Bishop Barron on Resisting Aggressive Secularism

[@GrandmotherMaryB]

Dear Fr Barron I am so grateful for your talks. They are absolutely what Catholics need today. You are able to share you erudition with us. Your style is easygoing and you speak the truth. What I don't understand is that people fight back. I suppose that is God's plan & it shows that they are thinking about the most important subject of all. Jesus died to save every human being not just those who say "Lord Lord". God bless you and happy Christmas. Mary

[@markguagenti9342]

Fr. Barron is AWESOME! Love it! I share the Catholic and Christian Life with everyone I possibly can and in doing so be the leader of Christ like behavior every chance I can. Take up your Cross Daily and Follow Me! Peace and Good to you all!

[@BishopBarron]

We want, finally, the fullness of truth, the fullness of goodness, the fullness of beauty. And none of those is available through ordinary experience.

[@rachealbrimberry8918]

Just talking to a friend this afternoon about this very subject. I recently moved back east and expected to find the liberals out in the streets waving their banners declaring their mantras of secularism. But there are faithful Catholics out here and churches that are taken care of and in good repair. There is not, outside of the city, as many opportunities for confession, adoration, etc. but I am so grateful to have a fellow Catholics to journey with during this Lent. I have to say this, God provided me that. Help me Lord to focus on you.

[@leelansford1043]

Bless you, Fr. Barron! I wish you well as you move to serve in the Diocese of LA!

[@billcummings6958]

stem cells

[@MrLlurati]

Father Barron, you are a wonderful priest and a wonderful person. During moments when I experience Spiritual darkness and doubts, I watch your videos and feel so inspired and empowered to speak the Truth and live my life doing God's will. I will pray for you and your ministry that you may continue to touch the hearts of all Catholics and all those longing for God.

[@PInk77W1]

I was the worst kid ever. Got kicked out of Public school and Catholic school. One day at 13 or 14yrs old I was at an assembly at a Catholic Church. St Louis de Montfort Orcutt CA. The priest said “As long as u pray everyday, u will be Catholic When u stop praying everyday, u will stop being Catholic.” I’m now 60 and still pray and still go to mass and confession

[@hansolgo]

Thank you Fr. Barron for doing this. God bless you and please, please continue to share your thoughts and spread the Truth.

[@JRyanYM86]

You are like a modern Archbishop Fulton Sheen. Different but similar in your entertaining, concise, and honest answers to many of the faithfuls questions. Fr. Sheen used radio and then television which were new and emerging mediums when he first started his public ministry. You have used video and the internet to help bring the faith to many others in a tangible and intelligible way. May God bless you, your ministry, and your efforts which are no doubt a manifestation of the New Evangelization.

[@thomaspelletier7790]

"and by the way invented the university system" oh. drop that bomb father.

[@AGJ48]

Wonderful talk Bishop Barron, you inspire us to be more involved.

[@BishopBarron]

Brent, in determining what makes an act right or wrong, what would you accept as evidence? In determining whether a movie is of high or low quality, what would you accept as evidence? In determining what constitutes epistemological assent, what would you accept as evidence?

[@inadunham4034]

Well said, Thank You for the blessing of enriching our lives.

[@BishopBarron]

There is a huge difference between saying that government should officially sanction no particular religion and saying that a society should function without a reference to the transcendent. I have no quarrel with the first. I have a major quarrel with the second. The ideology behind that second scenario I am terming "secularist."

[@AdmiralPrice]

You have a very hardcore Muslim fan in me, Father Barron. Over the last year or so, I've really come to appreciate the Church's intellectualism and spirituality. In the end, in America, we're going to end up divided into believers and non-believers, and religions taking a secondary division. Lots of love :)

[@ginofillion]

Thanks to record this kind of commentary in 1080 HD. Thanks to Father Barron for his ministry. Gino - Canada

[@johnpatricklim4509]

Fr. Robert...i would love hear from you giving us a teaching sometime in canada

[@BishopBarron]

Let me just ask you a question: if you watch TV and movies, listen to ordinary conversations, and read newspapers, which group is it perfectly okay to criticize? The question, sadly, answers itself.

[@naturalismforever3469]

Let's see, Robert. Thinking back over the last few days, I've heard intense criticism of the following: Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, ISIS, Angela Merkel, those who favor the eradication of mosquitoes, those who oppose the eradication of mosquitoes, members of the LGBTQ community, those who kneel at football games during the national anthem, scientists who invented GMO crop plants, Putin, those who oppose the use of vaccines, those who favor the use of vaccines, those who voted for Hillary Clinton, those who voted for Donald Trump, the Iranians, Muslims in general, Hispanics in general, the CEO's of several different banks, hedge fund managers, Monsanto, Pfizer, Exxon, the Federal government in general, all sorts of billionaires, .....the list goes on and on. Your self-serving, paranoid, and frankly immature notion that the Roman church is more criticized than any other institution is simply not based upon the verifiable evidence and it actually implicitly denies that the Roman church has done anything for which it ought to be intensely criticized, when indeed it has.

[@BishopBarron]

Well, just to be fair, what do you think about ideological secularism's brutal attacks on religion? There was plenty of violence on both sides.

[@BishopBarron]

My point is this: I don't want you making these decisions for me! You've been saying for weeks that religious and philosophical ways of knowing are to be ruled out of court. Like many rationalists, you just don't see how beholden to an authoritarian system you are. And how willing you are to impose your point of view on everyone else.

[@123321205]

GOD bless you Fr Barron.

[@olFreddylo]

God bless you bishop for your intellect and your way of wording!

[@blasporj]

I would not call Newon THE father of modern science, though he was certainly one of them. And it is true that he was deeply religious, though it was his rationalism and dedication to enlightenment principles which lead to his advances in physics and mathematics, not his Christianity. The great advances which have occurred as a direct result of the Enlightenment argue that it is, in fact, distinct among philosophies, and above most of them in many ways.

[@ocoutdoors2355]

I really enjoy these videos. You remind me of Peter Robinson from the Hoover Institute. Very thoughtful and deliberate.

[@niallhogan1565]

When God is moved out something very bad replaces him and moves in. Thank you Bishop Barron for highlighting this .

[@BishopBarron]

A hyper-rationalism that excludes non-rational ways of knowing. A deep anti-supernaturalist prejudice. A tendency to reduce all paths of knowing to the empirical-scientific path. An aggressiveness toward nature.

[@BishopBarron]

Catholicism doesn't say that. Take a look at the Documents of Vatican II. We know that there are rays of truth in all of the great religions and philosophies of the world.

[@BishopBarron]

Well, I agree that there are relatively benign forms of secularism, those that accept, as you say, a certain least common denominator that can bring everyone together. But there are also, as I clarify in the video, some very aggressive ideological forms of secularism that want actively to remove religion from the public conversation. That's the enemy that I'm targeting here.

[@WeeboShepard]

Fr, I'd like to thank you for helping me through a crisis of faith. I'm fairly new to your videos, but I'm wondering if you've discussed Soren Kierkegaard before. I know he's sort of the theological opposite of Thomism, in that he aligns himself with fideism, but I think his critique of religion is important to consider. Thanks!

[@alliefox25]

I don't like how Father Barron is engaging in the same sort of mischaracterizations about secularism and the Enlightenment as the new atheists make about religion. As a catholic I really want to move past the old arguments about Science vs. Religion, but in this video Father Barron seems too eager to fight old battles. Just because someone might question the Aristotelian worldview of Aquinas doesn't mean they think he was an idiot like Fr. Barron implies in the video.

[@colevish]

As I investigated the history of religions more deeply, I realized that I was not so much smarter than believers, in fact, many believers had thought more and questioned more and reasoned more about these questions than I had. It was arrogant of me to think the answer was so easy. Moreover, many believers shared all the same scientific views that I did, they believed in necessaity of logical discussion, the need for experimentation, the value of investigation. They had everything I had and more.

[@chasefreak]

Fr. Barron, I am Catholic, but was curious as to your thoughts on (what I see as) a rising "trend" of many people (especially young familes) attending non-demoinational places of worship. I'm not referring to those snake handlers either, but large centers with thousands of familes as members that seem to want to no longer be "labeled."

[@gracesng9929]

THE MIND CANNOT SEE GOD... THE HEART CAN

[@hitomi969]

Hearts pump blood, hears can't see !

[@PInk77W1]

Figure of speech

[@alt8791]

Him Bike a stupid one

[@nellahashimoto1342]

Thank you Father. God bless.

[@BishopBarron]

How do you explain the fact that one of the most vibrantly Catholic countries in the world is the United States? But at the end of the day, counting heads isn't what it's about. Truth and falsity is what it's about.

[@BishopBarron]

You're nowhere near determining the real question. Why does it matter whether your neighbor be harmed or not? Why is harming someone a bad thing? Brent, no amount of "evidence" from physiology or psychology is going to settle that question.

[@alt8791]

It matters from a natural standpoint because harming others of the same species isn’t exactly beneficial to the continuation of that species. People such as yourself say “morals can’t exist without god.” But, the problem is, they _can._ It’s evolutionarily selected for to discourage murder.

[@bishopsheen1985]

Thank you, Father Barron!

[@BishopBarron]

Once again, "science" might tell you how physical objects are perceived, but it can't begin to tell you what the good and the beautiful are. Every time you make this "argument," you are caught on the horns of the scientistic dilemma.

[@LexPenko]

Another beautiful video. Thank you!

[@BishopBarron]

Brent, in our discussions so far, I've never appealed to authority; I've appealed to reason. What I resent is your flippant dismissal of my point of view as "superstitious" and "irrational" just because I wear a roman collar. And as I've said a thousand times, there is nothing in the world wrong with "science," but not everything is subject to scientific analysis.

[@alt8791]

How come not everything is subject to scientific analysis? Science is pretty damn good at figuring out pretty much everything, so why should we exempt beliefs that people such as yourself build their entire lives around?

[@blahtime3416]

Religion is not excused to scientific analysis. There is zero evidence that a god or any for of super-natural exists.

[@frensofrens]

@@alt8791 Religion is not subject to being proven or unproven by the scientific for the same reason the validity of a syllogism or the truth value of a mathematical equation is not subject to the scientific method. Only falsifiable claims about the empirical world are subject to the scientific method, while religion makes metaphysical claims.

[@Yesica1993]

Pt. 1 Excellently done, as usual! If he hasn't done it already, I would welcome a video expanding on the final point about Christians bringing their point of view into the secular marketplace of ideas. In order to do this, Christians must be familiar with secularist views and their philosophical underpinnings in order to address them from the biblical worldview. This assumes we know what WE believe and why we believe it. (Cont.)

[@angelamariapreuss]

Fr. Barron, will you talk about the Holy Innocents? All I am finding, I don't have a Catholic University available, is that Matthew's account is doubtful, as are all the Gospels and the OT, and that Josephus did not chronicle the event, so it probably didn't happen and if it did the number was quite small as Bethlehem is small. Well the census was going on so the town was full. Where can I find more literature? Thinking of my nativity for my yard, I feel compelled to include a roman soldier.

[@DanCarollo]

What is very interesting to me -- is not only the condesension towards religion in our society -- but also a severe amenesia of basic philosophical concepts in natural reason (potentiallty vs. actuality, primary vs. secondary causes, correlation vs. causation, same vs. other, etc.). Two of the best (and most accessible) books read on the subject "10 Philosophical Mistakes" and "6 Great Ideas" by Mortimer J. Adler. Another delightful read is "Socrates Meets Jesus" by philosopher Peter Kreeft.

[@daviderlbacher5402]

we are a sad, sad people to reject the Truth that Fr. Barron's delivers

[@naturalismforever3469]

No, David, you are a "sad, sad" person not to THINK!

[@solidbloke]

Naturalism Forever mate, you tell people to "think" but automatically assume that someone who is religious must be mentally blind. As an ex-nihilist myself i used to think that same way, come into these videos open minded and you might be surprised.

[@DMLAZPT109]

You see That is why I believe. When you put all the pieces together, pursuant to an overall investigation it, as you say "hangs together" as you say "there is a certain consistency and coherence about all of the evidence gathered together"

[@alliefox25]

My problem is that Fr. Barron is using a bad column written by Neil Steinberg as a stand in for Habermas. I've only read part of After Virtue by Macintyre, but this discussion doesn't rise to that level. I probably misspoke when I used the word "old" as I'm commenting more about the style. Here on youtube Father Barron plays the role of popularizer and in that role I think its best not to make caricatures of the other side of the debate. Using Steinberg as a foil doesn't do the debate justice

[@DMLAZPT109]

I agree with Barr when he has written' " The materialist is in a straight jacket of his own making. NOTHING is allowed by him to be beyond explanation in terms of matter and the mathematical laws that it obeys. If, therefore, he comes across some phenomenon that is hard to account for in materialist terms, he often ends up denying its very existence. The materialist lives in a very small world, intellectually speaking. It is a universe of huge physical dimensions, but very narrow."

[@BishopBarron]

Not that we're presenting crude caricatures of religion or anything!

[@marydolan587]

Thanks Bishop! Right on the mark.

[@trajan75]

Esther, read or better yet listen to "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and tell me if that represents secular thinking

[@BishopBarron]

I don't think that secularism is desirable at all! By that term, I mean an ideology that systematically excludes any reference to the transcendent. Since we human beings are ordered toward transcendence, secularism is a deadening and deeply anti-humanist philosophy. I don't see how you could deny that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc. were radical secularists, as I'm using the term. And yes, I do indeed think that secularism has an inevitable trajectory toward totalitarianism.

[@BishopBarron]

Brent, these dichotomies that you're setting up here are way too simplistic. As I've argued again and again, "science" is powerfully illuminating in regard to certain dimensions of reality, but not in every dimension. "Science" can never tell you what your life means, what makes something beautiful, what distinguishes right from wrong, etc. And to dismiss the Bible simply as "myth" and "story" is wrong on a number of levels.

[@DMLAZPT109]

I will make this an opened ended question. I am trying to get a fix on what your criteria is to accept that a person existed historically or an event occurred historically. Of course I am referring to the time before audio and video recording devices.

[@lproof8472]

Bishop Barron, I’m curious to know if the Catholic Church has a strategy to bring religious intellectualism back into the conversation. As far as Protestants go, it seems our Apologists are the only ones leading the way here. That and so many denominations are starting to compromise the integrity of traditional church teaching in order to find their place in this growing secular society-see three recent Methodist split. What is Catholicism strategically offering in this regard?

[@CarcharodonMeg]

That the American understanding of Freedom is inspired by religious views is beyond question. But as you point out, not everyone has the same concept of freedom. The point being made here is that, regardless of your personal conception of freedom, the version that influenced the Founders was generally one that was intimately entwined with (mostly Protestant, but some Catholic) Christianity.

[@bluelarry1674]

Fr. Barron. This was a captivating episode. Is this subject matter consistent with the writings on Cardinal Henri Du Lubac? And his viewpoints regarding Atheistic Humanism?

[@JesusIsLove2512]

Praise the Lord Jesus Christ 🙏 Mother Mary Pray For Us 🙏Abba Father Bless us and we Adore You 🙏

[@Apacalola]

I welcome your non-violent resistance to secularism. It is much preferred to earlier religious means of resistance that featured burning people to death for disagreeing, convicted of being a witch, etc.

[@BishopBarron]

God bless you for that!

[@SwordAgainstChaos]

I'd love to have philosophical discussions with Father (Bishop) Barron. I am an atheist (former Catholic). But I strongly defend Western civilization and its values of reason and individual rights which arose and were realized through a long struggle. I appreciate the intellectual and artistic traditions of the Catholic Church which I hold originate through Thomas Aquinas unleashing Aristotle on the Christian west. It is through this understanding of intellectual history that you realize that Christianity became a melding of religion and rational ancient Greek philosophy (Aristotle).

[@forresthenry9535]

Thank-you, it is not often that I see atheists that are willing to see the merits and gifts that Catholicism brings to the table that is western civilization. Again, thank-you.

[@SwordAgainstChaos]

Agnes Philomena I discovered Ayn Rand.

[@BishopBarron]

And I suppose that you decide what's sane, rational, and superstitious.

[@dsydebot]

Also, many of the things he identified as violence, were not violence, but exercises of justice. While we may have improved our capacity to administer justice without physically damaging a criminal, that doesn't mean we have to identify all past instances of killing as "violence", if they were the only means available to satisfy justice. All it means is that we now have the technology that makes such killing unneeded. We aren't less violent thereby; we are just better equipped.

[@Yesica1993]

Pt. 2 But this takes time and effort, a willingness to read and study and think and learn how to express our views intelligently. Sadly, my experience has been that few Christians are willing to put forth that level of effort. How can we encourage our fellow brothers and sisters about the importance of this?

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

Not really. The Academy and the Lyceum were just philosophical schools under one teacher. They were not part of a systematized network of degree-granting institutions like modern universities, which developed out of early medieval monastic schools.

[@2014usa]

Father Barron can certainly answer this question better than I, but I'll just give one example that he touched upon in the video: during the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century, religious revivals spread throughout the United States (especially in the South and West) like wildfire. It was precisely this rapid dissemination of Christian beliefs that inspired many of the reform efforts that followed, including women's rights (though unsuccessful for several decades) and abolition.

[@naturalismforever3469]

Robert: Kindly answer the following question: Would the Roman church have halted its promotion, enablement, and coverup of child rape without the intervention of the secular press and secular legal authorities, as shown clearly in the Academy Award-winning film, "Spotlight?" Remember: your Roman church had been enabling, promoting, and covering up such rapes form many, many decades prior to this ground breaking journalism. Your church had tried to deny access to the records of such rapes. It had moved priests from parish to parish to obtain new "meat." At the level of the Vatican, your bishops had been directed in the strongest possible terms NEVER to notify secular legal authorities of these crimes. Kindly answer the question. Thank you.

[@BishopBarron]

There is no question that the secular press played a positive role in bringing this crime to light. The Bible teaches that God sometimes uses the pagan nations for the chastisement and purification of Israel. I would suggest that this is the best way to understand what happened.

[@naturalismforever3469]

Oh, Robert. You are good! No one could twist the facts of the events better! Naw, I don't buy it. Using circular supernaturalistic "explanations," which never explain anything at all, doesn't work. It's really simple. The Enlightenment-based liberties of a free press and a secular judiciary uncovered horrendous evil in your institution, despite the best efforts of the Roman church to continue with and to coverup such evil, and then forced the Roman church to begin to stop it. Note: the decision of the hierarchy after many decades to halt such evil acts was not because such acts were evil, but because, once exposed, they threatened the wealth and power of the institution. It's the same reason that you stopped burning heretics.

[@mnptm]

naturalism forever, you don't get promoted in the church by telling the truth; you have to be an adept apologist, a cherry picking spin master, and above all unquestionably obedient. and in this day and age the church seeks someone who can tow the line with charm, because the selfish obese ignorant baby boom generation wont live forever, and when they die, the american church will be in serious decline.

[@naturalismforever3469]

I could not agree with you more, mnptm: While Robert Barron is certainly among the most adept of the Roman church public apologists, in part because he conflates philosophy with supernaturalism, he clearly is a species rapidly facing extinction. Except in Africa, the Roman church is in a state of rapid decline. Why Africa? Obviously, because the effectiveness of the predominant social structures for human well-being, the level of general education, and the level of scientific literacy are the lowest in the world. As Africa advances economically and socially, it will give up its reliance on supernaturalism. The Middle East, unfortunately, because of many diverse forces, will retain its incredible variety of forms of Islam for generations, even though it had a golden age of intellectual freedom during which its astronomy and mathematics far surpassed European thought, at a time when the Roman church was still burning heretics. (75% of all stars bear Arabic names.) Robert Barron does have competition from the extreme right wing of the Roman church. Simply view "The Vortex" videos for an example of even greater homophobia, misogyny, and reactionary thought than Robert Barron exhibits. Actually, "The Vortex" videos are excellent for your amusement. They show the extremes which ignorance can reach. I've always wondered whether the moderator, Michael Voris, must be a total closet case because of his homophobia. Genuinely heterosexual men rarely even care about what other men do while naked---but Michael Voris is completely enthralled by it. You'll laugh out loud.

[@PGBurgess]

that is just a laughable answer of Barron... i can hardly believe it is intended seriously.

[@havock89]

Excellent video Father. God bless your work.

[@johnedwardtaylor]

I agree with almost everything you say, but giving your own religion credit for inventing the university system ignores the crucial role that Islam had in its growth, not to mention Plato's Academy. But yes, it was not secularism that invented it.

[@elzbietahapsburska3711]

2) . . . and he outright rejected atheism. Rousseau was a very religious person, and it shows in his philosophy, whereas Mme de Stael was a Protestant (apparently non denominational). A few Enlightenment figures were atheist, but not the majority. Furthermore, a lot of ancienne regime scientist, including the afore mentioned Voltaire, Emilie de Chatelet, and the XVIIth century mathematician Blaise Pascal, saw science as a way to PROVE the existence of God.

[@jameskenny8821]

I myself see the future as becoming a secular society. However there's a book I read that changed my mind on the subject of that. It's called The Glass Bead Game by Hesse if you havn't yet read it. I'd ask you to have a read if you han't yet.

[@fgestosani]

Father! Another great video :) Just a quick question. When you said that we must bring "religious language very much into the public conversation.... in it's proper public content" Can you elaborate a little more on that? When is it appropriate to bring religious language into the public conversation?

[@DMLAZPT109]

Question why would a universe that came into being with no guidance, why did the human entity evolve into having a fear of death and a desire to insure that the species lives on. If there is no purpose, why do these characteristics exist?

[@nitelite78]

I have 2 questions if which would help me and others to understand your position more clearly. 1) Do you agree that 10 Commandment stone monument near the capitol in Texas is a government endorsement of religion and should be removed as the Supreme Court ruled. 2) Do you agree that the 26 unelected Bishops in the UK's House of Lords should lose their place as this is in essence an endorsement of religion. The two questions seem to relate to the first definition you mentioned. Do you agree?

[@nitelite78]

It's not splitting hairs when Baron compares totalitarianism to secularism (which you yourself describe as "just separating religious institutions and government and nothing more". This is exactly my point. Its an attempt to tarnish the concept of secularism with an athiest/totalitarian brush. I have flagged this in another video of his but he has done it again here...(cont)

[@DMLAZPT109]

As a retired attorney, I come from the legal use of the term evidence. Here is what federal jury instructions say about evidence and what people can use to decide what is a fact in a case: The evidence consists of the testimony of the witnesses[,] [and] the exhibits admitted in evidence [, and stipulation[s]] You should use common sense in weighing the evidence and consider the evidence in light of your own observations in life.In our lives, we often look at (continued)

[@BishopBarron]

Friend, I understand your frustration, but you've got to get a more adequate grasp of what Christian theology is actually claiming! Believe me when I tell you that it has nothing in the world to do with "God needing to kill his Son."

[@Apostol407]

Which is what I said. It doesn't matter if it is a twisted form of Christianity, my point was that they were inspired by religion.

[@colevish]

I admire your passion for truth Larry and I share it. I used to think atheism was the truth too. The turning point for me was the simple recognition that Reality is much bigger than my ability to reason. For example, time and space becomes irrelevant at the quantum level, photons exist in two places at once and can send information backward or forward in time. Other examples from physics are black holes which absorb light, or the "big-bang." ...next post...

[@DMLAZPT109]

Circumstantial evidence is proof of a fact, or a series of facts, that tends to show that some other fact is true. As an example, direct evidence that it is raining is testimony from a the witness who says, “I was outside a minute ago and I saw it raining.” Circumstantial evidence that it is raining is the observation of someone entering a room carrying a wet umbrella. The law makes no distinction between the weight to be given to either direct or circumstantial evidence. (continued)

[@anthtan]

Finally! High Definition Video!

[@BellamyBlue]

cont...when the hierarchy have presided over such dreadful, perverted behaviour and done little or nothing about it, placing the Church image (vanity) above the safety of vulnerable people. This is the situation in Ireland, where I live, as I said, but I don't know of any country where lay Catholics are asking for a stricter, more traditonal interpretation of doctrine. I am interested to know if you do. I cannot believe that that would result in more churchgoers.

[@DanCarollo]

Don't know. I think Barron does quite well on his own. What I would LOVE to See Fr. Barron do, however, is a commentary on society and history on the same level as the well-produced "Catholicism" series! (Sort of what Francis Schaeffer attempted to do in the 80s with the "How Shall We Then Live?" documentary)

[@DMLAZPT109]

Let us see how science can help the law. I am a retired attorney and handled the defense of several battery cases. Usually, the testimony only consisted of one person saying the other person battered them. The law in Illinois does not require injury for battery. i can consist of "physical contact of an insulting or provoking nature with an individual.". In such an instance the only evidence is the testimony of the victim & the Defendant. How can science prove who is telling the truth?

[@MrTwinkie007]

Great video Bishop barron :D

[@DMLAZPT109]

Apparently he has, in order to write his Article in "First Things", "Chance, By Design" in the December 2012 issue.

[@colevish]

We do not understand these things, not because we have not figured it out yet, but because they are beyond our capacity to comprehend. Our minds require time and space to operate, yet other things in the universe are clearly governed by laws outside of time and space. This simple humble recognition made me realize that if God existed my mind would not be able to comprehend Him either. The question I had to ask myself then was: Why don't I believe? ...next post...

[@f.Vks2024]

I spent a week in a religious ashram in india with people who devote all there lives to God, there are saints there who have the gift of discernment but have no affiliation to the bible . they tell us that God gives us an experience while staying there and i certainly had one. I felt spiritual emotion while meditating on Jesus. Anyway everything they told us is written in the bible such as heavan and hell , sins , problems with gay relationships and the biggest one was the coming tribulation with is very close followed by 1000 years of the kingdom of God. We have been warned so many times this century by saints. My point is i came away knowing the truth and my belief in the bible is stronger than before.

[@TGAW]

The high rates of young people who claim to be unaffiliated is not surprising, and I attribute most of this to the abysmal state of catechesis these days. Good, solid, and faithful teaching of the Church's truths is hard to come by now, and the lack of decent philosophy courses in most schools is also a culprit. Too often I find that someone my age has adopted a styled atheism because of their utter ignorance of classical thought and basic philosophical/theological concepts/precepts.

[@DMLAZPT109]

one fact and conclude from it that another fact exists. In law we call this “inference.” A jury is allowed to make reasonable inferences. Any inference you make must be reasonable and must be based on the evidence in the case. You may have heard the phrases “direct evidence” and “circumstantial evidence.” Direct evidence is proof that does not require an inference,such as the testimony of someone who claims to have personal knowledge of a fact. (continued)

[@DMLAZPT109]

I am serious. I picked Henry VIII deliberately because I figured he would be an easy explanation. Forget for now the issue of miracles. I am just interested inugh in your answer to my question. Is history all about more likely than not or can we establish an historical fact as absolute?

[@DMLAZPT109]

How does the seeming unreliability of the very small transform into perfect predictability on the large scale?-- According to Professor Barr, Science is now discovering that "Order has to be built in for order to come out."

[@minimalrho]

What does one make of the views on religion of philosophers like Zizek and Derrida?

[@joekosmack9642]

Mic 🎤 drop. Crushed it Father

[@Brennandh7777]

John Brown's son claimed that his father was a communist. This would imply he was not motivated by Christian religion.

[@Kaesoification]

I'd like some elaboration on the idea of freedom having religious roots. You claim that in the ancient world this idea of freedom is absent, and that's true, but wasn't it also absent in the very Christian middle ages? It didn't pop up until the Enlightenment. You claim that Jefferson makes a reference to a Creator, but this isn't the Christian creator per se, as Jefferson (like most founding fathers) was a Deist if I'm not mistaken. So can you please elaborate on freedoms Christian roots?

[@thisisanalt]

Inaccurate, the idea of rights and liberties was very much alive in the middle ages and one of the prime reasons why the majority of Europe adopted a feudal system rather then of the county level despotisms of the former Roman Empire. Yes serfdom was widespread but the idea of freedom was active even on the level of the common peasent who could petition his lord (or in some cases straight up ask his king) for redress of wrongs done. In truth medieval serfdom was very much a contractual agreement

[@truthsayer797]

I don't think anyone is arguing that religious language should be banned from public discourse. What they are saying is that you shouldn't be surprised when people who don't share your particular denomination of faith disregard what you're saying. If your argument proceeds from axioms that other people have rejected, you really have no way of persuading them.

[@DMLAZPT109]

If a person does not make physical contact with the other person, of what use if forensics?

[@VideoDirectionnn]

I suggest you read Alvin Plantinga about the problem of evil.

[@wonjaech]

I like and respect Fr. Barron, but this argument is somewhat misleading. Yes in western culture Christianity played a central role to move civilization forward. In eastern Asia, Confucianism/Buddhism were dominant ideologies, which were atheistic. They worked very well too, and people did not really go insane even without a belief in a supreme being. I am not saying Christianity is wrong. I'm just saying it is not a unique or even essential ideology for a healthy society.