Creating Atheists

[@jillchristensen5093]

“Religion is a close cousin to art and poetry.” YES, thank you bishop Barron! I am an artist, and I teach art and art history, and I feel most connected to God and my Catholic faith through art, poetry, and music. It is no coincidence that liturgies make use of these arts to mediate an experience of the divine. Science and math are great, but I don’t think they can explain why Pachabel’s Canon moves so many people, or why I might want to sit quietly with a minor painting by Manet. I experience God in moments of stillness or a flash of imagination bringing a concept to life. I doubt I could experience the divine through a scientific experiment even if that wasn’t a logical non-starter.

[@pop6997]

Hi Jill, nice post! It's a fallacy that one cannot be religious and scientific. ( Or find the beauty of God in an equation..) One of the first 'great commissions' to Adam & Eve was to go forth, fill the world and conquer it. The study of the natural sciences can be seen as 'conquering' our planet & universe - we can get excited when we learn something new and wonderful by saying, 'Ah yes Lord, so THAT's how you did it, you are truly amazing! ' :-) God Bless!

[@pop6997]

@@Glasstable2011 I believe the people we call Adam & Eve are the first to have a soul - that's when the light got switched well and truly on. Catholics are allowed 'room' to understand some scriptures, the heels are not dug in as regards what we 'must' believe in relation to evolution for example. We believe in truth and reason. Scripture is like a vast ocean, it's made for every age and is still revealing itself, even in these times. Hence why we believe the Holy Spirit guides His Church. The Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit of Truth' The scriptures are like a library rather than a modern day novel. Also, they are not meant to be a scientific text book either. They are books with various different forms, but all meant to convey a truth - that God guides all things for the good. Some bible only Christian's may differ from us on this point & indeed many Catholics ( who don't really give a toss about evolution ) might hold to a different understanding. The Church doesn't dictate that's its essential to believe or not in evolution, that's not its sphere. However, we must believe in the Soul. Hope that answers your question.. :-)

[@pop6997]

@Marvi Wilson I would say, what came first 'The Chicken or the Egg?' - If humans make a form of synth. Well.......its s synth..... it would have no consequence whatsoever on me being a Catholic who believes in God, and why would it... :-)

[@nathanaelculver5308]

Marvi Wilson *How would you think then?* I would think we’d just demonstrated that the creation of life requires an intelligent mind.

[@cynic150]

I am a musician, but I do not think that art is spiritual. Over decades, I have come to the definite conclusion that art is only emotional and intellectual, and has no direct connection to the spiritual.

[@JohnR.T.B.]

I was an atheist, as atheistic as one can be, I am telling you I have eaten all kinds of atheistic arguments and I have argued against Christians and Catholics alike trying to convince them that what they believe does not make any sense or wrong, in the end I reverted to the Catholic Church because of my experience in a Eucharistic Adoration, experiencing His presence, and also many other life experiences given by the Lord.

[@johnelmerpechuela3519]

That's great! Welcome home. May Christ's love and peace continue to lead you to your ministry. There will be tough days ahead , but with Christ who resides within you, who can be against you?

[@coinswaptrader2915]

behind atheism is pride and rebellion to God!

[@vinisanic4560]

@@JamesRichardWiley Catholic is belong to God, and im CRISTIAN CATHOLIC..welcome all who come back home church Catholic.

[@johnelmerpechuela3519]

@@coinswaptrader2915 Exactly!

[@paradisecityX0]

@@JamesRichardWiley Wikipedia 😆😅😂 and the fact that an invisible man in the sky is your most sophisticated concept of the unmoved mover, that says more about you than it does the xtians you hate

[@dr.pamelachollet6368]

Ok, who else loves when Bishop Barron eloquently weaves terms like like "Scientific Reductionism" with his inner-child vocabulary like "It BUGS me"? Excellent show, thank you!

[@mariesinnecker4450]

I do. Hate yo be talked down to.

[@mariesinnecker4450]

This is not an answer yo anything: WHEN IS BARRON ( Sorry, Excelente!): GOING TO ANSWER THAT GUY BENITEZ ON his ( too) several talks, specially on AQUINAS AGAINST GOD! PLEASE!

[@firangele8094]

I do, may God bless him, and all of you. 🙏🙏🙏

[@markgallemore8856]

Question if you don’t have access to the concepts or assertion that there is such a place as outside of space and time everything else in this video is fallaciously, special pleading !

[@robertdolcetti450]

No… we obviously don’t have a way to examine a dimension beyond space and time. However, given that neither space nor time are eternal, there must be some eternal thing responsible for both. It’s just logic.

[@barreflynn]

As a child, I grew up in the country where there were millions of stars. I would lie on the ground and think about this as I peered into the sky. As a child I was taught the logic of Christianity, I listened and I observed. Sin was so obvious. As I entered the reality of life as an adult, every piece of wisdom played itself out. There it was again, sin, infesting our world. I was asked to trust God for my needs and he agreed to provide. I'm 70 now and there were just too many miraculous events to think it a chance. I love puzzles and God is the piece that finishes the puzzle. I am smart, very well educated and have worked in senior positions in fortune 200 companies. I have sat beside the homeless. In each person there is the imago dei.. It shines. Mostly God's love shines brightly and just makes sense in our sinful world. His plan for our redemption. Belief in Jesus as a Savior is a moral question not intellectual. It is the readiness of the heart, Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs in the Kingdom of God. Thanks Bishop, I have found a beautiful friend in you.

[@Tartersauce101]

Read your comment three times but can only up vote it once...Just wanted you to know.

[@culturecoroner]

❤️ you, brother! Thank you for taking the time to write this out. It’s beautiful.

[@Martin-qm2lg]

Something to share with others who sadly are missing out on knowing and experiencing God's love for something far inferior. We need to share with everyone how great Jesus Christ is, the ultimate answer to the question that is every human life.

[@emiliavrogers]

I did that, too when I was a child. I was a climber. And I would hop onto a branch of a big grapefruit tree leaning on the house and hop onto the roof in the evening to watch the stars. beautiful experience, wasn't it?

[@emiliavrogers]

@@MarcovonAntoni-jb6bh Atheists use theories to base their unbelief of God. They can explain in their own play with fancy words, but they have to prove theories using their own specimen, and all the things that they need to use ARE GOD'S.

[@TheMDelima]

LOL, clearly the Holy Spirit is real, because I arrived at the same solution of asking these street epistemologists their questions back, before I even heard Brendan and Bishop Barron's final solutions. I have endless reasons to believe in God. Starting with, I'm alive and it's not a coincidence.

[@Kaymen1980]

_I have endless reasons to believe in God. Starting with, I'm alive and it's not a coincidence._ Yeah, thats nice, but "God" doesn't follow from that, therefore, this is not a reason to believe in a god.. What else you got?

[@Kaymen1980]

@Kal El Us not being able to explain X, using any kind of methodology doesn't mean "God" did it either.. This is probably even more silly than; "I exist, therefore God". One of you'd better produce a good reason fast, cuz these two doesn't cut it.

[@Kaymen1980]

@Kal El Can't explain dark matter, therefore universe farting pixies. Toast exist, therefore Ferrari.

[@Kaymen1980]

@Kal El Besides, saying; my reason for believing that a god purposely created me, is that a god purposely created me, is entirely circular.. A bad reason by definition. Dali?

[@Kaymen1980]

@Kal El "Beyond" standard rationality... What the hell is that? 😂 Dude, you are the water that's convinced the hole it rests in was created specifically for it because it fit so well in it..

[@ralph7545]

Bishop Barron is a national treasure. God bless !

[@Kaymen1980]

Nah, that's Nic Cage

[@luismuzquiz]

International treasure. Us, people in Mexico get the crumbles near the table.

[@amadubah8931]

Facts

[@VirgoBirrane]

He's a treasure to learning Catholics

[@smartITworks4me]

I haven't seen Fr. Barron with such a sad face in his videos. I do agree and believe that this is a SERIOUS MATTER to discuss and elaborate..

[@thebestofmae]

I have been on the opposite end of this atheist who was trying to talk me out of my faith. At that time I was just starting to read the great books of our faith and diving deep into its richness. So I couldn't formulate a good argument to rebuke his dishonest questioning. He asked me if religion is good then why had there been a crusade, why can't the Catholic Church end the world poverty when it's the richest charity organization, and that Noah's ark is just a made up story and that it's similar to what happened with the Aztec's. From then on, I promised to educate myself with the teachings of the Church so that I can defend it well.

[@coldforgedcowboy]

@The Best of Mae... Read lots of Peter Kreeft, he is one of the best articulators of the Catholic Faith.

[@coldforgedcowboy]

@@JamesRichardWiley @James Richard Wiley, just how does one use crtical thinking about events involving Miraculous events. Critical thinking is good but it has its limits. I suggest reading CS Lewis book Mere Christianity.

[@alanlo-557]

@@JamesRichardWiley please! Historicity of Jesus Authenticity and likeability of believers Inauthenticity of developed-in-their- beliefs atheists Ultimate grounds for morality Scientific inexplicability of the existence of the universe Miracles. Trillions of personal experience theists. Do try a little harder. Or keep faking that you tried. Your choice

[@ryandonagan2628]

James Richard Wiley You sound like you were a very weak minded “Catholic” to begin with. I’m not afraid of death or hell and it has no bearing on my religious beliefs.. I have never been frightened into any belief system, That’s pathetic. I am very confidant in believing that there are many people who have beliefs and they are not dictated by negative emotions, Like yours were. Now your just a troll pestering people and blowing up comments fields on KZbin talking about how you were once a Catholic for 20 years, I bet your including from birth to 20 years old too- You are a moron. You have your beliefs and that’s fine, Get the hell out of here.

[@haywardjeblomey6505]

You should have listened to reason instead. God is your imaginary friend, which means he cannot help you in any way.

[@johnduffy9619]

Brandon is right in suggesting that this manual is for attacking the faith of relatively naive Christians. The tactics described in the book are classic sales techniques that are used to train salespeople without an analytical background in what they're selling. Normally, once such sales people assess the competence of the potential customer, and get them to assign a single reason for what they buy and how sure they are of their buying decision, the sales training book gives them some arguments in favor of their product or service. And then get the customer to re-state their buying logic, but now with less certainty. Ultimately, the goal over several meetings is to convince the purchaser that it is their own decision to buy into the new product/service. If the sales person runs into somebody like Bishop Barron, they just close the meeting as quickly as possible. The manual is for generating new, relatively uninformed, customers. Not dialogue. My question is why you want to do that? I understand why people want to evangelize about their faith. But about their unfaith?

[@a.borodin2435]

John: Barron did me a great service. I immediately went to Amazon and bought the book.

[@unusual686]

The manual is simply based on the Socratic method. As Christianity cannot withstand the objections of the Socratic method, the only used car salesman in any of these types of discussions are the Christian apologists.

[@unusual686]

@PuraguCryostato Doubt is a useful tool, something rarely used by the faithful, and only sometimes used by the apologist. If the faithful do not understand their religion and don't know how to defend it, then the street epistemologist can actually help them understand and defend religion through reason and logic. I won't comment on your last question, as it sounds like something an angry atheist would quip.

[@unusual686]

@PuraguCryostato Do you think that millions of high IQ, super educated people could be wrong about a fact? Are you familiar with the Argumentum ad populum fallacy?

[@a.borodin2435]

@@unusual686 Exactly correct, Tim. Dan Dennett likes to write about the "deepities" of apologists. These are evidence-free sayings that are meant to sound profound but instead are utterly without any meaning whatever. The good bishop LOVES deepities and uses them constantly.

[@paulandreigillesania5359]

I remember what the early Church Father Justin Martyr said: Sound doctrine can enter not a boisterous heart.

[@sparhawkmulder1137]

I'm not sure I understand what you're implying.

[@monikacoates7661]

You're so smart Bishop.

[@johntimby7447]

Thank you Bishop Barron for this excellent conversation. So helpful. You've knocked it out of the park.

[@rungavagairun]

Bishop Barron, have you watched any of the SE video examples on KZbin since this discussion?

[@bradscharff1816]

Bishop Barron is a true intellectual. However, he makes his teaching and content accessible and palatable to the lay person without dumbing down the teaching. I recently completed RCIA. I plan to make Crusillo in the fall. I'm so thankful for Bishop Barron and the excellent content of Word on Fire.

[@ronnestman4696]

I really appreciate Word on Fire.

[@rungavagairun]

Around the 8:00 mark, you criticize SE practitioners for having conversations with ordinary believers who are not well read and cannot defend their faith intelligently. It seems like it would be good then for those people to question and doubt and then go back to their church to find out the information you suggest exists. SE practitioners do not assert that the answers aren't there to be discovered and the approach invites the interviewee to do their research and return to the conversation later with better information if they find it. I wonder, is it okay for evangelists to preach to regular atheists on the street who may not be trained or well read to respond to the arguments put forward by the apologist, or should apologists and preachers only talk to atheists with a PhD in philosophy? At what level of study and preparation does it become acceptable to approach people and ask them why they believe something with the level of confidence they have for the belief and how they reached their conclusion?

[@wisenber]

I had a similar reaction. Evangelists are not bound by the intellectual or philosophical qualifications of their targets. That being said, deeper held beliefs regardless of the level of understanding are developed more by attraction than promotion. If that is the case, it would beggar the question of what is attractive about atheism relative to faith.

[@E.R.Hewitt]

Everyone should seek to have a good defense of their faith, yes. To defend against intelligent scientism one must be articulate, well read and comfortable explaining metaphysics. Most Christians are not. They might have greater faith than Bishop Barron, but the average believer, while they might have a passing knowledge of it, could not necessarily teach it. I still recall some chemistry from high-school, I wouldn't attempt to teach it, it hasn't stopped me from becoming a better cook. It is more important for Christians to grow in virtue than it is to grow in theological or philosophical knowledge. If you have the capacity or inclination, sure, learn it in depth, but this knowledge is not essential to Christian wisdom.

[@wisenber]

@@E.R.Hewitt If you think about it, none of the original apostles met the bill. Maybe passion and faith do more than credentials? Sort of like not being able to convince a three year old to give up his mother. He might not be able to explain why, but he isn't going to let it happen willingly.

[@E.R.Hewitt]

@@wisenber I get what you're saying, didnt I say make a similar point in a way about Christian wisdom? But the comparison is apples and oranges. No evangelist can match the Apostles, they were firsthand witnesses, they literally walked with God, the miracle of Pentecost... it's incomparable. Perhaps Paul fits the intellectual description, and certainly going forward a generation or two the early church fathers... etc (not sure, my Church history is lousy). Going cradle Catholic to teen atheist to adult practicing Catholic I know no amount of passion would have moved me at a certain point. Of truth, beauty and goodness, I think the atheist often wants truth first.

[@wisenber]

@@E.R.Hewitt I suppose my point is that jello is best consumed with a spoon rather than a scalpel. The other thing then atheist doesn't consider is that if successful, they will have replaced the role of faith with a void.

[@janemurillo4235]

Bishop Barron, thank you for your words of wisdom, and the truth you speak of. God bless you!!

[@njejlester1603]

Good morning everyone! Grateful for Word on Fire!

[@MirielPastorOfVows]

It's nice to Bishop Barron with a little fire in his belly. This was a great show!

[@kristennereidy4879]

I think we need to unpack this further. As you mentioned, people in their teens to, nowadays, 40s, are buying into this limited, bullying perspective. It's difficult for many believers, myself included, to provide the depth of information to counter these arguments.

[@artemis3120]

Wouldn't you say that's a good thing? If you are believing in something for poor or unsound reasons, then wouldn't you want to know?

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Please know that these bullying techniques are used by both believers and unbelievers.

[@emmanuelkimathi4818]

I am grateful for the Word On Fire Show.

[@luismuzquiz]

I remember reading Stephen Hawking's in the early 90's how he almost bragged about this sort "secret knowledge" he had about how the universe might not even have beginning. As opposed to the big bang, the "christian view". (which is not necessarily christian since it's a scientific hypothesis, even though it was first conceived by a jesuit priest). Hawking wrote: "I was glad then that he (John Paul II) did not know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference - the possibility that space-time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation" Well, many years later, reading Aquinas, not directly but through Etienne Gilson, i realized how Christian philosophers many centuries earlier considered the rationality of a created world, (contingent) and somehow being called into creation by God, but from no exact point in time. So a created universe yes, but that did not had a beginning in time? That's how deep philosophers can get. Gee - i thought at the time of reading - i wonder what Stephen would think of this if he had took the time to read it. By reading this subject somehow i felt the joke was on Hawking. I mean here you have really "naive ignorant religious people" who seriously came to arguably the very same hypothesis a science genius had, but hundreds of years earlier. I find a lot of intelectual religious people will be often highly formed on science, and then i find a lot of atheists who are highly trained or informed in science yes, but who are almost always unconsciously ignorant of philosophy and it's power to shed light on reality. Greetings from Monterrey, México. Sorry for the rusty grammar, english isn't my native language.

[@liveforever4190]

Great insights and very understandable. I didn't even realize you weren't a native speaker. 🖒

[@seanmcshane3196]

Very good point. Further, while the Bishop is quite correct to insist of broadening the discussion beyond Epistemology, even within epistemology unassailable argument can be made for the inadequacy of any method to elucidate or evaluate the totality of truth. I direct people to work of Gödel who puts forward an elegant argument that any system that claims to be a theory of natural numbers is either inconsistent or incomplete or both. If we cannot construct such a rigorous system about something as apparently simple as the natural numbers, any claim for a method to be both complete and consistent when applied to anything more complicated (such as existential, ethical, moral issues etc) is totally untenable. Indeed, there are wonderful proofs in mathematical logic for an inverse relationship between the expressive power of a system and the capacity to decide truths about that which is expressed. Certitude is BAD science. Any scientist who claims he knows the truth cannot do so using scientific methods. What he can say is he has a theory that has not been negated experimentally, and is open to the possibility that his theory may be disproven at some point in time. Any assertion he makes beyond this is a mater of his belief. This belief may well be justified but it is not on the basis of the scientific method. It may well be useful to solicit such beliefs from these atheists and then follow their approach to dismantle their belief in science. For my part, as a scientist I consider God a non-scientific question. It is most unscientific to attempt to disprove the existence of God. In logical terms it is equally questionable. How can one prove something doesn’t exist? The best we could hope is an exhaustive search, however, if God is outside the universe that wouldn’t work.

[@luismuzquiz]

@@seanmcshane3196 loved your input. Thanks

[@markmcdonald890]

the big bang was not conceived by a Jesuit priest. many people, most of whom were believers in the Christian faith, contributed to our present understanding of cosmology. The term "Big Bang" was coined by Fred Hoyle as a pejorative description of George Gamow's model of the beginning of the universe. That model was based in part on Georges Lemaitre 1931 description of the universe.

[@downer2722]

@@seanmcshane3196 Following your line of thought we can't disprove vampires,werewolves,santa,my imaginary friend who told me that burning people alive was ok,and so i did and you can´t put the blame on me or disprove what i just said because my imaginary friend is real but lives outside the universe,he left two books tho,on the old one he created day and night and the sun a few days after,on the new book they realized this was stupid and scientifically incorrect so they just changed it,religion is the biggest fraud/scam,used to control,extort and kill thousands and thousands of people throughout human history,there is literally 0 evidence of the "creation",and there is a co-relation between the increase of atheists and the increase of scientific information available for the general population,it might take time but eventually the shacky grounds that hold whatever is left from the biggest fairytail will fall and christianity will finally be what it was meant to be,a fictional book of human history.

[@woofer77]

Just starting to watch this, but a great way to create an atheist is to judge others and tell them how horrible and sinful they are, especially if it makes oneself feel superior. A person can create a lot of atheists that way.

[@oreo507]

We don't hate sinners we hate sins baby

[@varun7599]

@PuraguCryostato His point is Christians who are judgemental and not forgiving produce more atheists than atheists themselves.

[@oreo507]

@@varun7599 I definitely think some Christians can be too quick to pass judgment onto non-Christians and their behaviors, however often times non-Christians don't understand what we mean when we talk about sinful acts. I was joking in my earlier comment but *that's* the nuance that most people don't get. Hating the act someone commits is not equivalent to hating the person.

[@varun7599]

@@oreo507 Even hating sin is also problematic. Try to take the speck out of your brother's eye. If they don't want to take it out, just leave them alone. Don't throw your pearls to pigs, don't give sacred advice to who can't appreciate it. Some sins are soooo natural that we can't take them away easily. If X hates Y's short height, Y can't do anything about it, and he'll make sure not to be friends with X. Paul somewhere says let non Christians sin it's not our duty to stop them.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Actually, the best way I have found to create other atheists or to plant a seed of doubt, over the last 40 years is to tell a Christian to read the entire Bible. Sermons and quotes of the Bible are often filtered to present a desired topic, like the Jesus on the mound (not that today's Conservatives remember anything Jesus ever said), John 3;16, and many favorites. It's the topics that have not become favorites. There's a talking donkey in there. There's a unicorn in there. There are other things in there. There are a great many silly and absurd things in the Bible that most Christians know nothing about. There are ramifications to the things in the Bible, incest starting with Adam and Eve, the story of Noah, and story of Lot. There should be an adult warning on the Bible. The story of Lot and the God character being tricked into devastating Lot and his family for the enjoyment of a demon. And what of the lack of condemning of slavery. There are instruction on how to beat your slave, but when it becomes criminal if he were to die after you beat him. Even the words of the Jesus character uses slavery to compare the relationship between man and his god. But, it is actually damning that slavery was not listed as a sin. For Christians of today are far more moral than the god they believe exists. They do not follow the barbaric punishments mentioned in their own holy book as they are too immoral to consider. I applaud the modern Christian for what they actually believe than how closely they follow the errancy of the Bible.

[@voodooprince5561]

I think the main reason I lapsed into atheism is because in the modern Catholic church, the actual philosophy of Christianity is never really explained. The fundamental analysis of atheism "I can't see God so therefor he does not exist", or "If God is so good then how does X bad thing happen?" is extremely superficial and contradicts most of their other beliefs pertaining to science and ethics. The problem for us is that our justification for our faith is not much better. When I was a child the only reasoning the Sunday school teacher could provide was essentially "God is real because I said so and if you don't believe it you go to Hell", which albeit true, is an entirely self-contained argument with no real external proofs. If the teacher had explained to me why Christianity is functionally superior to the philosophy of atheism, and how Christianity explicitly addresses the main problems of nihilistic atheism and post-modern society, I would probably not have fallen for the non-believer's trap.

[@isidoreaerys8745]

21:10 “the goal isn’t to evangelize someone to ‘THE TRUTH’. It’s to explore the way we form our beliefs. THAT BOTHERED ME” Lmao. The conceit of the exclusivist

[@tonyhayes9827]

Thank-you Bishop Barron. THANK-YOU! If all your years of study have produced this video then all your years of study have been worth it.

[@StephenMHnilica]

In my experience, both parties tend to drift away from absolute confidence and towards a milder view point after the conversation is over. This is a tool for thinking and civil conversation, not conversation or deconversion. To those listening to this, I can tell you that neither of these two have actually read the book. Street Epistemology is a tool that is useful for discussing if a claim is likely true or not true, without the discussion devolving into an argument. It's useful for opening a dialogue about strongly held beliefs or extreme behaviors steeming from strongly held beliefs. I've seen it's application everything from discussions between dog trainers, prison inmates, physicists, marketing professionals, and yes, the religious and not religious communities.

[@willdon.3046]

wow I can't believe the Street Epistemology KZbin channel made a very reasonable and open response video. I hope Bishop Barron responds, as he says "Both parties must be willing to have their minds open in dialogue or it is manipulation " I think he is doing a good job modeling open discussion with those who have never heard Catholic ideas you talked about. They seem like pretty regular non-believers, I hope Bishop Barron can demonstrate for us how to engage with loving and inquisitive souls like them.

[@adamturowski3765]

Whole Street Epistemology is about being open to change confidence level in your views. That is why they made the video the way they did.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

I don't see the street apologist willing to understand the random street atheist and I suspect these clips were cherry-picked.

[@ultralightpilot5910]

Nobody will probably read my post, but here goes: My favorite thing to talk to an atheist about is the miraculous event which occurred at Tepeyac Hill, Mexico, December 1531, when Mary the mother of God appeared to Juan Diego Cuauhtlatoatzin. Juan Diego was wearing a tilma garment during the apparitions and even though it was winter, Mary had flowers appear and had Juan Diego load the front of his tilma with some of the flowers and had him take them to the doubting Bishop. When the flowers were dropped at the Bishops feet a miraculous image of Mary was on the front of the tilma. Here is where the fun begins with an atheist. The tilma was made with fibers from a type of cactus. Since that time similar tilmas were made with the exact type of fibers as the one Juan Diego wore, but the replica tilmas all disintegrate after a few years. After 500 years, the tilma of Juan Diego hasn’t disintegrated. The image on the tilma is not a painting. When scanned with a laser, the image appears to float above the tilma, and ophthalmoscope instruments can examine the eyes of Mary. Anarchists blew up the shrine where the tilma is housed and destroyed the entire shrine structure except the tilma, which is still intact. As a Roman Catholic I believe the shrine of Our Lady of Guadalupe is a miracle of God. I then ask the atheist to explain why the tilma doesn’t disintegrate, plus all of the rest of the of what I just described. One of the answers I get is, “I don’t want to hear it”, plus others that can’ t explain anything.

[@EspadaKing777]

Hi, I read your comment but when I went to look for the results of the laser scan test online, I couldn't find any. According to what I could research, while 4 technical analyses have been done on the Tilma, none of them have been done with the full range and breadth of our modern technology, and some of the results of the earlier technical studies do suggest that the Tilma was reinforced with Hemp and there is some visible brushwork on the image itself. Only further, robust analysis could prove the authenticity of the story; but thank you for letting me know about something I hadn't heard of before.

[@luisoncpp]

Miracles are convincing in short term, but in long term they don't hold up as well as a well (in long term is much more effective a solid theology, and historical records). As much evidence a miracle could leave behind, people will always be able to put it into question. The fact that the miracle is not something that could be repeated to be examined closely is a serious weakness in its ability to persuade people in the future. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe is so famous that there have been a lot of motivation to put it into question. I have seen arguing about the tilma not being made of that material, that is too being to have being used as robe, that is documented that someone asked the bishop in charge why God wasn't doing miracles anymore and he answer "because he don't think it's convenient", I also have read claims that the inspections on the eyes of Mary is just people imagining things. I have also heard and read another less reasonable claims against the authenticity of that image, but I don't think they are worth mentioning. About the image floating above the tilma, my understanding is that the image is not "floating", but instead is printed on the tilma. The fact that stands is that nobody has been able to identify any known pigment in the tilma, and that most of the image was printed all at the same time, without individual strokes (there are individual strokes, but they were done in future alterations in few parts of the image, but most of the image is intact). The position of the stars in the cloak, is also another oddity that I have never found anybody trying to refute.

[@luisoncpp]

@Nigel Butt the image was produced for the natives of that time, not for modern atheists. The image has a lot of symbols that were recognizable and relatable for the natives and was very persuasive for them at that time.

[@ultralightpilot5910]

It is probably one of the smaller miracles. There are many of them. One that fascinates me is how the eye could have “evolved” from the simplest life forms that had no eyes and no need for them. I believe in evolution, but evolution is also a belief system and a religion of sorts.

[@ultralightpilot5910]

I tend to believe in the miracle at Guadalupe more than in the “light switch” theory of Alan Parker. There is physical proof at Guadalupe. Sure, the Guadalupe miracle is a bit beat up, but I would be a little beat up looking after 500 years. Where is Alan Parker’s physical proof?

[@CheddarBayBaby]

When Christians talk about bringing someone to belief in Christ, I never seem to see them take the trouble to find a ‘serious’ Atheist or unbeliever. In fact, they have no scruples whatsoever about baptizing and converting children and teenagers and people who are emotionally and economically vulnerable. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander as they say. A Christian doesn’t have to be a ‘serious’ believer to have to give an account of their faith.

[@sparhawkmulder1137]

Oh damn that's a good point

[@sachinaraszkiewicz785]

As an atheist, I find the concept of "talking someone out of faith" both disrespectful and dumb. I am very often curious about the inner lives of people. If they best express this through religious language, ok. I usually value the meeting too much to spoil it with disrespect. Also, deconvertion, as crucial as it had been in my own life, is something you do yourself, others cannot do it TO you :-/

[@sachinaraszkiewicz785]

@Craig Bowers Both.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

I'm getting the same vibs from this guy as he described atheists. I think the main-issue with believers, on the subject of disbelief, is they can't grasp the concept. I think the next barriers getting too attached to debating the body-atheist as we each have our own reasons for disbelieving gods exist. Some take up debate with a scientific approach, some take a historic approach (as I do), and others take unique approaches. Some aren't atheists at all, but god-haters, let's face it, if a person hates a god, they don't disbelieve they exist, they simply don't "believe in" it. Theist and atheist alike need to come to a realization that it doesn't really matter why people disbelieve, but rather that 'they don't believe.' The arrogance, pride, prejudice, and malice of this priest is stunning.

[@mathsmoviesfrommrkeane6647]

St Augustine said, ‘there is enough evidence to support the believers in their faith, and enough questions to confirm the sceptics in their doubt’. How few things we have certainty about! Do couples have rational certainty when they say, I do, at the altar. When do people have rational certainty in the fields of politics, economics, business, morality, sociology, psychology, in any of the humanities, in philosophy and phenomenology , in the court room, the arts, even when we have a flutter at the bookies (gamblers).. Lets accept it: we are all believers, beginning with the mundane things of every day life right up to the pivotal questions of life. I accept our fallible mental faculties lead us so far, in ascertaining solid facts, but then there's an act of faith to make that final decision.

[@niccolop.carlyle4621]

I agree with what Elizabeth wrote. Moreover, considering the high rates of divorce, it is foolish to enter a marriage without evidence, from personal experience, of the good character of one's partner and compatibility (in contrast to others) with oneself. So, while couples don't have absolute rational certainty about their partners before getting married, the wiser ones do have significant evidence; they have faith but not *blind* faith.

[@oreo507]

@@feedthewhale4266 materialism was set to destroy humanity since the garden

[@ricerikson4708]

enjoyed your passion for the clarity needed by the children:)

[@505Lucky7]

..but sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence.

[@doncosstick6588]

A heart is muscle that pumps blood.

[@505Lucky7]

@@doncosstick6588 kzbin.info/www/bejne/m6PNnomQdtV_jZI

[@artemis3120]

This has always been one of my favorite passages, and actually one of the prime reasons that led me out of Christianity. I still hold this passage dear to my heart, that one should always have solid reasons for their beliefs.

[@ututut77]

i don’t think the target is naive believers. the questions from the book sound very good to me and they can be used for any belief and any belief level. i think the real point of the questions is to make the person reflect on if they have good reasons for what they believe. if they don’t then they should educate themselves more and either become a stronger believer or abandon their belief. that’s not a bad thing right?

[@flintwestwood3596]

It is bad thing because it can cause ignorants to renounce their salvation and be damned eternally. Don't ignore the consequences.

[@mortensimonsen1645]

Bishop Barron was really on fire this time:) But ultimately this "street epistemology" will end, who is really that motivated, if you yourself are not convinced that your way of thinking (be that atheist) is better?

[@goodcitizensam22]

I really enjoyed this fiesty side of Bp Barron. I get “bent out of shape” often concerning matters of faith and wonder if I have the wrong spirit about it. This is edifying.

[@margarethhuapcent1270]

Not i'm creating self real Loved. We're not alone so if we died God is with us. Long live to Jesús Christ!😇😇😇👼🔥☄️ Thank you Bishop Barron

[@terryasmus3925]

2 more days!!

[@ryandonagan2628]

James Richard Wiley Obviously English is this persons second language, Dummy

[@Enzorgullochapin]

“If you've got the truth you can demonstrate it. Talking doesn't prove it.” - Robert A. Heinlein, Stranger in a Strange Land

[@equinoxproject2284]

BRB is totally missing the point of Street Epistemology and the value of the method. He pretty much agreed with all of the individual points Boghosian outlined...he just objects to it being applied to his flavour of religious beliefs. No doubt he wouldn't object to it being used on other, what he would call false beliefs, religious or other.

[@equinoxproject2284]

@@curtschannel4 Really he came and was/is the messiah? Interesting. I seem to recall a big beautiful list of things in the Old Testament of what the Messiah would do when he came and what would happen.

[@matthewgleason7495]

I'm a theist but at about 23:40 he assumes that the atheist asking the questions could only base that line of question on reasoning backed up by personal spiritual experience when any number of reasons for believing a spiritual claim could be contrasted to similar reasons another has for believing an apparently opposing claim. For instance a person could say they believe in X statement because theology professor D told them it was the case and you could respond that your friend believes in Y statement because theology professor E stated that was the case or both claims could be backed up by tradition or use some unexplained phenomenon as shared evidence etc.

[@st.mephisto8564]

23:00 , Hindu understanding of God is a Trinitarian one. Brahma - creates Vishnu - sustains Shiva -Destroys It's a different understanding of a Trinitarian manifestation of One God.

[@lproof8472]

This is incorrect. Triumvirate and Trinity are not the same thing.

[@NickOeffinger]

Not the same exactly- read on the Logos Spermaticos, the seeds of the logos spread around through different human cultures. Hindu traditions I would say have many aspects of the truth, but they’re super off base with shit. For example, they believe that created things like rivers are gods.

[@st.mephisto8564]

@@NickOeffinger I know they are not the same. But the Trimurti or triumvirate are not three distinct gods but the manifestation of the supreme Brahman, which is one God, in three forms.

[@NickOeffinger]

Rahul Roy yes, I understand.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

The Trinity was a 3rd century declaration with no basis in the Jewish holy books or the New Testament. It is pure dogma. The significance of three (3) in many holy texts is apparent. Horus was also raised from the dead after three full days and was born of a virgin birth far before any of the books of the New Testament and then only the flowering-exaggerations of the book of Matthew mention anything about a virgin birth. And if you read the events of all four Gospels you'll find the character of Jesus was only dead for ~36 hours (Friday night, all day Saturday, and early Morning on Sunday) Not 72 hours (3 days). But, you will believe as you will believe with or without new information.

[@dynamic9016]

Really appreciate this video.

[@TheRealShrike]

I'm not sure why Brandon and Bishop Barron are so defensive here. Street epistemology is a fantastic tool and it is neutral. Catholics and people of all stripes should be encouraged to engage in these types of conversations. Why is it "unfair" as Bishop Barron notes at the 9:38 mark? Not unfair at all. If a Catholic finds himself in an uncomfortable conversation and comes away feeling embarrassed for defending the faith poorly, would that not be incentive to do some research and do better next time? I have come away from many conversations where I defended my position poorly and all it did was light a fire in me to dig in intellectually and improve. If Bishop Barron is worried that one challenging engagement with a skeptic will peel off the low-hanging fruit from the flock, the flock is not much of a flock, then is it?

[@richardgamrat1944]

Well said, plus its not like you cant use street epistemology on atheists as well. If you find someone and claim they pick to discuss would be "there is no God" you would proceed exactly like with someone who says there is a god.

[@richardgamrat1944]

@@darrinrasberryph.d.1458 The idea is to make you reflect on what grounds you believe certain things you *choose* to discuss. You choose the claim, not SE guy.

[@Richie016]

Remarkable discussion,Thanks Bishop, for clarifying vital biblical fundamentals.

[@ThePa1riot]

Listening to this, am I the only one who finds these tactics of this book a bit predatory? Like “finding the source” “the confidence level” it doesn’t feel like a dialogue, it feels like an interrogation manual, except you think the suspect doesn’t actually know anything.

[@golfsucks555]

Yes.

[@ironymatt]

The enemy is all about tactics and strategies. There's nothing wrong with those things in navigating the matters and nature of this world, but when it comes to battle with the powers and principalities of the spiritual realm it's the armor of trust in God's ways that the enemy cannot overcome.

[@caitlin8160]

It's a way to attempt to win a argument instead of find the truth.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

I'll go a step further, wouldn't it be best to understand the perspective of the atheist instead of defeating him?

[@Leandro-bj6jh]

Did you guys try to invite Peter on the show? or plan to?

[@mariagarciasilva4124]

This is really difficult to do. We as lay catholics definitely need to get in shape on this topic if we want to really evangelize. It is tough, not easy...but I am not discouraged, I am working on it. :)

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Maria. If you do decide to address the topic of the atheist-mind. Do us a common curtesy of involving those who are atheists. The prejudice of the holy man's video is amazing. What this topic needs is intelligence conversation, not debate which measures not the content, but who is a better debator.

[@TheRealShrike]

At minute 14:04 Bishop Barron says "Most of the important truths that we know are known in the twilight...they are known in a fleeting way." What does this mean? It sounds like bad epistemology. Does this mean we should lower our skeptical bar for religious claims?

[@shaneharrington3655]

Would LOVE to see the writers response to this pushback...

[@evanskip1]

Pincereek deconstructed this bishop, you can watch

[@matthewschmidt1559]

I think the easiest thing to say is faith means to trust... you have to trust in something. Someone has faith (trust) in something, even if it isn't God. It's just unreasonable to not believe in the Church and the faith. When I sought, I found God in the last place I "wanted" to find Him... in the Catholic Church. I love our faith.

[@Melissa-us4zk]

Evans Kiptoo Not even close. I watched part of that person’s KZbin video commentary and it was exactly what I expected. I turned it off about a quarter of the way through. 💤

[@evanskip1]

@@Melissa-us4zk sad. But honestly, why?

[@PabloAlvestegui]

@@evanskip1 here's the Street Epistemologists' answer to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sH2VZH6Hep2UpbM

[@paulsadler3339]

I like Peter’s books on other subjects. This one just smells of pure pride, and activity to pull someone down - ironic giving his comments on other subjects. Great video

[@sonjabroodryk5169]

Thanks for this video! I've sent it to my Catholic friends, our Deacon, and then I sent it to two friends who deny the existence of God. The one seeks scientific proof, the other is older, much wiser, but naive about religion.

[@ashbrady588]

Science, sadly, can’t answer the 3 great questions of philosophy/religion: Who am I? Why am I here? How should I live my life?

[@oreo507]

@@JamesRichardWiley true, I don't believe in Zeus either. But the Christian God is not a contingent being, and he isn't an item within the universe. His existence is his essence. Also, your assumption that the scientific method is the only way to know something is true is not verifiable through the scientific method, good job for using faith!

[@rosixrincones6171]

Hi. This is Rosix. A good topic. I learned to go around it. I normally trick most surveys. However, it is not easy to most people. They may not know where their lives are heading either. It can happen to anyone.

[@marklyons3125]

Have a talk with him Bishop. He is Mr. Boghossian is actually very approachable and reasonable (on other subjects) for the most part. Seriously, reach out to his camp.

[@xaindsleena8090]

Bishop Barron, I would love you to have a discussion with Pinecreek who did a commentary of your video here. Or doing a response video to what he had to say? I sort of agreed with many points you made, but after listening to Pinecreek's commentary I changed my mind

[@PabloAlvestegui]

Please share the link to Pinecreek's video. Thanks.

[@xaindsleena8090]

@@PabloAlvestegui KZbin wont allow me to post links here, but you can find if by doing a search of "Robert Barron rants about Atheists"

[@PabloAlvestegui]

@@xaindsleena8090 Thanks, I'll do that. BTW, here's Anthony Magnabosco's and other SEers response to this video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/sH2VZH6Hep2UpbM

[@IvanGarcia-cx5jm]

I loved it on minute 16:00. Beware of those who come with something like Descartes "The method". When I was in high school I was an atheist and was obsessed with science and math. I thought that everything in life could be understood by it. It made me a lot of damage. As bishop Barron mentions, life is too complicated to be boxed into a reductionist view. Science and math are good for the predictable and repetitive dead matter. That is why it works best with physics and as it gets closer to us it does not work as well because we have free will. Psychologists has no chance to have a precise science as physicists. The best they can do is find patterns and use probabilities/statistics/trends.

[@katkat2340]

How on fire Bishop is! Love it! Burning heart of Jesus. We Catholics can not entirely explain the unexplainable, but we can only invite them ( unbelievers) to come and sit at our table for a while.

[@katkat2340]

Glasstable2011 great question. It’s a knowing . Something bigger than me . Faith is a gift. But it’s not served on a silver platter.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

What is more important fire in the gut or truth?

[@GIJoker1173]

Wow the Bishop is disproving religion and god in front of me in this video, this is epic.

[@BishopBarron]

How?! My guess, James, is that, like a lot of atheists, you don't know what serious religious people mean by the word "God."

[@GIJoker1173]

@@BishopBarron I do know friend. I was raised Christian I was Catholic most of my life. I went to Catholic school and was taught the Catechism not only by my teachers but also my family. I was very much so given many definitions of god and the mysteries of the trinity and sacraments. I served mass as an altar boy for ten years and a Sacristan of my Roman Catholic Church for 4 years of that literal tenure. Catholicism and it’s teachings taught me such weird hypocrisies, love thy neighbor as thy self except if they are gay, trans, or not Catholic. It taught me to religious martyrdom was holy, but only if Catholics were dying for the religion other faiths that do were heretics and barbaric pagans. There are many more but those are some basic ones. I am a much better person coming out of religious zealotry I used to take part in. I am happier than I have ever been, I no longer fear a heaven or a hell after I die. I don’t care about what a god will think of me if I loved a book that is a little sexy, or liked an outfit a woman is wearing that shows off her figure, or celebrating a wedding where my cousin is marrying the love of of her life even though they are the same sex. I thank you for your concern really I do. I was in that same head space once. If someone deconverted or stopped believing then there was something wrong or bad happening. Quite opposite in fact, I am doing great and I am really happier now. Thank you.

[@GIJoker1173]

@@BishopBarron also in university I studied European and Asian history and culture, Majored in History. I know a lot about the faith I was raised with and a good deal about those I wasn’t.

[@BishopBarron]

@@GIJoker1173 But friend, tell me precisely how I disproved God's existence in this video. I mean, I understand some of these frustrations that you're sharing here, but I just don't understand what you meant in your first post.

[@GIJoker1173]

@@BishopBarron I was being slightly hyperbolic in my first post but really it did. Instead of answering the questions posed in the video, you friend got upset, repeated the the material in a “funny voice” to try and discount it, and went on a Gish Gallup about Plato and other philosophers. The central point about 0-10 certainty was interesting and reminded me about a tactic CYO used to make teens think about god’s existence when I was in high school. I find that no one in good faith should be able to be a 0 or a 10 on anything that is religion related, I am not a 0 on the belief of god I am agnostic on it and I am an atheist because I don’t actively believe in any god or gods or mystical things. I hope your not a 10 but if you are why? I am confused for the brushing off of the Hindu analogy that was step 6 I think (it’s been a couple hours and I am out shopping with the girl friend) it is a way more complicated argument. I can go across the world and find someone just like you Bishop Barron that also believes in objective morals and his holy book and his organization’s divine message and purpose, but he is Hindu and you’re Catholic. Well it’s been a good chat.

[@mr.peebody6480]

To limit a street epistimologist (think i spelled that right) to only deconverting those who are well versed in apologetics is unfair and extremely suspicious. If Bishop Barron were given the same restriction with regards to converting non-believers, he would never convert a single soul.

[@tOOHotTOhndle]

Thank you Bishop Barron, always a pleasure to hear your opinion on this. I myself confess that I am not one of those well versed Catholic that can defend the faith based on the rich knowledge and tradition of the Catholic church. It inspires me to learn more about the faith that I was so blessed to be given to prepare myself when I get the chance to engage in a conversation with an inquisitive atheist. God bless you and your work!

[@jamaicanification]

I'm not so sure the book is that old. I did a google search and it seems it's been out since 2013

[@ACallToReason]

The establishing of a confidence level is not a way to attack someone's God belief, it's just a way to understand their current position more fully. The Baron here imagines that this will be used in contrast with some kind of superior scientific confidence in order to "wow" the believer, but that is not the case. He should really read a book before chastising it.

[@williamwightman8409]

This discussion was quite unbiased and cleanly balanced. It is true that the "A Manual for Creating Atheists" is purposefully reductionist and also contradicts the title by suggesting Socratic dialog be used. There is a market for clarity and falsifiability in spiritualism and religion that cannot be satisfied with the soft sciences. There are places for gestalt and religion is one of those places. Scientific reductionism is a way of digesting our understanding of the world one variable at a time so that we actually find the "there" there. For example, religion will assert an unseen heaven or higher realm whereas science would hypothesize that this heaven is perhaps in the natural world and conjure up ways to test that idea. Religion can only debate, science, when done properly, gives you actual high probability knowledge at the expense of often waiting many lifetimes for the the smallest increments of improved understanding. This last problem is what trips up most religionists. They are notoriously unwilling to appear ignorant of things they cannot know.

[@AntiCitizenX]

Good grief, did an atheist bite Robert Barron as a kid? The guy’s hatred for atheism is almost palpable. Nothing about street epistemology is nefarious, as it is specifically designed to guide people into engaging with a sincere intellectual dialogue. Yet Barron is clearly throwing temper tantrums at every step of the process. It’s like he knows that once you get people seriously thinking about faith that it invariably tends to disappear. He therefore cannot help but feel personally threatened by a simple Socratic dialogue.

[@johnlafranchisejr.2636]

Amen Bishop Baron. #GodIS #OneJesus 🍀

[@williamcarter_CPA_CGMA]

Impressive. I studied Philosophy in college, attended Catholic Seminary for three years. I am all about education and learning as that is a huge part of my profession today as a CPA. Currently reading several theology books because I want to grow in my faith. Just look at the world, and with COVID what is the point if there is no Hope, No God? Faith is everything, without it you have nothing. The take away for me? I want to read all the authors or Saints Bishop Barron mentioned. Now that would be incredible. Thank you!

[@nicholemoore2448]

Hi there, I saw you brought up something along the lines of No God, No Hope. Religion has no ownership over hope. I was raised Christian and I used to believe I had a close and personal relationship with Christ. Now I am an atheist and I have much more hope, and a deeper respect for life than I ever did when I believed. An atheist can have a life full of hope, it's just not in a god. P.S. I am also interested in reading a book Bishop Barron recommended. The God of Faith and Reason by Sokolowski sounds particularly interesting :)

[@zebo6162]

@@nicholemoore2448 The believer has reason to have hope because of their belief in a Good God. The atheist's hope can only be classified as wishful thinking.

[@nicholemoore2448]

@@zebo6162 But the god of the bible is not a good god; it's an evil god of war who's sold as a loving god of grace. Followers of that god believe it's good, but that doesn't make it true.

[@zebo6162]

​@@nicholemoore2448 I understand where you're coming from; lots of the old testament can be misconstrued to think God allows and expects what we think are terrible things. Firstly, though, I do need to point out that without God you have no claim to an "objective" morality, so though you can think God is "bad", that is only relative to your unjustified belief of what "bad" is. Secondly, there is a huge difference between advocating evil and tolerating it. To create a people which could receive the messiah, God gave them specific commands to adhere to so they could become distinct from other tribes of people; another word for this is "holy". In the same way you wouldn't teach a kindergartner calculus as his first math lesson, God can't immediately expect holiness from a group of what is essentially ancient savages without compromising their free will (seriously, read up on what some of these ancient groups would do!), so He had to give them the "addition" and "subtraction" of morality as first steps, which necessarily must have been relative to where they were before. Thus, in the process of leading His chosen people to holiness it *appears* God is advocating for what we would think of as unfathomable evil, but in reality this law is given only to those ancient people; Christians realize Jesus came to fulfill this Old Covenant he made with the Israelites and established a New Covenant that was with all people of the world. Even Jews today realize Leviticus was not written as literal, direct commands to them today, but rather their ancestors living in a very, VERY different time, place and society; thus they conclude the laws in Leviticus require careful interpretation to get at the underlying meaning God had in giving their ancestors these laws. Based on this interpretation (which is really just the basic context of the Old Testament), could you find it reasonable to conclude God is not evil? I would certainly think that historical context would bring us *closer* to the truth than just interpreting the words on the page alone.

[@nicholemoore2448]

@@zebo6162 Historical context is important - I can agree with that - but the common belief is that the god of the bible is not bound by time and is all-knowing. This means it knew back then how bad it's words would appear in the future, yet did nothing to clarify for future readers the dangers of continuing such practices. But this god made it quite clear that it hates divorce. It could have done the same about slavery - but it chose not to. So - No, the bible god seems like a rather evil being to me.

[@enape311]

What is saying at 24:29 ?

[@chriscolby6105]

Some thoughts: 1) This book came out in late 2013. Not exactly "new." 2) Remember, this technique can be applied to any topic, but it's most useful for identifying why you believe in topics that you don't have evidence for, such as fate, karma, flat Earth, UFOs, or religions which require "faith." 3) If you are a "naïve believer" of *anything,* do you really have a good reason for believing in that thing? This helps a person recognize when they should find more valid reasons for their belief. 4) You built a strawman of "what atheists believe." about what Christians believe. 4) Why are you so freaked out about helping someone nail down how much they're certain about a topic (especially towards religious topics?) 5) "How come you married your wife" ISN'T a bad question to ask someone! ("Because I fell deeply in love with her," would be the hoped for answer, but there could be other good reasons.) You're grasping at straws. And then you launch into listing bad reasons we believe things (like hunches, witness of others, intuition.) Self examination of why we believe something is bad? You're actually lobbying for people to believe in things without good reasons. (And non-theists can be emotionally moved by sonnets too, BTW, but it don't make 'em true.) And then you call this technique "simple minded." It appears much thought went into designing this technique, so this is really just an ad hominem attack. 6) Using epistemology to lead you to the ontology of a god is a natural progression. "i) I believe in god. ii)How do you know a god exists? iii) Examines if god exists. It is not "sleight of hand". It is straightforward and honest. 7) It bothered your interviewer that the point of the technique is not to lead someone to a predetermined answer but to merely help someone become more confident and justified in their belief? Hmm. 8) You criticize the "outsider test of faith " as if it is the only question in the technique. You forget that the technique is a series of questions, and the interlocutor can provide many answers. But the point of the technique is for someone to reach the truth. Only one of the religious people in that test could be right, but they both can be wrong. 9) Agree that this can be used both ways. Good! But doesn't that contradict your assertion that this technique is "a manipulation?" If a theist ever provides sufficient evidence for their deity, the interviewer should learn something and adjust their belief accordingly. Truth is truth. 10) To answer your questions a) Explain contingent universe: I can't. Neither can you. b) I don't believe objective morality exists. Doesn't mean we cannot define subjective ones. We already have. They're called laws.

[@davidleal714]

what bother me is that objective morality in the Christian myth came from eating the fruit of knowledge, and god was not too happy with it, but they skip that part and say that it has to come from god, also if it was objective; why it is sometimes okay to do something under god eyes and sometimes was bad

[@85mrtn]

Reminder Set!

[@SowerOfMustardSeed]

Thought of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle when the video talks about Step 5

[@badmoon908]

I took an introductory quantum physics class in university which solidified my faith! Things like tunneling through a potential barrier, wave-particle duality via the dual-slit experiment, etc. which cannot be explained by discrete mathematics/formulation points to some creator who is preventing us from knowing something. My physics professor (who was more of an experimental physicist, mind you) called M-theory/string-theory/etc. more of a philosophy than science. I tend to agree as science requires empirical evidence which those theories do not provide.

[@jeanlanz2344]

Brandon, thank you for publicizing these techniques to weaken the faith of Christians and other believers in God. Bishop Barron, thank you for your counters to manipulation techniques. It's important to recognize intellectual traps and kick them to the side. God bless you both!

[@ragingsun1615]

Wish I could see Barron raise his voice like this more often.

[@hatzlmike1]

Thankful for you

[@lianasammartino8490]

Follow the commandments , and you will see..., God does NOT open Himself to a dark heart, but if there is repentance, He will embrace you and you will feel the grace embracing you!

[@johnstewart7025]

Barron says that conscience is real. It isn't just your childhood training echoing in your mind. I think it is both. Our training is vital. If we are raised to be a thief, we will think that is natural. However, when we find ourselves painted into a corner, and we fall to our knees, there is a Good Orderly Direction for us to follow, if we will.

[@Kaymen1980]

Circular /giggle

[@decluesviews2740]

Excellent video! Thank you for this thoughtful response to that sophomoric book.

[@dr.pamelachollet6368]

I'm confessing that I'm stealing the phrase, "how 'bout we talk about that smart guy".

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

That seems rather mean. Will that elevate you in someway?

[@dr.pamelachollet6368]

@@matthewtaylorbrown Mean?

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

@@dr.pamelachollet6368 The intent to use such a demeaning comment 'on' someone. IRT: "How 'bout we talk about that smart guy?" This is not a comment Jesus would have made, is it? Are these the tactics Jesus would have used? It all seems so un-Christian. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[@dr.pamelachollet6368]

@@matthewtaylorbrown ohhh ok. I was referring to how Bishop Barron used the phrase. The language was in total juxtaposition of his previous statement. And his inflection tickled me.

[@nowonder6086]

"I haven't read the book, but I'm sure it's a scientistic, reductionist program by a philosophy professor who I know must be ignorant of matters on...philosophy." Amazing stuff, Robert. You beat the hell out of that strawman and then lit it on fire

[@conorjones6212]

In defense of Peter Boghossian, he is one of the guys on the Grievance studies affair that blew the lid off what was actually going on in the universities right now with critical race theory and everything else.

[@PrognosisNu]

With james linsday they´re both pretty smart

[@Darksparta1998]

Maybe I am not seeing it, but could you please consider linking any "recommendations" referenced in the video below in the description?

[@marklyons3125]

I know Jordan Peterson isn't the ideal for Christendom when there is ambiguity about his belief in an actual existence of God, but when approaching atheist his phycological and evolutionary biological approach can do wonders.

[@jaanrett]

Except he can't substantiate Christian claims about a god better than anyone else. He's just better at talking in circles than most apologists. See his debate with Matt Dillahunty if you want to see him not demonstrate his claims.

[@shaber9]

I think you mean ‘psychological’; a ‘phycological’ biological approach would certainly be possible, but ‘phycology’ is the study of algae.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Christian apologists do not engage the atheist to understand, but to conquer, the entire effort is poisoned, so they cannot do wonders. Most atheists do the same. At least find out why they disbelieve first.

[@juliedurby8333]

I came here to get some talking points, but the first one I got was that I graduated from FUS a year too early to see Bishop Barron...

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Well, then many you can make the same arguments as he, but leave out all the prejudice and logical fallacies.

[@MarkLindell]

@25:12 I welcome the Bishop to hit the street using SE and talk to the "naïve atheists"

[@paradisecityX0]

Yep. I just use the SE cult's tactics against them, it drives them nuts

[@paradisecityX0]

@@Glasstable2011 Why are you interested in reverse-presuppositional apologetics?

[@MarkLindell]

​@@Glasstable2011 I don't think he/she wants to have an honest discussion but just troll. Drop it here.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

What of the experienced atheists? Are you so prejudice you believe we are all naïve? Do you not realize these clips have been cherry-picked? Is that a win for your team? Do you even understand the unbeliever's perspective? Do you ask them these loaded questions or do you ask them directly why they could possibly not believe? Is your Christian motivation to conquer the atheist as you would an enemy? Do the words of Jesus matter so little to you? What is the point of attacking the atheist when your journey with Jesus is need of renewal? What was that garbage, Jesus spewed from his open pie-hole? Love they neighbor? Naw, that has to be wrong. If I remember correctly, Jesus used a Samaritan helping a man in need after holy men ignored his please for help, as an example of judging people. Do Christian even read the words of Jesus anymore. I think not and it's a very sad day when an atheist has to point it out.

[@suzannespanier4492]

The creed is a succinct answer about what we believe

[@Kj_3304]

Can’t wait for this

[@wellnessgirl2806]

Bishop Barrons best talk 🙌🙌🙌👌👌👌

[@unvoicedapollo3318]

As an atheist, my response would be "What do you mean by contingent universe? What do you mean by objective morality?" Also, shouldn't it be the responsibility of the theist and their preschers to seek out good reasons for their beliefs? If a theist wants to use arguments from theistic & philosophical experts, they have the ability to find that information before or after the discussion with the street epistemologist. See, the point of street epistemology isn't to talk someone out of faith but to get them thinking about what they believe and why. If beliefs can't hold up to scrutiny or believers won't look up arguments, that's on them. "Serious religious believers under consideration" That's incredibly arrogant of you to presume believers who falter in examining their reasons to believe weren't serious.

[@ingebygstad9667]

Exactly. There are several problems I have with Barron, and that is that he does not represent the popular belief of 98%(?) of Catholics and Christians in general. His perception of God is defined by Thomas Aquinas, who does not resemble the biblical god of the old testament the slightest. And how many Christians have a deep understanding of Aquinas, when we consider the percentage of blind believers who've never read the bible? The Atheist tries to invoke _critical thinking,_ ask questions, make them reflect, think, _give their own answers,_ instead of defending their beliefs by throwing out blind bible verses. We heavily support Christians to read their own bible. What's wrong with that? And the more they discuss and ask questions, the better. They quickly realize they don't have a case, and have to do more research to make better arguments. And so the snowball gets bigger as it rolls down the slope.

[@lucascesar029]

@@ingebygstad9667 "The Atheist tries to invoke critical thinking, ask questions, make them reflect, think, give their own answers" This does not represent 98% of atheists.

[@ingebygstad9667]

@@lucascesar029 Touchee.... Still I beg to differ, as Atheism is what a believer turns to after having read the bible (in most cases) and or learning more about scripture. Most Atheists HAVE read the bible. I'm _not_ talking about "None's" or the non-affiliated. I'm talking about those who calls themselves _Atheists._

[@NaruIchiLuffy]

An excellent introductory book that addresses the topic being discussed here is Tactics by Greg Koukl. It addresses how one might go about having such conversations with helpful tools or tactics for Christians to share their faith along with some of the arguments for the Christian faith from logic/reasoning (philosophy). In fact, from Brandon's description, it strikes me as though Boghossian repurposed Koukl's book "Tactics" for atheism in his book. At their core, they emphasize the importance of questions (Socratic method) for driving conversations. This is powerful, but like any tool, they can be used for the good (arriving at the Truth), or not (placing the burden of proof on others, which requires much deeper knowledge/intellect/study/work, without being willing to take it up yourself).

[@stephengalanis]

Robert, I feel like your mind never slowed down to understand what Peter Boghossian was saying. You didn't listen charitably. Riding on the coattails of Aquinas' faith doesn't make faith any better a tool for accessing truth.

[@stephengalanis]

I have no reason to believe that any more than you have reason to believe there is a dragon in my garage, but merry Christmas. Stay safe.

[@paulandreigillesania5359]

This quarantine I'm writing a sonnet a day, reading through the gospels, St. Benedict's Rules and the Imitation of Christ by Thomas Á Kempis. Tell me why these works (aside from the gospels but the others by saints and holy men) r more profound and intimate than any so-called 'friend'.

[@thespicypolitician8905]

We now need a book about how atheists are created. I don’t just think it is all “scientific evidence” proving religion to be wrong. That’s what I thought for many years when I was a atheist, that it was science that drew me to atheism. I believe it would be a mix of depression, science, peer pressure, and not actively looking. Especially not actively looking. If you are only looking for things that prove God does not exist, you will only find them. That is how I became a atheist at least, I never looked at the other side. Thankfully though, after noticing the faults in my research, I was able to come back the God. I still have doubt sometimes , but don’t we all. All that matters is pushing through it.

[@alfredobarrios1095]

As a former atheist, I'd say most young atheists are driven to that point because of the natural inclination we all have in our youth of opposing whatever our elders believe. Wanting to stand out. That's it. Plus, not being properly taught the faith. Young people are just not prepared when they see, let's say, George Carlin mocking their faith in a comedy stand-up, which are basically 10-min strawmans.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

You paint the atheist with broad stokes. We are not all science-based atheists. We do not need science to dismiss myths. And you said something about looking, for all I see is those looking for things to prove their favorite god. Seek and find is a fun trick we play on ourselves. It's like buying a new car and 'then' seeing the same make and model all over the place when you are driving. You take a botany class and suddenly you see there is an abundance of a certain plant on a fun-run. Sorry to hear you were depressed, I hope your new belief in Jesus fixed that for you. I was in my 40s when I first experienced depression, but was only after renal cancer, renal failure, dialysis, and finally a diagnoses of paradental disease (which made me ineligible for a transplant). It was pretty bleak. Like you I was not looking and hadn't been looking since the late 1970s. But, the antidepressant drugs took away the laughs, too. Got a kidney transplant and got back to work, no more need for the drugs. You must have been missing something and put Jesus in the empty spot. I have no such empty spot. Interesting how you said you came back to your god. Doubts are healthy. If you don't mind, why in the world did you disbelieve your god didn't exist?

[@peterpan4948]

It's like grilling your average person on any advance science, go out on the street and ask someone to explain gravity, they won't be able to define it or explain it fully so therefore they should stop believing in it? Winning a debate is not proof you're correct.

[@thomastallis7450]

I agree Thomas, in particular when one debates superstitious people.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Mr. Pan, not all atheists are science-based. We don't need science to dismiss myth stories. I'm with you 100% on debates, it is a test of who is the best debater, not the subject. I believe a Wiki kind of forum would be best with evolving points from both sides of each named concept, like the Problem of Evil and on.

[@peterfulweilersr.596]

So, it may help to have an easily accessible set of answers that an unsure Catholic can tap into.

[@matthewtaylorbrown]

Then ask an atheist. Some of us know the points and counter-points of both sides.

[@ACallToReason]

I think it's a bit strange to criticize SE for it being used on the naive believer. It can be used on anyone, it's just that the average believer is extremely naive and uneducated. The whole point is to get believers to think more carefully about the reasons they have for holding the beliefs they do. It's just the case that most believers haven't thought it through much, they just accept what they hear from their leadership uncritically.

[@FrT1935]

Please, as a pastor I'm begging. It's time for the U.S. bishops to resolve and bring closure the McCarrick era.

[@SadisticSenpai61]

I think the bishop is completely missing the point of street epistemology. It's about finding out what that person believes and _why_ they believe it. For a lot of ppl, they've never really thought much about why they believe what they do - they learned it from an early age and just repeated it, much like memorizing Bible verses or catechisms. Not that memorizing the Bible or catechisms is bad, but the problem is that most ppl rarely stop to consider what they're reciting and if they actually agree with it or not. The point of street epistemology is to get ppl to actively think about not only what they believe but _why_ they believe it. It's up to the individuals as to what they do after they reach that point. I've seen plenty of ppl that feel even stronger in their faith after answering the questions and thinking about it. But there's a lot that find such questioning opens up questions they'd never considered before and find themselves going down the path of deconversion. I suspect the bishop wouldn't object to Mormons or Muslims or any other group of ppl deciding that they don't really have very good reasons for their belief and questioning the belief itself. It's the idea that Catholics might realize that they don't have good reasons for their beliefs that makes him upset. One of the key things that shapes a person's response is how their religious authority figures respond when they come to them with questions. Most of those who end up walking away from the faith often find that their religious leaders don't have any answers and don't want to entertain the questions. I've seen pastors just laugh and dismiss the questions as nonsense. In a lot of Christian denominations, there's a lot of shaming of those that express doubts or ask questions and they shed members like crazy once the members are encouraged to actually think about the things they were taught as children (this is especially true for evangelicals). Anyone that fears questioning their faith and applying rational thought and evaluation to said faith is admitting they're insecure. They know they're one unanswered question away from losing their faith - and that's something that scares a lot of believers because most believers don't actually know all that much about their religion. They go to religious services every now and then, maybe they even go every week, but it's not something they've ever really studied or thought about. There's a lot of doctrines that they know of but never really bothered to try to understand or think about critically. This is why a lot of the snap assumptions and judgements about certain religions (magic underwear for Mormons, ritual cannibalism for Catholics) don't make any sense to the average lay person (and are also lazy generalizations as well). The average Mormon wears normal underwear. The average Catholic hasn't really given any thought to what church doctrines about communion mean - I've met plenty of Catholics that had never even heard the term "transubstantiation" before I mentioned it, and I grew up Baptist.

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

Always interesting to see the mental gymnastics religious people perform, and the loops they have to jump through, to justify their baseless beliefs. Just looking at the comment section makes me lose hope for humanity.

[@michaelkearney3646]

Ditto for the atheist hoop jumping for their sophmoric epistemology.

[@MyReligionIs2DoGood]

@@michaelkearney3646 There are no 'hoops' like that for atheists. We can just follow the actual empirical evidence, and reject the theistic claim due to lack of such.

[@Retrogamer71]

28:40 you have more major patronage. That's huge progression of your programme. Next sabbatical I will consider delving into your paid for content. The esoteric nature of the church in raising the spirit and minds of our children to God's word and plan is a feat of marvel in itself. God Bless

[@mariamatusiewicz4280]

Christ is King and Lord.

[@creatinechris]

This is a great deepity

[@AZVIDE0Z]

What's a "good reason" to believe in God for the atheist? Why does it matter to the atheist in the first place?

[@tlockerk]

My husband always wonders why they don't focus on disproving the Easter Bunny.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

Because the claim that a god exists, if true, is of great importance. Wouldn't you agree?