Fr. Barron comments on Stephen Hawking & more tired atheism

Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Father Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit http://www.wordonfire.org/

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• Fr. Robert Barron
• Word On Fire
• Catholicism
• Christianity
• God
• religion
• Stephen Hawking
• atheism
• physics
• gravity
• big bang theory
• science
• philosophy
• faith
• bible
• Jesus
• The Grand Design
• universe philosophy

[snailrace7]

Father Barron,

I'm just wondering: even if one accepts for argument's sake that there has to be a creator of some sort, given all the religions and gods and theories that have been formulated since the existence of humanity, what makes us able to choose one religion over all others and say that it alone explains the truth?

[wordonfirevideo]

@snailrace7 Well, narrow it down. The non-contingent ground of contingency must be that which explains the being of the universe. Therefore, those religions that speak of a Creator really distinct from the world have it right. Further, the non-contingent ground must be the sheer act of being itself and hence in possession of all ontological perfection. Those religions that hold that God is a person are correct. You've actually eliminated thereby most religions.

[snailrace7]

@wordonfirevideo But surely Christianity is not the only religion that is now left?

[wordonfirevideo]

@snailrace7 No. We're down to Christianity, Islam, and Judaism. To make the further arguments for Christianity, we'd have to leave the realm of pure philosophy.

[MrSeekingLight]

(6) Given this analysis, I am left to conclude that there is no coherent evidence for a deity as you describe him and no reason for belief. Nonetheless, your videos and their commentaries have been very helpful to me in coming to this conclusion, and I thank you!

[wordonfirevideo]

@MrSeekingLight On the contrary, there is every reason to believe, and none of your objections is finally telling. Thanks for the conversation!

[TheFutureengineer20]

@MrSeekingLight I told you I believe there could be a multitude of reasons that the CG would permit that. None of which I claim to know. I never said the "problem of evil" is beside the point. I'm arguing the very questions and issues you are raising ultimately don't make sense from the atheistic worldview b/c you have not reference point. Telling me what I aught to do to achieve a goal (survival) doesn't get you to an aught of prudence. If it does you need to prove it.

[grunderlyme]

@MrSeekingLight Also, why are you using the term "defect" when this is an evaluative, not a a scientific, term? Science can only show us what is, in fact, the case, not which case is betther than another.

[grunderlyme]

@MrSeekingLight (3) There is not a single shred of evidence that free will does not exist. Free will is such that an agent COULD HAVE done otherwise than what an agent, in fact, did. So in order to show free will does not exist, you need to show that an agent cannot have done otherwise. But how this is even empirically possible? There is ALWAYS more than one option open to the agent at any given time. What possible evidence is there showing ONLY one option exists? Go for it!

[grunderlyme]

@MrSeekingLight (2) The term "intrinsic quality" is a purely philosophical notion referring to the essential properties of certain KINDS of things, like being-human, being-feline (otherwise known as "essentialism") But biology since Darwin has completely abandoned essentialism, because species can change their essential properties, evolving into new ones. But I thought you rejected philosophy. So why are you even using the philosophical notion of an "intrinsic quality"??? 

[grunderlyme]

@MrSeekingLight (1) Evil originates in the will of free creatures. So there is one thing God cannot do, namely, compel people to choose the good. By definition, a "compelled choice" is a contradiction in terms.

X is responsible for Y's behavior ONLY IF X could have forced Y to choose otherwise. God cannot have made Y freely choose otherwise, which is a contradiction in terms. Therefore, God is not responsible for evil.

[grunderlyme]

@MrSeekingLight Mr. Irrational is back! I'll have a blast defeating this same nonsense of yours again. Here we go. You ready?....

[MrSeekingLight]

@TheFutureengineer20 Finally, here is a very important distinction for you to think about. A wonderful characteristic of science is actually intrinsically a paradox. Science does not permit us the delusion of certainty. But it is in EMBRACING this human fallibility---our lack of certainty---that we actually learn the most! As Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

[MrSeekingLight]

@TheFutureengineer20 Re: free will. Evidence is growing that both "free will" and "time" are illusory. Both may well be generated by our brains, rather than exist in reality, and both may contribute to our reproductive fitness as a species. Illusions are not necessarily harmful in themselves. However, it is helpful to know that illusions are indeed illusory.

We live in the age of physics. We will be surprised in ways that are ...well....surprising!!! A joy-filled time for the scientist.

[MrSeekingLight]

@TheFutureengineer20 I'd encourage you to brush up on your molecular genetics and evolutionary biology. The CNS is complex in humans. Defects in CNS functioning, such as those that produce psychosis, also provide mutations which in alternative combinations may actually promote fitness. Mutation followed by natural selection is a messy, unpredictable process. But that does not mean that certain mutations are indeed deleterious and result in loss of reproductive fitness.