Issues with Faith and Bishop Barron's new video

  • Thread starter Thread starter Spiritualseeker14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Spiritualseeker14

Guest
Hi, I am new here and for those who click my profile will see that I am a Agnostic-Theist which means I don’t know if God exist, But I think he most likely does exist in some fashion. But I am not here to bash Catholicism or Christianity in fact I am open to it, I am just having problems appecting it. I think my biggest problem is the fact that it bothers me that so many smart people not only don’t believe in God but outright hostile to the idea and worse they have a massive following as well. For example Bishop Barron’s new video creating Atheist is about a critique of Street Epistemology and at first he made it out like it was another Pro-Scientism book that tells atheist to go after people with little reasons for their faith and sounded quite reasonable. But the very first comment is wondering how the author of the book would respond and the reply to the comment is a mention of a person who debunks everything Barron said. I don’t know if he did because I haven’t watched it yet and do not intend to at least not until I feel like I am ready to handle them. So my question is about how to deal with atheist critics and their responses.
 
Last edited:
I would say listen to it. It is more about the process of carrying out the conversation (argument) in a real, rational manner than about any specific topic.
 
So my question is about how to deal with atheist critics and their responses.
You are going about this entirely the wrong way.

As you’ve just discovered, no matter how good or reasonable an argument for a particular stance may be, there will always be an equally good and equally reasonable argument for the opposite side. Bishop Barron has one argument; someone else has a counterargument.

If you try to find God through the intellect, you will get lost in a sea of confusion and doubt, and will ultimately end up with nothing more than you started with–speculation and ideas about God, but no genuine assurance that anything you believe is actually true.

What you need is to develop the awareness of God, to be able to perceive God here, now. Then, it won’t matter what arguments theists or atheists may make, because it will be to you like watching blind men arguing about colors.

There is no need for speculation when you have direct perception.

However, developing that awareness requires an extraordinary amount of work and sacrifice. Nothing of value is acquired for free. As Jesus said in the Gospel,
And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me. – Luke 9:23
We need to rid ourselves of the obstructions that stand between us and God, and through the cross, develop the capacity to perceive.
 
I have been told that quite a few times now, its just hard to make that leap of faith. But thanks for the reply and I guess where I am is sort of where Tim Keller was, where I do not trust my emotions and want the Christian faith to be stable both intellectual wise and spiritual wise.
 
Last edited:
so many smart people not only don’t believe in God but outright hostile to the idea and worse they have a massive following as well
Who cares?

Lots of bad ideas get massive following and smart people to evangelize for it.

Hitler and Stalin were pretty smart and got large followings.
 
Reading philosophy very much helped me in the troubles you find yourself in now. I didn’t really become a full on theist until I took very seriously many of the arguments for God and attacked them with great vigor, and then after attempt to defend them with great vigor. The point of this is to organize your thoughts effectively in both the realm of understanding your oppositions point of view and best rebuttals and then after meeting these rebuttals with what you believe is appropriate.

If I were you, take the argument of contingency and tear it to shreds. Eat it up. Level every possible major objections you can on it. Then, afterwards, inspect whether or not there are holes in the objections which no man can reasonably patch up, and then, attempt to make a case around it. This is all meant to increase your critical thinking and understanding of rational disputation while simultaneously building up your problem solving technique. If you’re ever stuck (like I’ve been several times) just do a little research to spark something. By the end, you may have a lot more confidence in both what you attempted to defend and your ability to philosophically spar with others. At least, it helped with me. Though I understand if thats not everyones cup of tea. I’d just hold onto a central idea while your doing this, if you do, which is to remember that if God is truth itself then if you follow the hand maidens of truth (reason) you will inevitably land at the door steps to the Lord. In anycase, I hope you can get to the place you desire friend.
 
I do not trust my emotions and want the Christian faith to be stable both intellectual wise and spiritual wise.
It is good to maintain a healthy skepticism of our emotions. Many people “feel” they know what is right and believe in all manner of fantasies and absurdities even in the face of mountains of contrary evidence.

However, it is also important to maintain a healthy skepticism of our intellect. The problem with the intellect is that it is incapable of really knowing the truth. All the mind can do is compare and organize ideas. It can tell us whether a given system is logically consistent, but it cannot tell us whether that system is actually true.

This is a basic principle behind science. Scientists can come up with all manner of theories to explain the universe, but they need actual data, or evidence, in order to determine which theory is correct.

No one can devise a truly irrefutable intellectual argument either for or against the existence of God. If it were possible, someone would have done so already, and everyone of intelligence would acknowledge its validity. It hasn’t happened because it’s not possible. The best anyone can do is to create a logically consistent argument either way, and people can choose to believe it or not. But in order to know whether there is a God, He must be experienced.

With regards to your second point, Christian faith, properly understood, is both intellectually wise and spiritually wise. It must be intellectually wise since it is based on truth. I’m not saying to ignore the intellect entirely. It is a useful tool, and like all tools, it has a purpose and a function, and can serve us well when used for its appropriate function. But problems arise when we apply a tool to a task it is not suited for, such as using a brush where a screwdriver is needed (or vice versa). Use the intellect where it is appropriate, but remember that not every problem can be solved with the mind.
 
Atheists take all faith, christianity and others and lump it into one bowl and they tear it apart. They are not educated on the theology but rather do not need to be because of the logical deductions and complete contradictions they come across but examine all forms of faith or even just Christianity. But let us look at Christianity, meaning Catholicism but all the Protestant faiths as well. This is not a fair assessment because Protestantism does contain heresies and flat out contradictions. Jesus established one Church, and that is the Catholic Church. So it is wise to examine only the Catholic faith and not these heresies. Most atheists have a limited understanding of Christianity in the context of history, linguistics, culture, etc. When you see well educated Catholic theologians and atheists debate or discuss, the atheists are the ones always left contradicting themselves or left in a quandary.
 
Creating Atheist on the Word on Fire Youtube channel
 
Last edited:
I envy your faith in them but I guess I am just having trouble knowing who is right and how tell the side I want to be right is right. Another big issue is the Ressurcetion and The Gospels in terms of historical reliability.
 
Last edited:
I envy your faith in them but I guess I am just having trouble knowing who is right.
That is the crummy deal unbelievers have. We have faith in our lord Jesus Christ. Others lack of faith or no faith is very difficult as they seek their answers. Their answers do not affect us but they do them. No one can afford to get it wrong. Eternity is a long time bud.
 
40.png
Spiritualseeker14:
I envy your faith in them but I guess I am just having trouble knowing who is right and how tell the side I want to be right is right. Another big issue is the Ressurcetion and The Gospels in terms of historical reliability.
Aquinas - The existence of God

Thomas Aquinas may appeal to you.
I am a huge St. Thomas fan, and I consider myself a Thomist. That said, I’ll add that only glancing at this section of the Summa, or quoting from it, will most likely not bear much fruit. One must really dive into his philosophy and theology to defend the arguments he presents there.
 
I am just having trouble knowing who is right
You seem to have a philosophical approach. If that is true, I would offer that, one step is to recognise the difference between “Truth” and “Reason”. All objective Truth is “revealed” (even scientific truth). Reason is just a tool (and not the only one) we have in our kit-bag to validate and recognise truth. Reasoning does not always lead to the fullness of truth - because our capacity to reason has many variables that affect it.

At least one other tool we have in our kit-bag to recognise truth is “relationship or encounter” - with each other and with God. Thats why the teaching is so simple - Love God, Love your neighbour. Love is a sacrificial relationship with full reason.

Hope this helps you recognise the truth of “who is right” - I have found objective truth most fulfilled in the teachings of the Catholic Church.
 
Last edited:
So my question is about how to deal with atheist critics and their responses.
It would help if you can tell us what their critical responses are and what arguments they are responding to. But here is an argument just for fun.

1. Ultimately there are two types of causality. One is a natural cause and the other is an intelligent cause.

2. There has to be a reason or cause of why there is something rather than absolutely nothing at all.

3. Absolutely nothing produces nothing because absolutely nothing is the complete absence of reality.

4. There is something, so it cannot be possible that there was ever absolutely nothing.

5. The origin of everything cannot be a being that begins to exist. Also there cannot be a state of affairs where there are only beings that begin to exist since out of nothing comes nothing and thus there is nowhere that these beings can ultimately get existence from.

6. The reason or cause for why there is something rather than nothing has to be the result of something that is itself the source of all possible realities, and also it’s nature has to be a necessary act of existence since it cannot be a being that can possibly cease to exist or begin to exist. There has to be a reality that has existed forever and cannot possibly cease to exist. In other-words it has to be a reality that exists because it is it’s nature to exist.

7.
This necessary reality cannot be a being that in any way potentially exists, since everything that it is is necessarily real and cannot not be real. It cannot have potential states, emergent properties, or new realities in it’s nature since none of that would be a part of what it necessarily is.

8. This necessary existence cannot be a being that changes since change is itself an actualization of potential.

9. It is often said by atheists that physical reality is all there is, but physical reality changes, it has emergent properties, it has potential states, its parts begin to exist. Thus it’s nature, or the collection of beings we refer to as physical, cannot be a necessary act of existence.

10. Since physical reality is not a necessary act of existence, we can say that necessary reality does not have a physical nature. It is not made up of space and time or energy or matter. And we can also say that physical reality is dependent for its existence on this necessary non-physical reality.

11. Since necessary reality is not physical, we cannot infer natural causes since that would only be a suitable explanation for physical phenomenon. Since there are ultimately only 2 types of cause, one being natural, and the other being intelligent, we have no choice but to infer a non-physical intelligent cause since physical effects cannot naturally arise from a part of that which is necessarily real, and that which is necessarily real cannot change into something physical or something that is not necessary.

To be continued…
 
Last edited:
12. There is another reason to think that this necessary being is an intelligent cause. Natures that are not necessary do not exist because of their own nature and can only exist if something gives it existence. In fact there is no natural reason for anything other than what is necessary to exist. Thus when necessary reality causes a nature to exist, it not only causes it to be real, but it is also sustaining that nature in reality since it does not exist because of it’s own nature. The only way to make sense of a sustaining cause is if that cause is intelligently willing something to exist; otherwise there is no natural reason to think that a necessary being would sustain an unnecessary being in existence.

Conclusion: A necessary intelligent cause of physical reality exists.
 
Last edited:
I think my biggest problem is the fact that it bothers me that so many smart people not only don’t believe in God but outright hostile to the idea and worse they have a massive following as well. For example Bishop Barron’s new video creating Atheist is about a critique of Street Epistemology and at first he made it out like it was another Pro-Scientism book that tells atheist to go after people with little reasons for their faith and sounded quite reasonable. But the very first comment is wondering how the author of the book would respond and the reply to the comment is a mention of a person who debunks everything Barron said. I don’t know if he did because I haven’t watched it yet and do not intend to at least not until I feel like I am ready to handle them. So my question is about how to deal with atheist critics and their responses.
Yes you should watch PineCreek’s video who actively practices SE with theologians and pastors online with live interviews.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top