Finding God Without Religious Experiences W/ Trent Horn

I talk with Trent about responding to atheists who "experience the absence of God," and how our personal conversion stories differ, mine being spiritual and emotional first, and Trent's being based on rational inquiry.
-Thanks to our sponsors!!!-
🌳 The Catholic Woodworker: catholicwoodwo... (use discount code: mattfradd)
👁️Covenant Eyes: www.covenantey... (use promo code: mattfradd)
🙏Hallow: hallow.app/mat...
🎥 Check out the Full Episode: • Pints With Aquinas #18...
⭐ Trent's Podcast Website: / counseloftrent
Trent's KZbin Channel: / trhorn100
Trent's Bibliography: www.amazon.com...
Catholic Answers Site: www.catholic.com/
📌 To support me on Patreon (Thank you! 😭): / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Twitter: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Instagram: / mattfradd
📌 To follow me on Facebook: / mattfradd

[@jonahkane7027]

I love Trent horn! He has helped me so much with my catholic faith. Thank you Trent horn for everything you do.

[@RenneAtha]

Hahaha that complete lack of emotion at a worship service is so relatable. I feel absolutely nothing (except vague annoyance) in those situations. On the other hand, some Gregorian chants have inspired such feelings. The first time I experienced music leading me to worship was while listening to "Victimae Paschali Laudes". Turns out I can have those feelings, but only if they're based in something real and solid. Charismatic worship feels plastic/foreign to me.

[@norbusganklepuss68]

I was an atheist for decades. I'd read Craig and Plantinga, and remained unconvinced because they keep leaning on inference to the best explanation. But probabilistic arguments don't move me from negative certainty to doubt. It wasn't until Ed Feser was able to restate Aristotle, Leibniz, and Aquinas in a logical case for certain positive belief, that I found myself dislodged from my negative certainty to a position open to the *possibility* of God. I now consider myself a nominal theist, on the weight of Feser's case.

[@markstevenpandan890]

Same!

[@markstevenpandan890]

Why do you predicate "nominal" to "theist?"

[@norbusganklepuss68]

@@markstevenpandan890 My belief in God is based solely on being persuaded by argument. It's taken some time, and from multiple sources (Fiona Ellis, Thomas Nagel, George Berkeley, Robert Barron, and now Ed Fesser), but I have arrived at a rational assent that I can countenance as true belief. However, because this belief is not a product of special revelation, emotional experience, or other means impervious to reason, it is possible I could be dissuaded. As such, I cannot call this belief a "faith". And I think to consider my belief more than a merely nominal assent, it would have to be an incorrigible faith (i.e. impervious to rational argument).

[@norbusganklepuss68]

@Qwerty Well, it depends on what you mean by "fragile". A popular bromide among atheists goes something like this: "one cannot be reasoned out of what one was not reasoned into". The idea being, that often when you argue with people, they will retrench themselves, rather than yielding to reason (and, atheists believe this is especially true of the religious). But, unlike many atheists, I have always tried to stay true to reason, which means conclusions are far less important to me, than method. This means that my atheism was as "fragile" as my theism is now. The truth is at the top of my value pyramid. Everything else follows.

[@mchristr]

I relate to your post. Have you considered the essential part that the intuitive plays in our epistemology? I was able to counter any theistic arguments with the appeal to a lack of either physical evidence or logical consistency. My barrier was a dependence on rationalism. St. Paul's argument in the early chapters of Romans is that we already know of God's existence but choose to deny it. This is actually a pretty sophisticated appeal to an intuitive knowing that precedes rational argument.

[@CatholicK5357]

I have had both the extreme religious experiences as well as the reason ones at different parts of my life, and am grateful for them both. I feel that God gives me more of one over the other during the times that I need it the most. I have heard some say that God at times takes away the good feelings to test us in seeing if our love and devotion to Him is for the right reasons or if we are using God for an emotional high. This is why many Saints have gone through what they call 'the dark night of the soul'. But if one passes such a test and continues to follow Him through thick and thing, they gain the perfect balance of feeling and rationale - and if not in this life then the next. I have not made it yet, but God willing one day I will.

[@rschiwal]

Early on, I found it extremely easy to prove that God exists, but this isn't faith. A crisis of faith came up and I was terrified and defiant.

[@mchristr]

As someone who didn't grow up with any connection to Christianity, the thought process was inescapable. As Francis Schaeffer said, everyone has "moral motions". Hence, we live in a moral world. For the world to be moral requires both a moral standard and an a priori moral law giver. Intuitively knowing that moral law, do I keep it? No, I don't. Conclusion: I need a savior.

[@Joe-uw5rv]

One good analogy of how you can have an experience of God without being able to explain is to draw an hypothesis of love relationship. You can talk to someone who has never been in love about the experience but you can’t reall fully describe. The person just has to experience it form himself. But just because you cannot describe it does not mean that the experience does not exist.

[@biankapaloma]

I feel like Trent. I have felt God's presence , and have had (some)spiritual experiences, but God and Jesus appear to me in a more "step by step evidence" and "cientific cases" rather than strong emotional religious experiences. I pray for them, and sometimes I don't feel I am worthy enough, but it is good to know it's not just me. TY, Mr Thorn. God bless you.

[@matswessling6600]

no, you have not gfelt gods presence. you felt somethibg but there is no evidence that it was from a god.

[@biankapaloma]

@@matswessling6600 ohhh, and you are an expert because.....?

[@matswessling6600]

@@biankapaloma I dont need to be an expert but you have to provide evidence...

[@biankapaloma]

@@matswessling6600 why do I have to provide you with anything? Who are you?

[@matswessling6600]

@@biankapaloma you have to provide evidence to not be be dismissedasz nothing else.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

I've never had religious experiences before. I've had prayers answered though. I see beauty in nature and God's Creation. My faith in Jesus was strengthened by the scriptures, prayer, the Shroud of Turin and Eucharistic miracles. I look at the world through both a natural/scientific lense and religious/supernatural lense.

[@CommentArchive]

Your more blessed the less you se, it mean your fate is bigger for it

[@CommentArchive]

All God want is us to be faithful

[@MrFossil367ab45gfyth]

@@CommentArchive , what do you mean?

[@CommentArchive]

@@MrFossil367ab45gfyth the more you know something is true the less faith it requires, it mean the you acting without being 100% sure and that’s beautiful cause not everyone is so faithful, God doesn’t test us just shows us the true.

[@stuckmannen3876]

Have nick Fuentes on for a chat maybe? 😊

[@erravi]

That’d be a cool discussion if about manhood maybe, just bc the difference in age and experience. I cant imagine matt wanting to get too into political discussion. ^hopefully the liking to catboys will be dissuaded looool

[@djrn1621]

Love it!!!

[@InnovativeSaint]

The limit of finding God through reason ends at the belief, not knowledge, that there is one creator or God over the universe. Any claim beyond this, which is to claim knowledge without experience, I do not believe is possible.

[@CommentArchive]

The reason is because you don’t need it, you don’t lack fate showing you would take away your fate cause you would know

[@hervedavidh4117]

i'm exactly like Trent!

[@chance5745]

I think that when a group of people come together with common purpose and belief, they will have a profound and moving experience, whether they believe in God or not. You only have to look at a concert. I believe this is what people are experiencing at church. Euphoria caused by the atmosphere, created by many like minded people. It is a collective experience. Some people might call this the Holy spirit within Christian settings. Kindly, C.

[@adventureinallthings]

Trent may have had ' very few ' of these religious experiences and said they are few and far between but... he has had then. I'll be honest, I find the emotional types very hard to deal with because they are taking past me , I have never had a religious experience of ANY type. The arguments Trent has presented are generally very sound but this leaves one with a rational ' faith ' . I'm at a loss as to understand how that is supposed to give a person ' a love ' of God. Yes I've heard the refrain , pray, well ok but this has gone on for years, how can one 'love' God in the meantime. Honest Question ?any answers, and btw please don't answer with pray more, that is just more of the same. If one should leave the world following the rules following a rational faith but without a love of God, what happens ?

[@leejennifercorlewayres9193]

You may be having experiences but do not recognize them. A lot of experiences of God intervening in one's life appear to be coincidences. It is up to you in how you interpret these events. At some point though, a rational mind will realize that the amount of coincidences they are experiencing simply can no longer be thought of as coincidences. Love of God is probably taking on many forms. For instance, with myself studying the laws alone and meditating on the reasons for them showed me how much God loves us. Others may have other reasons.

[@adventureinallthings]

@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 first thank you for taking the time to answer, now in relation to coincidences .. I'm afraid there is a lot of scientific research in this area that shows that what people interpret as too much of a coincidence is in fact just that , a coincidence. ( I'm not saying they always are or that God does not use them but just that certain types of people are far more likely to believe these things are seripticous than others , I have heard Buddhist, Hindus and new agers hold that certain things could not be coincidences either and present equal kinds of evidence as I hear among Christians ) I should add this type of point goes beyond even matters of religion or faith, it is just certain types of people see agency in all sorts of things that are highly unlikely, such as malevolence by government when simple error can explain it better. This split seems to occur across other religious traditions too, I know of more rationaly minded Buddhist that don't put the same significance on certain coincidences as others of the same faith. I am of the opinion that those involved in the charismatic catholic movement are far more likely to interpret coincidence than others ( I'm not even saying they are always wrong but statistically they all can't be right all the time , can they ) I think I just have the kind of brain that is not wired like that. I can follow Trent's logic however I can't see how thinking and meditating as you suggest gives one a personal relationship like others seem to have🤔, so I believe my question still stands, if you accept logically , follow the rules but don't have that personal relationship, where does that leave you, is one something of a pharasee , all logic and legal but without love ?

[@adventureinallthings]

@True RightRight without boring you with the details, but both before finding faith and now , I have done that, I've always seen the need to help my fellow man and yes it is indeed its own reward but I still don't get that personal relationship people claim to have.🤔

[@mjp1688]

Jonathan O Mahony maybe you should read about Mother Teresa she did all of her greatest work without feeling the presence of God -for 50 years and had several exorcisms because she was so vexed by His absence.

[@adventureinallthings]

@True RightRight you know the answer to that already, I've seen the standard for Saint and I'm sure I'm far from alone in falling short. I've talked with a few priests, a few I found not very useful as I think they were from the charismatic school of thought, others had little to offer other than 1) pray 2) charity work , so I'm left asking questions on KZbin. The problem with the abandoning your own will path , that even is one is all in academically , unless one is a saint there will always be elements of rebellion in practice, but that does not seem to stop the charismatic types from experiencing that personal relationship , sin and all.🤔

[@naturalisticallyinclined7702]

So many hasty generalizations over atheists. Almost unanimously *only* targets *new* atheists. If you want to undermine, criticize, or rebut atheism, go after its most sophisticated forms. See Graham Oppy and his treatises in philosophy of religion, Felipe Leon, Paul Draper, JL Schellenberg, Stephen Maiten, Klaas Kraay, Wes Morriston, JH Sobel, and co.

[@goldschool9050]

Microphones on top of bibles? WTF? I'm out.

[@DrStrange1000]

Forgive them. They probably forgot the error of what they do.

[@eltonron1558]

Religion is bogus, while God is not. Christianity, as we know it, is polluted with denominations and doctrines, thus, I am not an apologist. I am an ADVOCATE for God, with an understanding, and belief in the role of Jesus, in God's plans.

[@mikesydney4212]

Great the Church of Elton Ron. Membership 1 🥴

[@eltonron1558]

@@mikesydney4212 Better than a denomination of heresy, with thousands of members.

[@maritzaperrault4836]

Trent I find you to be too wordy. I wish you would get to the point faster.

[@johnhammond6423]

There is a difference between saying 'there is no good reason to believe in God' [a positive claim] and 'I have found no good reason to believe in God' [1:10] Trent Horn is making a straw man argument here about atheism and most atheists.

[@johnhammond6423]

@True RightRight I made it clear in my first comment my friend?

[@johnhammond6423]

@True RightRight _'I am dense when it comes to philosophy arguments'_ Me too! :) I have not watched most of his video as his past videos are just nonsense in my opinion, the same as the Catholic faith is. But if you see a point in the video that you want to discuss with me than it would be fun to do so. And Atheism does not lead to nihilism! I have an amazing life full of meaning. Nice talking to you my friend, John.

[@MissPopuri]

A straw man argument would require something to be burned without reasonable justification. I don’t think Trent Horn was being uncharitable in the least to say that finding a reason good or otherwise is necessarily bad or disqualifies your inquiry. Sometimes eyes just won’t open and people fall asleep for years waking up to a world gone bananas, I rejoice in being able to wake up every day to do what God has planned for me. Typically, it is a to do list.

[@anonymousperson1904]

But isn't saying that 'I have found no good reason to believe in God' still a positive claim? You are claiming that all the evidence and reason that you have come across to believe in God has not been good. That is a positive claim. Thus, you have the burden of proof of showing what was wrong or lacking in those arguments or reasons such that they didn't qualify as 'good reason'.

[@anonymousperson1904]

​@True RightRight "my understanding is that if you have found nothing, you don’t take that as evidence that there is nothing." Correct. But, the claim before was saying that 'I have found no good reason to believe in God' is still a positive claim. You are saying that all the arguments or evidence that have been presented to you is not sufficient to warrant or justify belief in God. That is a positive claim. So, you have the burden of proof of explaining or showing what was wrong or inadequate about the arguments that you have seen. How I see it, the other way you could interpret the statement is that you have not been presented with any arguments for the existence of God. You are just completely ignorant or oblivious and haven't been presented with any argument at all. In that case, you are not making a positive claim per se, just expressing your past experience (or rather, lack thereof) with the issues at hand.

[@Bill_Garthright]

Christians love to talk about what atheists say, but it usually sounds like a strawman argument. We atheists are diverse. Atheism is just the lack of belief in a god or gods. It's a very narrow label. We have no dogma. We have _no_ required beliefs whatsoever. You can believe _anything_ and still be an atheist as long as you don't believe in a god or gods. If you want to know what an atheist says, I'm right here. Why not talk with me? Why not _listen_ to what I say? Why not have a conversation, a back-and-forth discussion? I can't speak for anyone else, but _neither can any other atheist._ After all, we're not the ones with a magic book. Personally, I'm an atheist because I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that a god or gods exists - _any_ god, let alone a particular one. And I've never seen even *one* piece of good evidence that even *one* of the magic stories in the Bible actually happened, either. Worldwide, faith-based people _overwhelmingly_ believe in whatever religion and whatever god or gods they were taught to believe as children. That's just a fact. It's not a coincidence that 83% of Italians are Christian, while 90% of Egyptians are Muslim and 80% of Indians are Hindu. Sure, there are converts - in every direction - but they're relatively rare. Well, if you care about the _truth_ of your beliefs - as I do - that's not a good reason to believe something. Evidence would be a good reason. Got any? Just *one piece of good evidence?* (I don't want a Gish Gallop of vague claims. But just *one* example isn't too much to discuss in a KZbin comment.)

[@leejennifercorlewayres9193]

You can email me at [e-mail] if you want to discuss this.

[@MissPopuri]

May I inquire how you came by this atheism? How were you raised as a child?

[@Bill_Garthright]

@@leejennifercorlewayres9193 Thanks. I sent an email (from *billg* AT *inebraska* DOT *com* - in case someone else here would rather talk by email).

[@Bill_Garthright]

@True RightRight _"Nobody goes around telling people why they are not believers in a new Sun Cult"_ I _would_ if those were the people who had the political power to destroy my country and my world. I _would_ if they were a huge part of the U.S. or world population. I _would_ if those were the people actively causing harm in the world, as the existing religions do. The main difference between current religions and Sun Cults is that the Sun Cults, if they exist at all, are too tiny to do much harm. But it's not just religion I oppose. It's secular pseudoscience, too. It's _all_ faith-based thinking. But some of it does a lot more harm than others - mostly because of how many people believe it. And 74% of the U.S. population is Christian. Luckily, Christians can't even agree with _each other_ about much of anything, let alone with the other faith-based people in the world, even when you're all supposedly following the same magic book supposedly provided to you by the same supposedly all-knowing deity! For most of my life, I felt that religion was silly, but harmless. Everyone I knew seemed to believe in Christianity for an hour on Sundays and then ignored it the rest of the week. And I'm a staunch supporter of freedom of religion. My non-belief was none of their business, just as their beliefs were none of mine. Your beliefs are _still_ your own business, of course, but during the Bush Administration, I finally realized that I had to stand up and be counted as an atheist. And it's only gotten worse since then. The Christian Right is destroying my country and my world, and while there are Christians on _both_ sides of the political aisle - and pretty much both sides of _every_ issue - you're all faith-based, rather than evidence-based, and _that's_ the fundamental problem. So yeah, if you believe in a Sun Cult (and that's no crazier than the claims I hear from many other people), then just tell me what you believe and why you believe it. If you don't have even *one piece of good evidence* that it's actually _true,_ then I won't believe it myself, and I'll ask you why you do.

[@Bill_Garthright]

@Turtle _Trent has a book called “Why we are Catholic” and I highly recommend it._ OK. I don't believe in _any_ religion - and all for the same reason. Indeed, I oppose faith-based thinking in general. But I can't even _imagine_ how anyone could still be Catholic these days! If _child rape_ doesn't bother you, what _would?_ It's not just child rape, either, although that should certainly be enough! It's the scandals in Spain where the priests stole newborn babies from their mothers, claiming that the baby had died during childbirth (keeping a few corpses in the freezer in case the mother wanted to see it), and _sold_ them to people wanting to adopt. It's the Magdalene laundry scandals in Ireland. And those are just a couple of examples. These things went on for decades and probably for _generations._ Whenever priests raped children - and that wasn't an uncommon thing - the church hushed it up, often threatening the victims to keep them quiet, and then moved the rapists to new, unsuspecting parishes where they could find fresh victims. (Children!) And church leaders did this because they cared _nothing_ about the children of their parishioners and everything about their own reputation. And you're _still_ Catholic, even after _that?_ You haven't even switched to some slightly different church based on the same basic superstition? Sorry, but I _really_ can't understand that. If _child rape_ doesn't bother you, what _would?_ PS. Note that I already know why you're Catholic, don't I? It's because that's what you were taught to believe as a baby, right? Sure, there are converts - in _every_ direction - but the overwhelming majority of Catholics - the overwhelming majority of most religions - were just taught to believe it as children. So, sure. I understand that's why you've _been_ Catholic, but I really can't understand why you're _still_ Catholic. Well, childhood indoctrination is really, really powerful, I guess.

[@np6697]

There is no rational route to God. If you have not had an encounter, then either you have not prayed and acted accordingly. Or may not be chosen by God at all. Many people go to Hell

[@albinobigfoot]

Vatican I defines that men can ascertain the existence of God using unaided reason alone. The claims you have made in this comment are contrary to the Faith and serve no purpose but to inspire despair in those who have not had an "encounter".

[@np6697]

@@albinobigfoot Vatican I is also not a stand alone Council, And Vatican II is incomplete. There are "a priori" Principals that demonstrate the Ontology of God, but no "a posteriori" reasons; your feelings don't count. We're arguing in circles at this point, because people like you have "Flat Earth Syndrome". Not everyone goes to Heaven, sorry; For Example, Jorge Bergoglio, who practiced his Valid Ordination as a Pathological Lier of Creation; there is no reasoning out of his Mortal Sin and Abnegation of Duty; he is forever the Judas Pope. In these cases, there is only Encounter, the valid Rite of which is Absolution.

[@np6697]

@@albinobigfoot The "keyword" here is "MAY ASCERTAIN"

[@MissPopuri]

Our Lady would have some stern words for you in this regard. Never talk like there is no hope for people who have no encounters per say, revelations are different and varied like the sand on the seashore. The people who get to Heaven are the ones who endure the afflictions, trauma, and tribulation in this life accepting the call God gives them however it comes. Prayer, fasting, and alms are tools to strengthen a weak faith, but they are not the end all, be all.

[@np6697]

@Qwerty ILLITERATE FLIP FLOP