first cause argument has been around forever---as you know. For me, it proves that Odin exists :-). In the light of MANY other cosmological possibilities, I do not find i a compelling explanation at all. It's always interesting to me that religionists become tightly focused on THEIR religion and THEIR god(s), never caring that their "explanations" don't ring true for other religionists. Scientists DO worry that their evidence is compelling globally.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 But where precisely does the argument fail? Mind you, I'm not referencing the Bible in any way here. I want you to tell me where you think the argument for an unconditioned ground of contingency fails. My contention is that we can rationally demonstrate the existence of a reality whose very nature it is to be. Bracket the word "God" if you want. Like many people, you seem allergic to it!
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: So, first I specified "evidence-based" reason. I just gotta have evidence, man! Second, modern neurobiology, molecular genetics, and evolutionary biology are all helping us to understand that humans have this proclivity to create religions, We have lots of them. Religions may even have had some survival benefit in the past. I'm open to that. But in the modern age, when we have science, I'm hard pressed to see any value in these 1000's of relgions--and some real danger (israel / Iran).
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Well, it depends on what you mean by "evidence." You're not going to find physical traces within the universe of the spiritual power that made the universe! You won't be able to put some "evidence" for God under a microscope or over a bunson burner. But there is indeed evidence for God in the very contingency of things around us. You don't explain yourself; we can't endlessly appeal to other contingent things to explain you. Therefore there must be a non-contingent cause.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
Word: The history of the RCC exhibits anything but a quest for verifiable evidence, evidence-based reason, or logic or compassion. Just ask all those burned heretics. Whether you like it or not, the RCC is just one religion among thousands that have existed previously and new ones that will exist in future. Religion is a byproduct of human evolution. I grant you that the RCC is a very well-designed religion, but so are Islam and Buddhism. It will be fascinating to see how they fare in future.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 Come on, man. You're basically quoting from the Golden Book of Anti-Catholicism here. Yes, people have done bad things in the name of religion, just as people have done bad things in the name of America. So what? Read any two pages of Thomas Aquinas or John Henry Newman or Karl Rahner or St. Augustine and tell me that those figures were uninterested in reason.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
You claim that atheism is "irrational," which I suppose is your counter to many who, like Einstein, consider organized religion to be "childish superstition." You would certainly NOT think that disbelief in Zeus, Thor or Allah was irrational. But a disbelief in YOUR "god" MUST be "irrational." You might be more effective by being more gracious in your argument. While atheists find no evidence that compels them to believe in ANY god, they do favor evidence, reason, logic and compassion.
BrentGrainger2000 8 months ago
@BrentGrainger2000 The Catholic tradition is for evidence, logic, reason, and compassion--which is why it has proposed serious arguments for God's existence. Thor and Zeus are neither here nor there. What matters is that a radically contingent universe cannot adequately explain itself without recourse to some reality whose very nature is to be.
wordonfirevideo 8 months ago
I been watching your video's and truly appreciate them because you are honest and consistent. To be honest if everyone of faith had his mind set in the US in regards to science and media I wouldn't be such an active atheist. I would probably just mark of none on that survey as well.
gnoxycat 11 months ago
Where do 'Nones' come from? It has nothing to do with the secular climate of this country, but the intellectual climate. Fr. Barron incorrectly asserts that atheists are 'explicitly [stating] there is no god', when in fact, this has nothing to do with the definition of atheism. Atheism is a -lack- of belief in god or gods. No assertion is necessary. So, I hate to break it to you, but any of those 'Nones' who don't assert the existence of a god are in the Atheist category.
NGOrchestra 1 year ago
@NGOrchestra Friend, you'll have to parse the difference for me between "explicitly stating there is no God" and "a complete lack of belief in God." That seems to be a distinction without a difference. And no, the "nones" are those who are affiliated with no institutional religion. Many of the "nones" profess belief in God.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 6
@wordonfirevideo
First of all, in response to the 'nones' issue- I said "any of those nones who don't assert the existence of a god are in the atheist category", not "all of the nones are atheists". I'm sure many of them do profess belief in god. I'm sure that many of them don't. As for the difference between lack of belief and asserting non-existence...well, I mean, there you have it. You can simply "not believe" whilst not saying that you know for certain that no god exists.
NGOrchestra 10 months ago
I used to be a Byzantine Catholic. I left and became an atheist because it's the same thing over and over again. What you are taught depends mostly on which priest is assigned to your parish. The basic teachings of Catholicism are deeply irrational (i.e. A God who has the power to create the whole universe needs an animal blood sacrifice to atone for some minor human violations. He then sees this system isn't working so he sacrifices his son instead) etc.
elzoog 1 year ago
@elzoog Friend, what you're presenting as authentic Christian teaching is a complete caricature. You've learned this much more from Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens than from Thomas Aquinas! Get a good basic introduction to Catholic dogma, read it, and then we'll talk.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 7
@wordonfirevideo that's what happens when you bribe the Ukrainian bishops to submit to Rome. I kid. But to elzoog, I do hope you will take the time to really study the theology of the Church on its own terms.
akrites 11 months ago
Jesus wants you to come home to the Catholic Church, your spiritual home.
TheUltraHorror559 1 year ago
my issue with father barron: i simply disagree with most of his fundamental points that he assumes when making any argument i.e. that humans are wired for god, or that atheism is a "deeply irrational viewpoint". He builds off of these ideas very articulately and intelligently and makes perfect sense, but only in light of those fundamental assumptions. Im an atheist and i watch all his vids and he never actually convinces me of his most basic ideas. he simply MUST debate dawkins, itd be epic
cphines1 1 year ago
@cphines1 Well friend, I can't do everything in one eight minute video! Watch my videos on God's existence and my videos in answer to Hitchens. I think you'll find what you're looking for.
wordonfirevideo 1 year ago 3
@cphines1 It seems to me that atheism is a "deeply irrational viewpoint" is not a fundamental point, in fact it is a very disappointing conclusion. Atheism as defined by the new atheists can't really be irrational unless the evidence for god is completely obvious, it is not! I just stated that last thing as fact without arguing for it, but aside from some subjectivity in evaluation of evidence it is quite clear imo.
Atheism if defined as a believe that there is no god can be irrational of course
mathisnothard 1 year ago
Thank you. So agree with the softening. I don't think we need to be hardcore conservative evangelical calvinists/arminians to respect God's word and think about it.
KiraWei1 1 year ago
AMEN! Speaking as an Orthodox Anglican in America (a population of probably 6 people) he is dead on.
Gaius8666a 1 year ago
I'm an Anglican. I think your analysis of contemporary main-stream protestantism is correct. Thanks for saying it.
kkallebb 1 year ago
wordonfirevideo
Aren't you really saying that catholics have to work at religion and atheists are lazy? In my experience, unbelief as you may describe it is very hard work - almost as hard as trying to interpret the bible and the guff that surrounds it and make reasonable sense of the contradictory messages. Are you not really misinterpreting this lazyness for the fact that people are finally beginning to see through organised religion and can no longer accept its relevance?
bigguitar22 1 year ago
Woah. I am as close to atheist as one can come. I prefer to say agnostic, but I've liked listening to Father Baron until this video. To say that atheism is totally irrational is just such an incorrect statement. Father, if you are viewing this I would like you to explain why it is so irrational.
Handsdown09 1 year ago
@Handsdown09 Atheism has inescapable philosophical consequences on knowledge, morality, reason, truth, etc. Atheism is irrational because these philosophical consequences are irrational. And atheist thinkers agree. Jean-Paul Sartre, an atheist existentialist, is famous for his saying "life is absurd." Atheism also happens to be wrong. Defiance of truth is irrational. :p
Ace91939 1 year ago
The nones are coming! Good bye to religion. Pretty soon a none president is bound to come along. If the current president isn't a none already.
tubeless102 1 year ago
So true. Marvelous, as always!
kidart89 1 year ago
He's drawing conclusions on his own whims. Not on facts. "The nones might even say they believe in god" he says. But ....they don't. That's not what the survey asked. So he's taking a survey that actually shows that those without religion are rising, and from his own "faith" (imagination) drawing the conclusion that it's all positive news for the people who wish to see more religion. Since he has faith, he doesn't care about evidence. Since I have evidence, I don't need faith.
willsquish 1 year ago 2
Evangelical Christianity and Islam is the new big faith for the Latinos now - most of them former Catholics - what happens to the Catholic Church when that group are part and parcel of America? Will they go where our Catholic brethren before have gone? I believe it is former Catholics who make up the highest number of NONES - Lapsed Catholics are second highest number after the number of Catholics in America!
savioblanc 1 year ago
Why is it that the Catholic faith that sustained the Irish, German and Italian immigrants not something that can sustain them now? Right now only the Latins are the ones in the churches and even their numbers are diminishing as the second and third generation Latinos see the church as irrelevant as their non-Latino counterparts
savioblanc 1 year ago
Oh comon father! I'm sure you know that the only reason the Catholic numbers are stable is cos they are being replaced by the immigrants (mostly Catholic) coming from the Latin Amer. countries. Stop that flow, and Catholicism has lost the highest number of adherents compared to any of the other faiths, including the Protestants! I expect you of all people to mention that and at least tell us why?
savioblanc 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone please watch Deliver Us From Evil by Amy Berg for the truth about catholic church and its priests, bishops, and cardinals.
knight91105 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everyone please watch Deliver Us From Evil by Amy Berg for the truth about catholic church and its priests, bishops, and cardinals.
knight91105 2 years ago
Atheism hasn't done well? We've jumped from 8% to 15% in twenty years. That's a near doubling.
That's significant.
pyropakman 2 years ago
@pyropakman Nones represent both atheists and agnostics. I'm sure the greater in number of the two is agnosticism.
Gethsemaneful 1 year ago
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago 2
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago
Nov. 3, hi, Fr. Barron i'm tracey, i'm living 200 wellesley st. E. #1911, my legal name is chun-nu xu, my son's name is zhen-guo cao. we got offer jobs by UN president Pioli but send by insurance company people come from korean catholic church. email took away, over 11 Ys terrible criminal harassment give to us. we suttled already. i want bring my ideas to UN to change this world and same time doing some bussiness. whould you like take us go NY city with pope Fr mckenna 416 414 2497. can help.
tracey1xu 2 years ago
. Again, this danger you refer to. Danger?! Yes, to an institution. There is no danger to God, there is no danger to souls, by trying to worship and love Him in our hearts at all times instead of in church buildings on Sundays. As a lover of God, why are you displeased to know that people choose to love God in such an intensely personal way? Why not rejoice?
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
The church can guide one to an inner path, the church is extremely useful to many, but the church is not God. God is God. God does not care whether you worship in a church, by the riverside or in your home or on the street. What is important is that you DO. And I know you know this, of course. I am just trying to say how a None like me hears what you say.
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
. I bother with my personal relationship with the Lord, I dont bother with institutions established in His name. I hope this makes sense to you. Not having a membership in a church does not mean I love God any less than those who do. You are expressing this: the church is more important than the faith. There is always the danger of losing our distinctiveness. So be it! The distinctions are the cause of all the strifes. The church stresses the superfluous more than the nitty-gritty.
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
an important phenomenon for you, as bringing people to the church is your livelihood, profession, funding, paycheck and passion. Yes, rather urgent from your point of view I would say. But from a simple Nones point of view, generic spirituality is as it should be. People believing and loving God, and practicing their faith by the quality of their lives. What else matters? I think you are in error to perceive Nones as why bother people.
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
I dont know where the Nones are coming from, but that was rather interesting about the Protestant churches. The thing that caught my attention is your worry over generic spirituality.
Generic: of, applicable to, or referring to all the members of a genus, class, group, or kind; general. God IS generic! God is applicable to all things and beings in creation.
Of course, this generic spirituality would be an
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
God IS completely irrational for He is beyond our finite human minds. God is not in the mind, thats why atheists cant find him there. The mind is a tool, and a good one, if used properly for the expression of the heart. Just my humble opinion and thats all I have to say about that, as I believe the topic is about Nones. (cont.)
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
Father Barron,
I love your sermons and website and youtube videos, which I accidentally discovered a year or so ago. Your riveting and compelling and wonderously intelligent insight and the depth of your sharing are not to be dismissed and I am hooked. I may not agree with you on many points, but I feel those points are insignificant overall. With that said, I am responding here as a None.
Regarding atheism being irrational I think it is completely rational! That is the problem. (cont)
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
churches are closing in America. That's good thing, however the shrinking group of believers are getting more dangerous and hateful.
knight91105 2 years ago
Atheism has declined in America, not increased. The majority of people in the 'NONES' (Non-religious) category, believe in a Personal God.
xtrashed 2 years ago
Did not say anything about atheism, did not even mention the word athiest in the text of my post, merely stated the fact that less ppl believe the establish superstitous dogma's. I do hope all who do not become agnostic/ atheist do adopt this personal god you speak of and cease suported corrupt manmade pyramid schemes and all churches/ mosques/ synagouges/ temples, ecetera/ excretia close due to lack of interest, the world will be a better place then.
knight91105 2 years ago
@knight91105
Well, I don't think you are going to get your wish.
xtrashed 2 years ago
Not a "wish" but but a sincere hope for a better future for the human species free from the stupidity, fear, hatred, and tyranny of all superstitous beliefs. Imagine, children educated to deal with the natural changes in their body chemistry instead of being told they are perverts for biological urges. Imagine child molesters not being able to hide behind fantasy rituals, imagine no suicide bombers, imagine decent ppl who are gay being held in higher esteem than televangilist, a better world
knight91105 2 years ago
I would venture a guess re: the nones -
Perhaps finally we are becoming less religious and more spiritual. Hallelujah!
ceruleanblue 2 years ago
That's way too easy a distinction. The only spirituality that you know was taught to you in a religious context. Try to get rid of religion, and you will find yourself re-inventing it the next day.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago 3
@wordonfirevideo I disagree: I think you can separate religion and spirtuality, though it may be hard for most people. Prayer is religion's main form of spiritualism (meditation is another way, but it's more by the eastern religions), but there are other means (meditation, yoga, etc.) that can be accessed by the non-religious.
misterzonker2584 1 year ago
This was another example of mischaracterizing atheism
The usage of "A"____ as a prefix in english denotes LACKING OF
In other words A-theism literally means,
"Lacking of a belief in god" It doesnt denote the denial of a god. So the "Non's" you referenced actually are the atheists.
boorens18 2 years ago
Not at all. The "nones" say that they are not members of organized religions. My guess is that most of them would claim some level of spirituality and that the vast majority would believe in God. I say this because the poll numbers concerning belief in God are still remarkably high.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
no there are a few who may claim some sort of non religioius spirituality (but keep in mind that basically means that their belief holds no tenets, rules or belief strucuture" which means that religion is not an effective part of their life.
boorens18 2 years ago
Well friend, it's got to be a lot more than "a few." Otherwise, the number of atheists would be rising sharply, which it clearly is not.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
what do you mean? atheism IS sharply rising Atleast where I live (Canada) especially the younger, and higher level of education the target group. Unfortunately atheism is plagued as a social stigma in many countries so there is a tendency for atheists to remain "in the closet" so to speak, even as a force of habit rather than a fear in some cases. For instance, I stopped believing in god but for years I still marked down christian as a sort of mental habit.
boorens18 2 years ago
Show me the concrete statistics that indicate a rise in atheism. The study that I'm commenting on here--a thorough analysis of religious attitudes in America--shows no such increase.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago 2
Atheists ARE nonbelievers...however statiscs include that option as an alternative ususally because of the negative connotations of the word atheism. (No thanks to religious propaganda)
There is no difference between "Not believing in and gods" and "believing there is no gods" It is a dicotomy
Before you attempt to say well one affirms there is no gods, and one isnt certain, That has no bearing on the actual stance. Thats is a level of certainty, not a stance on whether gods exist or not.
boorens18 2 years ago
People forget that the prefix "a" literally translates to "non" So calling someone a non-theist or nonbeliever in god is identical to an a(non)-theist(believer)
Religious people try to draw negative connotations to the word atheist by implying it means fundamentalist nonbeliever....which it doesnt. It infact has no bearing whatsoever on how sure the person is, whether they be fundamentalist, or open to discussion.
boorens18 2 years ago
boorens18: what do you love the most with your whole heart? Whatever that is; that is your god. could be money, fame, cars, guns, hunting, shopping, anything.
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago
if you define god simply as what you love most then why bother with the word god in the first place? Further it has really nothing to do with things we can only imagine and not really demonstrate such as omnipotent beings.
boorens18 2 years ago
You did not answer my question; you answer questions just like a public offical; by not answering them. What do you love with your entire heart? I know why I am here; to know, to love and serve God. That is why we are all here but it is for you to find him. Why bother with the Word of God; because it is absolute Truth. It is for you to decide if you want to love the true God or things of the world that is not truth. You can only serve one Master; so choose your Master; mine is God almighty.
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago
your question is meaningless. It is an attempt to draw the conversation away from god so you dont need to defend that idea. What does you knowing what I love most have to do with god existing or not? Nothing. Im not so stupid as to fall for a lame debate tactic like changing the subject you moron. Sheesh that works on kids maybe.
Dont you find it slightly suspicious that your religion is PERFECTLY designed to control you? Never questioning because of faith, giving money to ur church?
boorens18 2 years ago
read the poem I posted by St. John of the Cross; there is your answer. What you love does is not take away from God; because love is God, Truth is God and Hope is God. Three things make up God: Truth, Hope and Love. The Trinity: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost. Three persons one God. The Son comes from the Father and Spirit is the love they share and that we share too; that is called a grace from God.
MegaPadrePio 2 years ago
no thanks, I could give to shits about your poem. I prefer LOGIC reason and conversation. If you cant answer the question with those terms, you cant answer the question Thank you very much.
boorens18 2 years ago
Brilliant.
archangler 2 years ago
Seems the growing area of Protestantism is centered in the "Calvinistic" churches.
antipelagian 2 years ago
Father Barron, This is absolutely brilliant stuff. All of it. One video after another-- pure Gold.
Great, great.. GREAT WORK!
Theologica37 2 years ago 20
yeah I love his stuff. Thats why I sent the video to you. Glad you are enjoying them.
God bless you, and keep your great work up too.
havock89 2 years ago
Oh, by the way, I would like to thank you for keeping your comments and ratings enabled. Most pro-religious videos don't do that for some reason. Would you happen to know why?
Holden1971 2 years ago
Let's face it, religion is a failed science. It's hard for me to fathom that any remotely rational person would believe in any religion if they were taught it for the first time as an adult. People tend to believe things for a long time or forever when they are taught it as a child. When I was a kid I used to think my Dad was Superman. Then as I got older I realized that he was just a regular guy(that sometimes liked to wear a cape). Get it? Show me 1 shred of evidence for God and I will believe
Holden1971 2 years ago
No. Religion is not bad science. It's something other than science. The confusion on this point has caused a lot of trouble.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I'm not too bright so please explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old if you would. You believe in virgin births and talking snakes and the earth is approximately 6,000 years old right? And the Atheists are the ones that are deeply irrational? Is this correct? I'm a little confused.
Isn't there a CHANCE that the "nones" are Atheists in the closet that don't want to come out because they are afraid of being shunned by the same kind of people that thought the earth was flat 500 years ago?
Holden1971 2 years ago
No I don't think the earth is 6000 years old and I don't believe there was a talking snake, but I do believe in the virgin birth. The genres and purposes of the biblical accounts vary.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
If the earth is not 6000 years old(like it says in the bible) than how old do you believe the earth is? Genesis starts off "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." On the very next page Eve is talking to a snake. If the beginning of Genesis 3 is not Eve talking to a snake than who exactly is talking to her? In the entire bible there is not 1 single mention of dinosaurs that I am aware of yet I'm pretty sure they were around longer than man ever was. Did God create them? Cont...
Holden1971 2 years ago
Friend, like so many others on these forums, you mistake Catholics for fundamentalists. Catholics are not biblical literalists. As for dinosaurs and the age of the earth, etc., I don't consult the Bible but the latest science. Religion and science are compatible precisely because they pose qualitatively different kinds of questions.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
I have to admit that I do make that mistake I suppose. To me it's just different levels of nonsense. If Catholics do not take the entire bible literally, then how do you know which parts to take literally? Weren't all the prophets speaking the word of God? Would you agree with me that dinosaurs were around a lot longer than humans were? How come there is not a single mention of them in the bible? That just seems a bit odd to me. Especially since the bible starts off with "In the beginning.."
Holden1971 2 years ago
No Christians take the entire Bible literally.
afeegs33 2 years ago
I personally know 100's of Christians who do "take the entire Bible literally"..
And I know of 1000's of Christians who do "take the entire Bible literally"..
And I am not even a christian..........
Tell me afeegs33, do you know many christians?
dmosier 2 years ago
There is some mention of dinosaurs in the bible. The book of Job.
DangeloM27 2 years ago
Holden 1971. What really seems odd is the fact that you are testing the credibility of the Bible on the basis of dinosaurs.
The Bible is not an account of the history of the earth. It is the divinely inspired account of the history of God's relationship with humanity and the fulfillment of the work of salvation by Jesus.
EmmanuelBenedict 2 years ago
I'm not testing the credibility of the Bible on the basis of dinosaurs. That's just 1 example. I could give around 500 examples of how the bible is not credible. You say "The Bible is not an account of the history of the earth." Why does it start off as "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." That sure sounds like a history book to me. I can't think of single thing that makes the bible even remotely credible. Please give me an example if you will.
Holden1971 2 years ago
I probably shouldn't assume that you believe that dinosaurs existed but if you do why was there no mention of them in the bible? How long were they around? Are you familiar with the stories of Mithra and Horus? They are strikingly similar to the story of Jesus yet they came before the story of Jesus. How do you account for this? If Mary actually existed isn't there a CHANCE that she was lying about being a virgin? Should the bible be read literally or is it ok to pick and choose what you like?
Holden1971 2 years ago
Take a look at my video on the Zeitgeist nonsense. Don't listen to the debunkers; take a very good, long look at the stories of Mithra and Horus, and you'll see just how radically different they are from the Christian story.
wordonfirevideo 2 years ago
''the Christian story'' is an amalgamation of myths and so yes, you will find differences.
sonoflipoic 2 years ago
yawn
mmorrtt 2 years ago
Primitive man painted what he saw on the side of caves. We have many pictures of wolly mammoths, mastadons, saber tooth tigers that we don't have today, yet NOT A SINGLE Painting of a dinosaur b/c man did not see them b/c the evolved and became extinct tens of millions of years prior to humanity.
knight91105 2 years ago
Latinos are here to stay, their children are filling up churches. SIt is not like they are here and will leave anytime soon. So, there is a big future for the Catholic Church in the USA in terms of numbers. A very different case is the one with mainline Protestant churches, they are dying by the day. And atheists, mmm, they have been saying that God is dead for almost 200 years now... losers.
fk04us 2 years ago 3
Fr. Barron I am a long time admirer of yours. I have heard you say that only 6% of native born Catholics go to Mass. Recently arrived Hispanics boost the number to 25%. Doesn't that indicate that native born Catholics have gone the way of mainline Protestants in this country? Keep up your wonderful work. Flatbushjack
Flatbushjack 3 years ago
I also really like your analogy about healthy organisms. Saying yes to something means having the courage to say no to something else which has become increasingly rare these days.
ShepardofArcadia 3 years ago
I believe a pew survey said ex catholics are one of the largest religious demographics in the US. I believe evangelical/born agains will go a similar way as the other denominations because of the intertwining with conservatism where being a Christian becomes a way to out Republican your neighbor. I would say the political component is similar to what you were saying about the liberalization of the mainline denominations.
ShepardofArcadia 3 years ago
A winnowing seems to be taking place. Its clarifying effects could lead to good.
Jitpring 3 years ago
well saying atheism is "irrational" does not really make sense at all xD
you could call it many things if you like ... but "irrational" ? O.o where would that come from ? xD
shezario 3 years ago
Oh perhaps from the fact that a radically contingent world is non-self-explanatory.
wordonfirevideo 3 years ago
also I do not think the world is self-explanatory.... yet ^^ thats the difference I do not try to believe but to know as much as I possibly can and from that draw my conclusions ;) however I was planning on writing to you anyway so this seems a good opurtunity ^^
shezario 3 years ago
nooffensebut, thanks for your response. Perhaps I should have been more specific, however, as I'm not talking about sheer numbers. Let's focus on the percentages. I'd invite you to take a look at the study I cited. Catholic priests, or even overall clergy, for that matter, are not a statistically significant class of perpetrators. That's empirical fact. My original point still stands, though. There is no correlation or causal relation between celibacy and the sexual abuse of children.
TJB5 3 years ago
Really? So how does one explain the vastly larger number of child sexual abuse cases by non-celibates (in public schools, married family members & friends, etc.)? (See, specifically, the Child Mistreatment 2006 report from the U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services.) Blaming the Church's sexual abuse crisis on celibacy is like blaming marital fidelity for adultery.
TJB5 3 years ago
Praise Christ for your ministry, as your work has nourished many faith journeys. As for survey trends, while your commentary helps explain the increase in the number of "nones," the Catholic numbers are troubling underneath. They're relatively stable, sure, but I wonder how much is attributed to immigration (particularly Hispanic) and not generational catechesis & faith-rearing. Previous strongholds, like northern New England, have largely produced a stunning # of unchurched folks.
TJB5 3 years ago
As usual, spot on. Another brilliant and very thoughtful observation!
benchwarmerbenji 3 years ago
mjr256 said "back when fewer critics were pointing out the utter absurdities of Christianity...now that critics are more vocal"
Were the critics not vocal when they murdered over 20,000 monks, nuns, and priests under Communism? What about priest block at Dachau? The French Revolution? Nero ring a bell?
Perhaps your contempt for Christianity isn't as cutting adge as you'd like to think....just sayin'
ericschick1985 3 years ago