Bishop Robert Barron on "Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey"

[@carlosontube7291]

I've been waiting for someone like father Barron. he's saying exactly what I've been trying to explain for a decade. this is awesome! thank god for giving us father Barron.

[@connercummings]

Father, I am praying for you! You are my one of my inspirations for discerning the priesthood. May you always stay strong in your faith in God. :)

[@BishopBarron]

God bless you, Conner. I can't tell you how much I appreciate the prayers.

[@TheWhiteWhale593]

***** Read Aquinas. Particularly his 5 ways. He fleshes out this cosmological argument to it's fullest. To provide you with a brief answer, there is no reason to be stumped. Briefly, they are misunderstanding the argument. They assume God is another link in the chain of causality, which doesn't match up with how Catholics understand and define God. There must exist a cause outside of the chain in order for the chain to begin at all. They aren't realizing that if there is no Prime Mover (God) and no Eternal Actual then there would be no Potential or Actual. In other words, a Prime Mover, existing outside of the chain of causality must exist. This Prime Mover can not be another link in the chain or otherwise nothing would exist. You would simply have an infinite chain of potentials with no Actuals to actualize the potentials. Ergo, nothing would exist. Again, revisit Aquinas. Read his 5 ways and then read them again and again. People who often criticize the argument don't fully understand it or misrepresent the argument on polemical grounds.

[@thomasfogarty5857]

+Daniel Formella Read Leibniz. His argument states merely that everything that BEGAN must have an explanation. God never began, therefore he does not need an explanation. Even the atheist philosopher Michael Ruse accepts this.

[@billcummings6958]

the

[@sundevilification]

+Bill Cummings i caught that...thanks.

[@nightyew2160]

A long while back I told my son who wants to be a paleontologist that he could be both a paleontologist and a priest. I excitedly showed him your example of one. Thanks for pointing him out.

[@shininglamb]

When you feel angry, science will teach you , how neurons firing in the brain causing anger. Religion will teach you how to overcome your anger and become happy.People should have the ability to distinguish science, spirituality, art, philosophy etc. Religion will fill the void of spirituality.

[@randalejetmagalit1198]

Amen.

[@Metalheadspartan]

Galileo's claims were contrary to the prevailing scientific consensus of his day. In other words, he couldn't get a hearing for his hypothesis even in the secular scientific community, so he turned to the Church and tried to make it a theological debate. The most damning evidence against Galileo's claims is that there was no observable parallax shift in the position of stars as the earth orbited the sun, but this was because Galileo and his contemporaries lacked instruments with sufficient precision to observe this shift. Which is to say that the evidence to conclusively prove a heliocentric solar system was simply unavailable at the time. While Galileo had the beginnings of a good scientific hypothesis, he was missing several critical pieces of data necessary to take it from hypothesis to theory. If the Church had accepted Galileo's claims then they would have gone against sound scientific principle, in which case they really would have been anti-science.

[@eldermillennial8330]

absolutely right!! Further, Galileo was also driven by professional pride and fear that a Dutch competitor (whose name escapes me) would beat him to the official punch, and take all the credit. His Daughter, an Abbas, scolded him sharply for that.

[@georgebond7777]

How about this - atheists and evolutionists won't accept that comets (even when presented with evidence ) only last for thousands of years because if they did it proves there big bang theory is baloney, so they've invented the Oort cloud. Now with all the space telescopes that can focus on galaxies millions of light years away WHY CANT they see this mysterious Oort Cloud? They can't see it because it's baloney.

[@vedranlekic9725]

+Michael Montague The church apologized for treating Galileo unfairly, not for being anti-scientific.

[@vedranlekic9725]

Well I can see that you are no legal expert and a poorer historian, you are simply. He got in trouble not for claiming the heliocentric system Coppernicus claimed that, some philosphers and scientist claimed that, even some members of the church were partial to the the heliocentric system and even argued for it. The problem with Galileo is that he claimed that the Bible taught that the Earth moved, that is what he got in trouble for.

[@vedranlekic9725]

Michael Montague Because the Bible was the source of common law, to reinterpret the Bible would be to relativise the law and that could lead to anarchy. Also, Galileo did not even go trough peer review process, he did not approach the bodies that dealt with the consistency of biblical hermenautics that would honestly review his claims. He just claimed it as a fact regardless of the state. However, even today if you reinterpret the law the way you see fit and give to people false ideas about your legal systems in most countries you still end up in jail. Also the fact that the Bible was written in the Bronze age makes little difference if something is right or wrong it is right or wrong regardless of the time in which it is being said. 2+2 is equally 4 today and then. Modern science in the way we know it now, with consistent monitoring, experiments was founded by benedictine priests in the 13th century. Also the Inquisition existed long into the 18th century during the age of enlightenment. People were still censured by the scientific community, people were still censored by the state. In fact the first people that jumped on Galileo were not church officials but scientists and philosophers that held to the Aristotelian view. You seem to have a very uneducated, naive view of history.

[@Yankees94]

How many people know that Cardinal Franz König of Vienna, Austria was the founder of the European Academy of Sciences and Arts?

[@daviderlbacher5402]

educated people like myself

[@IncarnationalFamilyInstitute]

Well, it was founded by Felix Unger, Nikolaus Lobkowicz, as well as, I suppose, overseen by His Eminence.

[@meghanp.healey6566]

Fr. Barron, Thank you for putting out a video on this series... I am a science teacher and like the Cosmos series for actual science part but the animated parts are totally ridiculous... I'm a practicing catholic and unfortunately people don't understand the historical links between many great scientific minds and their roles in the church... Keep getting these videos out there... It stinks how anti-catholic our culture is...

[@davidlabelle361]

Our culture is anti-religion/spirituality in general...Especially Christianity!

[@mariesinnecker4450]

I HAVE 1 important question: the mame of the cat. Priest who formulated the "Big Bang" thing they all use; and a silly one: ( I know, Morris West write " good" & " Bad" about the Church ; and Why ( I think!): Should I read " The last confesión"? Oh, en español! Me lo regalaron como una " maravilla"! Lo es? Me gustaron Mucho " las Sandalias", etc.

[@benjaminlarkey8562]

Bishop Barron is a gift to modernity and the voice of Catholicism. Thank you for this topic.

[@JeansiByxan]

Thank you for your videos Bishop Barron. They've greatly helped me think through questions that addle my brain.

[@tycoon121]

Got Em Father Barron. Thank you for standing against all the aggressive secularism. We need more voices who know what they're talking about both historically and theologically like you to speak out. If it would be one person that would've brought me closest to Catholicism from a Protestant background it would be you. Prayers and Blessings.

[@tomdallis]

This was an extremely insightful and informative video. As a non-Catholic Christian I weary of the same old anti-Catholic anti-Christian arguments claiming the Church was anti-science when in truth Christianity laid the foundation for modern science (as well as education, charities, hospitals, hospice, abolition, equal rights, civil rights, women’s rights, and the whole of western civilization - to name a few). Thank you Bishop. This was fantastic.

[@scopilio13]

it's amazing when you think about it how much good the catholic church has done for the world. sure you have scandals like the pedo problem and stuff like the spanish inqusition, but it would be hard to imagine a world without the influences on the arts, sciences, and humanities the catholic church had.

[@clairenortham]

Great video. Love the work you're doing, Fr. Barron. Keep up the good work!

[@tigar007]

Atheists are bleeding from their ears. God bless you father Barron!

[@mellow9973]

+Hrvat Hrvatinčić ...But you're not....

[@VulpinetideCuteTimes0w0]

Not really, I just disagree.

[@saxophonexsb1407]

Thank you Bishop Barron for the video and for placing in the table evidence of Catholic contributions to science.

[@spiritusnemo4039]

Bravo Bishop Barron! Although I admit to the weakness of enjoying his comedy, Seth MacFarlane is a slanderer concerning the Catholic faith he was raised in. I would like to some day see a response series to Cosmos with more of an eye toward accurate scientific history.

[@シャイロなおみ]

God is speaking through Bishop Robert Barron

[@pebueno1980]

Great video, very informative. Even though I am a nonbeliever, I don't agree with the atheist extremists.

[@jamesedwards.1069]

" Even though I am a nonbeliever, I don't agree with the atheist extremists." And even though I'm a believer, I don't agree at all with those who ignorantly and cruelly harsh the Word of God instead of sharing it with meekness and humility. The most Jesus would do, for example, was gently chide His disciples by saying things like in Matthew 8:26 "And he saith unto them, Why are ye fearful, O ye of LITTLE FAITH? Then he arose, and rebuked the winds and the sea; and there was a great calm."

[@eddiewalker59]

Great points made by you, Most Reverend. God Bless.

[@etienne-victordepasquale668]

The tone of some of the comments is deeply saddening. I find the following recurring: (a) use of derogatives to describe those in disagreement (b) conflation of past and present: errors of the past condition views of the present (c) generalisation (d) condescension We live together in the same spaces, whether virtual or physical. Moderation, composure and good will must imbue atheists and believers alike. With these qualities, these spaces feel free and open.

[@rodneyrodney3420]

^this

[@marywalker1007]

Thank you for this video Fr. Barron. It's so informative.

[@jefflewis6626]

Some people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions to be destroyed.

[@RyanDotCom]

+Jeff Lewis and some people have so much faith in the belief of nothing. thats an illusion as well.

[@jefflewis6626]

+RyanCotaDotCom Faith is the belief in something in the absence of evidence.

[@RyanDotCom]

Jeff, Begin to ask yourself what more evidence does man need. The creators already shared with us all the evidence.

[@RyanDotCom]

He also says to keep your wonder more like that of children. I have never heard a child ask for evidence when discovering a flower, awestruck. God is awesome, you chose. Its cool, he gave you choice. But please don't tell people its an illusion, that is not a true statement.

[@jefflewis6626]

+RyanCotaDotCom Do you believe that our ancestors were Adam and Eve?

[@virginiaarellanocardenas2795]

I have said it over and over to all those who know me that With God everything is possible. Creation is because God said so. Amen.

[@wendyfield7708]

Many people do not know there is a Science Academy IN the Vatican where international conferences are held with scientists of all backgrounds. I once helped with the administrative work on one. The topic was molecular forces, of whic I understood nothing, not being a scientist myself!

[@patricia4547]

You are the Best with always the perfect contents Bichop Barron. Respectful hug from Oslo. Best Regards Patrícia

[@maggiexiaominwu8242]

Agree. Lots early priests were scientists. Great point!

[@Balstrome1]

And yet none of their theology gave rise to the discoveries that they made. In fact a case can be made that their discoveries on occasion changed their theology.

[@randalejetmagalit1198]

@@Balstrome1 except, it did. Perhaps you didn't watch the Video, but it is their Theology, that the World has Order, that let them delve deeper into the Physical World, expecting Orderly Laws. And behold, we now have the Scientific Theory. And to your statement that the Theologians changed their Theology because of Science, which ones? I know only one, that is Giodarno Bruno, whose Theology was so shaken by Science. Other than that, I have not known any other Religious man whom was shaken because of Science. Anyways, God Bless you, and take care of yourself, and others, as much as you can. God Bless you.

[@MCS1993]

Great video There is a Book By Thomas Woods that explains all this in depth. "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. " Great Book.

[@naturalismforever3469]

And, Manuel, a book filled with half-truths, ill founded anecdotes, and an agenda to sell. Caveat emptor.

[@ThePoliticrat]

@@naturalismforever3469 what is filled with half-truths?

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@beautanner8409]

I didn't see the Cosmos series as denigrating the Catholic Church in that piece. Instead, the "good guy" was the one who was willing to think beyond the official view, and the "bad guys" were the ones who were opposed. It didn't equate that with the Catholic Church, I think it pointed out that Bruno was himself religious.

[@ichthus1890]

Thank You Father.

[@PurpleRaven300]

You're welcome son

[@acangial1]

I am with you Father!

[@stisuper5608]

Also, unlike many of the American Protestant or evangelical religions, the Catholic Church does not reject the theory of evolution. Right from the early days of the theory, the Church remained mostly silent on the issue. The first public statements specifically regarding evolution came from Pope Pius XII who said: “The Church does not forbid that…research and discussions,

[@Balstrome1]

What he glossed over, is The Church burnt a human who disagreed with them. It does not matter what the actual disagreement was about. They set a person on fire until he was dead because he had a different view to theirs. Seth's cartoon of the church was accurate.

[@Willzyx88]

[Creationism] isn't science even though it pretends to be. If you want to teach it in schools, [it] should be taught when religion or cultural history is taught, not science. - The Vatican, 2005

[@Misaelito1991]

I consider myself as a Catholic (i was born and raised by my family) and my family are very conservative when it comes to science. Though being in college (im 22) and having taking very fascinating classes that has touched on the subjects of religion and science it has always left me arguing with myself about how life came to be. And as i get older ive become more liberal in believing what i want more than what other people tell me. For example when i was watching the Cosmos it made me think how earth and the galaxy was created. Yes GOD made us and all that exists today but how exactly is fascinating to me. They way life was believed to be created in the bible doesnt answer the question humans have always wondered. Look up into the stars and you will realize that each of those stars are Billions and Billions of other stars giving light to other planets. Science and Religion may not mix well but the Catholic Church needs to stop being closed minded when it comes to finding the origin of this planet. I do believe in god but i also believe in science. If you guys just watch this show in a open minded kind of way maybe you can understand what im talking about. Watching it didnt change my religious beliefs it just change the way the possibilities of how life started on earth and how our earth and galaxy formed. How life was before we got here.

[@kathleen7849]

God gave us a beautiful treasure chest of discoveries to be had.

[@jameswatrous1777]

Good lecture Fr. Barron. I didn't realize that they even remade COSMOS. Glad to see you mentioned Fr. George Coyne, S.J. and the late Fr. Pierre Tielhard de Chardin, S.J., two priests and scientists that I admire.

[@johnweiner]

According to accounts I have studied, the Pope in Galileo's time favored and encouraged Galileo's use of the telescope and his study of the moons of Jupiter. Galileo got into trouble when he wrote a dialogue between a "savant" (a thinly disguised Galilean figure) and "Simplicius" who was something of a simpleton and bore a striking resemblance to the Pope. The dialogue greatly displeased the Pope who stepped aside and let the Inquisitors turn their scrutiny to Galileo's conclusion that the moons of Jupiter revolved around Jupiter and not around the earth.

[@jessewallace12able]

Way to go Fr. Barron, it would behoove many to know that a Catholic priest came up with the big bang.

[@TheRealGregGuzman]

Amen! Well said Robert. 🙌

[@Roper122]

“Many religions now come before us with ingratiating smirks and outspread hands, like an unctuous merchant in a bazaar. They offer consolation and solidarity and uplift, competing as they do in a marketplace. But we have a right to remember how barbarically they behaved when they were strong and were making an offer that people could not refuse.” Christopher Hitchens

[@paynus_]

I have to agree that they were a bit heavy handed in their portrayal of Bruno. But you must admit, there were countless reports of the church punishing those who spoke up against the church in the past.

[@wmwadsworth]

As an engineer and Catholic, Fr. Barron ..... Hits this perfectly. And also this series is no where near the quality of James Burke or any of the early to Mid eighties Documentaries from PBS....

[@KayleLang]

Even within the animated short within the first episode, they made it clear that Bruno was a Christian and his idea was pure speculation for the time. It was more a religious man vs the inquisition, criticising the act of burning what people don't like. In all episodes so far, they clearly state that a such-and-such man was a Christian and praise any institution, including Christian ones, who actually pushed science forward.

[@rhlogic]

Yes! The harmony between science and religion, but not just ANY religion. Is no coincidence the modern science emerged in Catholic Europe.

[@HopDavid]

I believe it was Father Pierre Gassendi who made the heliocentric model mainstream. In 1631 he observed the transit of Mercury predicted by Kepler. Thus establishing that Kepler's model made more accurate predictions than the Copernicus, Galileo or Ptolemy models. Gassendi was to Kepler what Arthur Eddington was to Einstein.

[@buddyparrot1]

I'd like to concentrate on one aspect of this diatribe if I may. We call them "laws", but that does NOT mean there's a lawgiver. The term law, is given so we understand the concept of how things work.

[@wendyfield7708]

Yes, “here we go again!” Thanks.

[@drew96]

According to the Wikipedia, Bruno was executed because he was deeply involved in the occult, not because of any scientific activity.

[@BrendanBeckett]

I don't think Cosmos was trying to send the message you think it was. I saw that whole piece as actually an olive branch to the religiously inclined. Bruno was portrayed as an advocate for God's true splendour who was bucking the human institution of the church and human dogmatism. It was starkly pro-religious. There was nothing scientific about Bruno's beliefs. As Tyson said, it was "a guess" that turned out right, but Bruno didn't see it that way, and yet Cosmos portrayed him as a figure more like Galileo or Copernicus who were scientists. By the way, they also correctly pointed out that Copernicus was a priest. My problem with that bit was that it wasn't accurate. Bruno believed lots of crazy things that Cosmos brushed aside in order to build him up as a martyr and a prophet. I didn't mind it though, because I saw it as actually trying to appeal to the religious and that's an important target for the program. Ironically, it is not being received that way. All it did was demonize the inquisition - and none of us believe what they did was right. So where is the problem? I would also add that as an atheist, watching the first episode was as close to a religious experience as I have ever had.

[@siennamargeaux8413]

I love your channel, Bishop Barron. Former agnostic and new subscriber here. As expected, the comment section is filled with historically ignorant village atheists who can't be bothered to read works of historians and instead rely on New Atheist memes and equally historically ignorant scientists for their history lessons. And these atheists pride themselves as "rational skeptics."

[@off-meta-michael]

i wish atheists would have the courage to debate bishop barron on all these various topics.

[@boogleooger9666]

Read the comments. We are.

[@off-meta-michael]

+cucuchoonis E sorry i should have specified. i meant atheists like richard dawkins or laurence krauss in a monitored debate where they can cross examine each other and present both cases over the course of 3 hours. i'd like to see that. i said "courage" because people like dawkins have refused to debate him in the past. my bad

[@daviderlbacher5402]

+cucuchoonis E your version of an argument is ignorance

[@Carlos101010101]

The true history of Catholicism & science would make for an ideal, multi-part (if it is to be thorough) documentary. Perhaps Father, you & EWTN could put one together.

[@masterofinsanity1993]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. The fact that the founding fathers of science grew up in a christian environment doesn't mean that religion played a role in the developing of the scientific ideas. During the times of Galileo, and Newton the western world was coming out of the middle ages, it was once again heading for an economical and cultural peak. The necessities of survival were abundant (food, water, security, money) and so education thrived. It wasn't religion, it was the circumstances. To get a grater picture a few hundred years previously the Islamic world was at its peak and education and science thrived there (something overlooked by today's world for various reasons).

[@cfG21]

Lamêtre proposed the big bang theory and Mendel is the father of modern genetics..both are priests. Catholicism isn't anti religion

[@masterofinsanity1993]

cfG21 That fits what I explained above. Catholicism can't be anti-religion, because it is a religion.

[@AHalevonEric]

Master Explorer You say correlation doesn't imply causation but fail to clarify any causation or correlation of what brought Europe out of the Middle Ages.

[@masterofinsanity1993]

Eric Von B The biggest factor was the blending with the Arabic culture which was then more intellectually, and scientifically advanced. This first started in today's Toledo, Spain. Then Europe was re-introduced to ancient Greek philosophy. And last but not least, universities started to being build. In there various works were translated from Arabic to Hebrew, Greek, Latin, etc, and vice versa. So basically, the crusades sparked this cultural blend, but I wouldn't base Renaissance on that fact alone. These are just some of the reasons. It might seem far fetched but one might underestimate the power of accumulative cognition, and the advancements it can create through cultural blending.

[@thomaspelletier7790]

That position assumes too much. We can continue to say it happened despite the church, yet where were the university's? Where are the scientific community's? What were these founders reasons for becoming scientists? Precisely because of the church, and God. Galileo himself said "mathematics is the alphabet which God wrote the universe" study those men and women, and you tell me they did what they did for a reason despite their faith.

[@sisque16]

Hitchens said it best in regards to science versus faith, " where astrology ends astronomy begins, where religion ends philosophy begins."

[@Yankees94]

Looks like your buddy Hitchens never read Aquinas, Anselm, Or Augustine. Did you actually know that atheist Bertland Russell spend a big part of his career engaging those three individuals because they were worthy of debate and discussion?

[@sisque16]

Tell me something I don't know, if fact aquinas argued that god didn't exist, cs lewis did the same, once again tell me something I don't know.

[@MattieMay]

if fact what garble garble? Tell me something that makes sense.

[@Dom_Traveler]

The first person to determine the size of Earth was Eratosthenes of Cyrene, who produced a surprisingly good measurement using a simple scheme that combined geometrical calculations with physical observations. Eratosthenes was born around 276 B.C., which is now Shahhat, Libya.

[@bachblues2]

I'd like to hear Bishop Barron's take on the possibility of extraterrestrial life and how would it go for os against our ingrained notion of Man's status at the top of creation's hierarchy.

[@monicazerpa]

I understand your point Father and I agree that this subject gets tiresome but in other episodes, they have also acknowledge the work of many religious figures such as monks and priests who have made important contributions to science. In one of the recent episodes they talked about Isaac Newton and one the first thing it's mentioned was his studies of the Bible; in a way, stating that Newton was a profound religious man. It is frustrating when some people insist in metioning that particular aspect of the Church, as if it was't something form the past, almost as if that fact; namely, the opposition to scientific advances, were happening today. The contributions that the Church has made no only to science but humanities, art and architecture, among others have been remarkable and I think we should contribute to clarify that to those who are only able to focus in the negative.

[@EveKeneinan]

Galileo had many enemies outside the Church, and many friends inside the Church. He was without question the greatest physicist of his generation (and no one objected to his physics). He was also a thoroughly unlikeable person -- really, a world-class asshole (pardon the term). He was overbearing and dogmatic and could not tolerate dissent from his own views. He savagely lashed out at Kepler for daring to disagree with Galileo's own (not very impressive) understanding of Copernicus for example. Of course, Kepler was right and Galileo was wrong. What was Galileo's crime? Well, it was not teaching his (mistaken) Copernicanism, but TEACHING IT DOGMATICALLY, as if it were CERTAINLY TRUE. Anyone who believes that science should involve free inquiry and argument, and should not be dogmatic and closed-minded, does NOT want to use Galileo as their model of how a scientist should act.

[@EveKeneinan]

+Michael Montague Nothing you said contradicts my point that Galileo was an utterly dogmatic, ill-tempered, ungrateful jackass. Galileo did not "criticize himself" as you say scientists do (and I find that to be the case with most scientists). On the contrary, Galileo believed that he had a special destiny to make *all* discoveries in astronomy, to such an extent that no one else *could* make any discoveries whatever. Explain to me how Galileo's vicious personal attacks on Kepler for his "heresy" of elliptical orbits is a model of scientific behavior? It seems likely, given his temper, that Galileo would have at least desired the deaths of his enemies, had he the power to effect them-but if restrained from this, it would have been by his Christian piety (which did little enough to restrain him in other areas). Now, as I recall, Marxists claim that Marxism is a science, and they are well-known for advocating the murder of their enemies. Marxism is of course entirely atheistical and naturalistic. I shall await the appearance of the Scotsman shortly. My considered opinion is that scientists would happily advocate the murder of their enemies at any time they possessed the social power to do so. This is an excellent reason for not allowing scientists a great deal of social or political power. I refer you to the history of Lysenkoism in Soviet Russia as a case in point: "More than 3,000 mainstream biologists were sent to prison or fired or *executed* as a part of this campaign instigated by Lysenko to suppress his *scientific opponents*." All the evidence indicates, when scientist have the power to have their enemies killed, killed they will be. This surprises me not in the least, although you naturally think yourself morally superior to such things. I also imagine you are not particularly any better or worse a human being than the men of the 10th, or 13th, or 16th centuries. You also seem deeply confused by the very different terms "execution" and "murder." Thomas argues that it is not unjust for the state to punish heretics with death. States do specify crime and the punishments for these, and the state in Thomas' day considered heresy a capital crime. To execute a criminal for a committed crime, whatever else it is, is not "murder."

[@thinkinghuman7708]

+Eve Keneinan Ah, the typical supernaturalist! So you judge someone who disagrees with the ridiculous "authority" of the Roman church to be worthy of "execution," just as Thomas did? And you think that because a great scientist is "ill-tempered" and persistent that he should be put on trial, threatened with torture, his publications burned, and then he, himself, be put under house arrest for the remainder of his life? And, with no verifiable evidence whatever, you make the bold assertion that scientists would murder just as supernaturalists have done, and continue to do today (think ISIS)? WOW! You are the PERFECT supernaturalist!

[@naturalismforever3469]

Hey Eve: One big difference. The enemies outside the Roman church didn't threaten him with torture, force him to recant, ban his publications, and put him under house arrest for the remainder of his days. Now you may consider that trivial. I don't.

[@nickyrak4385]

Excellent video. God Bless.

[@ericnovak9607]

In A Brief History of Time Stephen Hawking said “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way [the big bang], except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.” While I agree that the fine-tuned universe (i.e., the strength of electrical forces binding atoms, the ratio of the mass of the electron to its proton, the strength of gravity, etc.) is very compelling evidence of a supernatural fine-tuner, I think it’s typical human hubris to assume that S/He went to all this effort only to create humans. Is it not equally plausible that God also really loves dogs, cats, hamsters... and needed a fairly intelligent companion species like us to take of them? Thanks, Father, for pointing out the fictional history portrayed in Cosmos.

[@Chanellllllllll232]

Its funny how atheists just comment and comment and comment as if his or her comment actually makes a difference to us. Also, why are they so interested in God if they don't believe? This video was obviously made for us religious folk but yet they still watch it knowing it goes against there belief system and then get offended when they hear what one would expect to hear from a religious commentary that disputes ignorant Atheist claims.

[@XYisnotXX]

Well said Bishop Barron

[@Wolf.88]

Thank u Father Barron! Also, please read "How The Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" by Dr. Woods.

[@johnweiner]

Newton spent most of his adult life studying the doctrine of the Trinity and ultimately rejected it. He took religion very seriously.

[@skepticalrationalist3001]

Having viewed every episode of the new Cosmos, I find it beautiful, accurate, and compelling. While the Bruno story is a "myth" in the sense that it is a story that is highly illustrative of attitudes of the time, the producers of Cosmos have made a fetish of historical accuracy, scientific and political. One wonders whether an objection based on "hooded figures" is borne more from a sense of shame than from an objection to a lack of historicity.

[@JesusPedroza]

I really enjoy the show, but I also noticed that convenient omission of Lemaître when presenting the Big Bang. I generally enjoy Seth McFarlane's work, its funny for the most part until it gets to disparaging religion. I'm glad Fr. Barron makes these videos and speaks for us, and inspires us to learn more in order to defend the faith. Especially informing "pragmatists" or others who insult us with condescension and perceived inferiority, that their basis of examining the universe was brought about the faithful, laity or clergy. Also really agree with the closing statement: "Can we please dispense with this silly nonsense, that the Catholic Church stands opposed to the sciences, and can we please acknowledge, Seth McFarlane's version of this; as the based kind of anti-Catholic propaganda."

[@RoscoeKane]

If I make claims opposed to church teaching, who is wrong? Many in the church assume that I am wrong because the church is always right. But often, it is not.

[@2012aquinas]

Excellent commentary. I trust that you have read Thomas E. Woods' "The Catholic Church Builder of Civilization."

[@farscape1975]

Thanks for this video, Bishop Barron. What book would you recommend to read about how secular intellectuals often misconstrue these stories about Copernicus and Gallileo with regard to the church?

[@wcsxwcsx]

Father (now Bishop, I guess) Barron is being nice and civil in his critiques of the statements of non-religious people. Sure, I could pick apart his reasoning if I took the time. But I've got more profitable things to do. The point is, he's not being vicious during his criticism. So we should reciprocate the respect when we criticize him.

[@edinbo1000]

Fr. Barron - surely there's a video of your take on True Detective coming soon??

[@splinterbyrd]

In the 1940's, the sister of my late friend Jack was at a Catholic girls school. She wanted to go to university, but was told she would have to ask the bishop's permission. The bishop consented and she went to university, but the parish priest was against it. He said she'd get ideas and lose her Faith. In other words he was afraid she'd start thinking for herself. She didn't lose her Faith

[@yarndelbanner8446]

Dear Fr Barron, why aren't these priests who have contributed to science canonized as saints?

[@Entropy3ko]

Funny thing is that Bruno was a occultist and self proclaimed magician. His ideas regarding the cosmos stemmed from occult beliefs, not from logic, science or mathematics ( he hated geometry btw). He proclaimed to have great mental powers, like exceptional memory, but often failed to show such 'gft'. Often he promised to teach it to his patrons and always disapponted them. If Bruno is a martyr for science, then Uri Geller is one of the greatest scientist who ever lived, then :D

[@benjaminodonnell258]

So it was ok to torture him to death?

[@gbubbiu]

He wasn't strictly implying that the sciences would not exist without the church. The point he was trying to make is that the church was a good contributor to science(although it persecuted many people for it) and financially endowed many scientists. He just wanted to put that out there instead of having the biased view on Catholicism that the "Cosmos" series had. It seems like people are just quick to bash him for whatever reason, I think my fellow atheists are forgetting that what makes us atheists great is the ability to see another point of view before bashing it with your own.

[@bens4446]

You're right, I had not heard of most of those people, so touche. But I am not convinced that this list means that reason was the norm in the Church, rather than the exception. The Inquisition looms too large. On the other hand, I guess you could argue that belief systems pushed to a secular extreme produce their own sorts of Inquisitions--the Terror, the Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot, etc.

[@rafaburdzy449]

Great speech.

[@user-ll7fv6tu7k]

Thank you Bishop! I borrowed the Cosmos series from the library so my son could use it as part of a Cub Scout Science award. After a few seconds of this propaganda, I had to turn it off and fast forward past these lies until the series got back to the actual science.

[@losmanzani6849]

Please help us understand which part are lies so that we can do the same for our children. Could you give us the time stamps of where the lies begin and end?

[@katarzynaczajkowska1300]

Father, could you, please, mention our old good Copernicus, next time you speak on this topic? He, too, was a priest, you know and we would feel very honoured. Greetings from Poland. God bless you 😉

[@tulljack8472]

Don't forget that Copernicus' model of the solar system was incorrect.

[@buffalobufoon]

Wow. Great information!

[@nothanks4248]

The characterisation aside is the story they show in cosmos true? If not how so? Did the church ban the books? Did Giordano Bruno get persecuted as a heretic? If it did happen why is it unfair go tell the story? *note future episides do credit the church with nuturing many great scientic minds, indeed about 17 minutes into the episode we're discussing he gives scientific credit to Copernicus, a polish Preist.

[@marquezedmon]

please do a video on Paul Tillich

[@pyayaXC]

My spiritual director and I were talking about my studies at University, and he mentioned this article: hereandnow.wbur.org/2014/11/11/vatican-astronomer-sagan-medal. It speaks of Br. Consolmagno S.J. who was the recipient of the Carl Sagan medal. Please notice that Carl Sagan is none other than the presenter and a writer of the original "Cosmos" series. May God bless the right and just scientific pursuits of mankind.

[@elcanaldeshackra]

"Ay ya yay, here we come again" hahah, in Spanish :D

[@TheGameBusterPL]

@Gerald Patterson Don't listen to Gerald - he is some kind of troll I think or something like that.

[@Dall5000]

After the first episode the show becomes more about spreading science wonder (Carl Sagans original intent) than bashing religion. I encourage all religious folk to stick around for the fun.

[@Jy3pr6]

Hello Father. Would you please tell me what book or article the Pope Emeritus formulated that argument in. Thank you!

[@Allin7days]

So, how old is Earth?

[@TheJuneling]

Bishop Robert Barron never mention the scripture (not sure if the term is correct) when he explains that God created the univers (or created the very first piece of matter that created everything that exist) He says that "it" had to be created (I'm so frustrated over my lack of english vocabulary !) if nothing existed before. So far I agree with him: something has created something. He then says that the something/creator is "God". And my question is: how do you know that "God" is the creator?

[@BishopBarron]

For the moment, bracket the word "God" if you want. I'm arguing that a non-contingent source of the contingent universe must exist. We can start there.

[@barnabyrt1012]

Brilliant!

[@fez1964]

How many know of Father Benito Vines, a Spanish Jesuit priest, who is considered to be the Father of modern-day hurricane forecasting?

[@JRLeeman]

First off, I will establish, I am a Catholic. I would like to add a little bit to your argument, pertaining to the intrinsic compatibility and support the Church and many well proven philosophies give for the existence of God. I can't remember which Saint said this (perhaps Augustine), but it is well established in Church cannon that since God is said to have created the Universe, then every Physical Law and every eventuality and logical outcome is God - or God is defined as Logic. If you combine this with Dialectacism, which says all opposing cultures eventually coalesce into a superior society, then you get the conclusion that there must be a perfect version of society. It can be easily argued that this perfect version is Heaven - if God had defined the universe, then this perfect vision must have been defined by him also. Catholic teaching states that to achieve heaven you must do good works - the good works being the pursuit of Truth. In this interpretation, it corroborates with a social philosophy, dialectics, and also adamantly encourages the use of science (the "good work") to work towards the betterment of mankind, and not just its treatment as a curiosity. Catholicism seems to not only be a friend to Science, but and excellent moral framework to advise its use. Conversely, the Biblical Hell would come from the lack of use to benefit, nationalism and so on. The teachings on Marriage, Redemption et al all seem to be tenants of this perfect society philosophy. To me, Catholicism seems to be a religion which promotes a very relevant and essential philosophy that many scientists do not seem to appreciate, the use of Science to keep us alive, but that I try to keep in mind in my studies (Aerospace Engineering and a Physics) Biblical literalism is a danger (I rather see now why the Church used to prefer reading of the Bible solely by a Priest - look at fundamentalist Protestant denominations for the problems there), but since Catholicism has a direct leader, it's not likely many Catholics will fall into that. However, I posted this just on the off chance that you might check my writing and reading of the interpretations of Catholicism by previous Popes and so on, because I find it difuclt to articulate these things out loud (I would never be this eloquent).

[@cingem4892]

Hi, I like what you've written about the Church and what it's about. Your reasoning is good, but I don't agree with some of your assumptions. You seem to be suggesting that God and the Church are best described by the writings of Hegel and his "Panlogism" - the development of the Logos (or God) through History towards a "Perfect Society". I'll try to point out some problems with that view. First, I don't think that you can say "Physical Law=God". That is wrong in more than one way. First, as Fr. Barron has said many times (I think one time was on the subject of Stephen Hawking's book), "Physical Laws" are "contingent", while God is said to be "necessary". Even though God is called "Logos" or "the Word", you have to distinguish "the Word" from "Physical Law", which might have been "ordained" or "established" by "the Word", but is not itself "the Word". This is similar to the way that even though you have written an essay, the essay is not itself "you". It is your "creation". In other words, there is an important "distance" between God and the world. Second, I also don't agree with "opposing cultures eventually coalesce into a perfect society". I don't think that "cultures" or "societies" develop by a logical necessity, and as far as I know, the Social Teaching of the Church has always disagreed with such collectivism. For a good example, I'd recommend John Paul II's writings on culture, labor, and such topics, especially his critiques of Communism, where he always emphasizes "the human person", endowed with free will, rather then an abstract "Progress" towards a Perfect Society. These are just a few points. But overall, good job articulating things! :)

[@JRLeeman]

Cin Gem This was written quite a while ago (relative cognitive time :/), so my views aren't as well developed. I think you need to introduce an element of absolutist/idealist philosophy here in order to improve things, but thanks for the critique. I think what I was trying to achieve was to show that there is evidently an absolutely correct category for the order of things, as evidenced by dialectics - and this idealist definition must be created by anon-contingency, or "thought into existence" :)

[@cingem4892]

Thanks, it was fun to help, and it was a good exercise for the brain-muscles :) Keep up the good work!

[@Win5ton67]

***** God created us knowing we'd be be free to sin or not. There's a big difference. He is Just, but He is also Merciful, for He is Love. You're therefore free to choose to face either His Justice or His Mercy.

[@abbevilhelmtorbiorn1549]

God doesn't want evil to happen, nor does He want evil to not happen, but God wants to permit that evil happens. And that is good.

[@TheCaliforniacajun]

You forgot to mention Father Robert Spitzer S.J. He's a genius! Wrote a book about the Scientific proofs for the existence of God. Solid Science!!

[@Balstrome1]

Never has there been a question that science has provided an answer for, which later religion (any) has come along with an equal or better answer. You can confirm this, you have the whole of human history to examine for a case to counter this.

[@justingutube]

Thank you for your point of view. Please keep doing these vids. I question everything even though I was raised Lutheran and find too many people with the platform of KZbin interpreting the bible however they may without anyone from the Church to put in their 2 cents. Nice work. I would like to know your view on the ever growing KZbin channel called Global Witness. Please explore and do tell. Thank you.

[@samkrystosek]

What speaks loudest is the litany of great Catholic men of science near the end. It would have taken me a long time to dig up half of the names mentioned in this commentary--and I am certain what was read is not an exhaustive list.

[@DetectiveThursday]

a more exhaustive list can be found here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists

[@thegorn68]

Agreed. More exhaustive lists have been posted in this KZbin commentary here a few times. Just the Jesuit Order alone and their history should be enough. It baffles me that somehow pundits can't just see that but the one that is stunning is the fact that the Vatican itself has their own OBSERVATORY for crying out loud!!! How could an entity be "anti-science" and at the same time have it's own observatory and a religious order pratically dedicated to the various scientific fields? It's about as insinuating as saying that the NBA is "anti-athleticism" or something. What?

[@benjaminodonnell258]

Prior to, say, the 18th or 19th centuries, one had to pretend to be godly jsut in order to stay alive as a scientist. Remember, when Christians had real power, they liked to burn people who disagreed with them at the stake.

[@adammeade2300]

I'd be lying if I said I didn't "HD" this vid and scour your bookshelves for interesting reading!

[@72daystar]

Animation is an entertainment medium. In order to simplify the narrative the animators are allowed creative license to make a caricature. In this case the religious authorities are cast in the role of the bad guys. I guess that the animated portion of the series is to make it more excessive bull to young people. Young people who may not be ready for the subtlety of the politics of a large institution like the Roman Catholic Church. On a separate point, if you have a law you need a lawgiver is no different than - if you have a creation you need a creator, that is, it is begging the question.

[@dannytibi]

While I'm not 100% convinced by this argumentation (most of the scientific pioneers who were themselves Catholic still had to deal with significant structural opposition from the Church itself before their ideas were accepted despite their troubling implications), I do however acknowledge that modern day Catholics are often significantly more pro-Science than their evangelical counterparts.... the "yahoos" as Fr. Barron referred to them.

[@markowen6685]

In short God, the beginning and end of all things, can be known with certitude by the natural light of human reason from created things; Romans 119For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20Ever since the creation of the world his eternal power and divine nature, invisible though they are, have been understood and seen through the things he has made. So they are without excuse;

[@ThomistC]

1. Roman Catholic cleric-scientists :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric%E2%80%93scientists 2. Catholic scientists : en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists