Another part of a video series from Wordonfire.org. Bishop Barron will be commenting on subjects from modern day culture. For more visit www.wordonfire.org
Father Barron, I am an atheist, but I love your videos. You explain Catholicism with such logic and clarity that it allows me to understand why someone believes and to be more accepting of them. Thank you.
I'm a former atheist myself, and I've ended up a Catholic. I understand that you can't just begin to believe without any reason. If you don't want to believe, then all these respondents encouraging you to believe are wasting their time. I came to believe by going to mass with my wife who was a Catholic convert. I fell in love with the mass and was moved by what I feel is the Holy Spirit. I then read a lot of material by authors like David Bentley Hart, who wrote another book called Atheist Delusions. That book exorcised me of my atheism. I sometimes have doubts about the Catholic Church, but never about the existence of God any more. I won't encourage you to believe, because you can only believe what you find plausible. But I do encourage you to read the works of intelligent theists like Hart and Bishop Barron. Also Kenneth Miller, a biology professor and expert on evolution who is also a devout Catholic.
“God is not a Being” is perhaps the most profound understanding of God ignored by believers and non-believers alike. God is not A Being! He is Being. Itself.
I didn't realize how philosophical being catholic could be...for a while I saw it as an institution that controlled people's thoughts and limiting the scope of their wonders...Thank you for your videos they're really enlightening.
Many great thinkers were very religious and back then The Roman Catholic Church ran all universities (science, art, philosophy you name it) in the Western World. Many modern people don’t know that. Why do you think Universities like Harvard, Oxford etc look like religious churches or castles.
As I'm using the term, "contingency" means ontological dependency. To say that God is the non-contingent (or unconditioned) ground of contingency is to say that he is that reality upon which everything else depends, even as he himself depends on nothing. How this is in any sense "self-negating" you'll have to explain to me. In answer to your colleague's question: Yes, I listen to myself; she might benefit from listening to me a bit more carefully.
Fr. Barron I find your videos so instructive and constructive. You have such a gift for synthesizing theological information, from so many resources, and presenting it in such a way that I can walk out tomorrow, have a conversation with someone on the subjects that you cover and sound like I have studied it for years. BTW, we use a number of your materials in our faith sharing group that meets weekly in our home. Thanks so much.
Oy vey... I'm not "calling the universe god." Just the contrary. "The universe" is a catch-all term for the sum total of contingent things. I'm arguing that a radically contingent universe requires, finally, a non-contingent explanation.
Thank you Fr. Barron. As always, you've given me something more to think about as I continue to seek out fuller understanding of the Catholic Faith. I will defiantly be buying this book and you're new series as well. God Bless you in all that you continue to do for The Church.
I actually have answered this question many times. The unconditioned ground of existence is that whose very nature is to be. This implies that its existence is properly unlimited, for any limit would constitute a condition. Therefore, the unconditioned ground of contingency must possess any and all ontological perfection.
Also, I was just reading comments that people have left on here. None of them possess the great rhetoric or logical tact that the great atheist philosophers of the past have possessed. They call you out on logical fallacies while making fallacious arguments themselves. The fact that you respond to such comments means you must possess a great deal of patience. RU-vid is not the place for serious philosophical discussion--whether atheist or theist--and yet you respond to them as best as you can. That is wonderful. God bless you, father--and may He continue to give you patience in face of such absurdities.
***** he put away Adam&Eve from the earthly paradise in respect of their belief to be independent, knowing that we would have the possibility to sin, and gave us rules for not get engaged from sin in itself and proceed to our santifications, such as instruments to be closer to this path: prayer, the mass, the Church...the problem is not the sin in itself but the lack of repentance about the sin and the firm conclusion not to sin anymore, that's why confession exists...actually you aren't punished until you die and even souls in hell can be recieved by God if just they would ask to, they don't want to ask it and that is what continues their damnation. All what I said is better comprehensible if you put at the basis the statement that life is in itself suffering and what you can do is just alleviate the sufferings...."in hac lacrimarum valle..." In this valley of tears..."
Very good lectures should be shared in every school in the USA. Using the internet to the max like this is helping us all and lifting us up from this consumer society run by large corporations.
As a new Catholic, I only say that your intellectual integrity and respectful, witty responses only help me fall deeper in love with the Church and the wisdom of the Magisterium.
This is the most fundamental concept in religion and it’s explained beautifully here. Thank you Bishop for showing how faith and reason work to strengthen each other!
Father Barron again offers us the real insight of a questioning or critical thinking viewpoint on God and the challenges that flow from this analysis. When my brother went to Jesuit high school and I to Christian Brothers high school, the sin was not asking the necessary questions to make for a lively discussion. Actually, even from grade school to the sisters, "Can God make a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" "Yes He can." "Then He can't do everything." While that question usually got you an appointment in the principal's office, the questioning of Baltimore Catechism and all of its Q&A is what Father Barron does here on a larger scale. Father, you have my vote for making things clear and avoiding no question!!!
They're all equivocating on the word "nothing." They mean the fluctuating quantum vacuum, which is certainly not "nothing" in the philosophical sense of the term.
Greetings from Canada, sure, all things in existence depend on other things to function, all things change and pass away, but God is the foundation of all of these things, the ground upon which all of these things occur, from which all things gain their existence, power, etc. He is unchanging source of all things.
Matthew D, thanks again. Yes, my understanding from the Old Testament as well as the writing of St Thomas Acquinas is that God IS. In other words, he is not some higher being above us, but the act of existence in itself. God is eternal, and IS. God has brought everything else into existence for no need of his own, but for the purpose of sharing his love. For God is IS; God is Love; God is faithfulness; God is Mercy; God is righteousness.
I Love The Eternal Father of Fr. Bishop Robert Barron ... He's My Eternal Father Too Whom Christ Our Lord Adores and Directs all ... so should all do as Christ Does. Eternal
David Bentley Hart is brilliant. As an Orthodox, I love having him as a face of the faith--so to speak. I was hoping to find a video of you speaking on the Orthodox Church or Orthodox-Catholic dialogue. I can't find anything. Would you consider doing a video on such a topic? I would love to hear what you have to say, and I have a few close Catholic friends who would love it as well. Hopefully not a discussion of why you're a Catholic and not an Orthodox, but what we can learn from one another. Etc. Just a thought! In Christ, Nathan
To me, God is Infinite Knowledge in Infinite Possibilities. In every deep breath I take, I feel God. When look around the Universe, you find God. God is everywhere; humans have to develop the right senses to see and feel God.
663 comments... I wonder if you'll even notice mine... I was shown this video in a college philosophy course two years or so ago, and I fell in love with your description and definition of God. Nothing else I know of actually addresses this question in an easy to understand, coherent manner; and the whole world argues about theories of what God is, but your explanation here, I feel, knocks many of the arguments out of the water. I have referenced this video many times in discussions with atheists and agnostics across the internet. I know this is you describing the meaning of a book, but even so, your description of who/what God is and isn't can stand alone; and, more importantly, it really gets people thinking about the nature of God. This argument has become a tool in the arsenal of people who go around inspiring belief in God in people. I remember when I first saw this, and was amazed that a bishop would be taking a view that seems to deviate from the common Christian view of God being a "male being" watching over us (the all-powerful "He"), and, instead, delves into an awe-inspiring concept of God's "being" as "to be," instead of as a solid entity. I wonder if I'm being (ha ha) too narrow in my thinking, and if God is both this non-conditional source of all conditional things, AND this entity of goodwill and care for what has been created? Biblically, it seems so, but I still struggle with finding truth. Many of us are. I try to make sense of this in the relation to Christ. How can God be a supernatural force on which all of reality exists as contingent things, and Christ still be the son of God? I do wish we could actually have a conversation, because I'd love to ask you about 200 questions, ha ha... Anyhow, I just wanted to say thank you for making this video and inspiring a level of contemplation of God that I believe is deeper than many people go on their own, and which is eye-opening and thought-provoking.
Lorraina Art If you are still searching for the answer to the concept of an embodies God in Jesus, and the metaphysical God of Aquinas, I would recommend looking into how early Catholicism incorporated stoic metaphysics. The Creative Fire, or Logos, and culmination of this in the Christ figure. Think of the event acting as a resolution between metaphysical and physical forms. Fascinating.
I come back to this video every so often to listen again to a very well thought out explanation of who God is (and is not). "We know that there is some reality who's very nature is to be." I sit and just ponder that comment. There is so much there.
David Bentley Hart is one of the most important theologians writing in English today. His book "Atheist Delusions: The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies" is a must read for anyone who's followed the rise of the new atheists. Even more worthwhile, though, is his "The Beauty of the Infinite: the Aesthetics of Christian Truth." As for the atheists typical reply to the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" -- they often appeal to Bertrand Russell. Russell was a clever man and a brilliant analytic philosopher and mathematician, but his brute assertion that "the universe is just there, and that is all," is rather embarrassingly uncurious and evasive. It's a refusal to even entertain the question since the obvious logical answer point to the transcendent. Modern atheists have inherited this lack of curiosity and evasiveness, or been reduced to even baser irrationalities -- like asserting the universe created itself out of nothing, as does Lawrence Krauss.
I don't give a fuck how it has "always" been defined, moran. I care about the intelligent, well-reasoned definition. And nobody who gives two fucks about "panentheism" and "theism" has any access to anything well reasoned or intelligent, precisely because they are still under-evolved enough to care about crap like that.
I'm not a troll dipshit. I'm above each and every person here who does not understand the things I've posted about -- including the evolutionary throwback in this video. People like this belong in zoos and asylums, bottom line.
Very well, :) I'll bite. Only an eternal unchanging standard of perfection can be that from which a person may correctly judge. That standard must be good, it must be whole, it must be true, it must not be lacking in anything to be a proper standard of goodness. In other words that standard must not be physical and not just another part of the universe which changes, or else it is a changing, fallible, and utterly meaningless standard. If the standard is the laws which govern nature, then why is one thing better than another thing? There is no difference in goodness between a fish and a sun from a law's perspective. A law isn't a judging thing, a law isn't a thinking thing. Gravity doesn't care, nor is evolution a means to know a monkey is better than a tortoise. Only a mind can do that. In what way is a mind physical? Synapses firing doesn't explain emotions, they react to sensory experience but can't tell us why such emotions exist in the first place. The relationship between the experience I have of myself, and synapses firing doesn't make sense of why I am either good or bad, above or below. For you sir, being a material reductionist is silly because you lack any power to explain you're own position, the belief that you're better than everyone here. If that statement has any weight at all, it must come from an objective standard, but neither evolution, the laws of physics, nor the universe are that means of knowing that's true. Therefore sir, in order for you to be right an objective standard must exist outside of this universe by which you attempt to judge creatures in it. But that contradicts your earlier statement that the universe is all in all. So you're wrong either way, mostly likely on both accounts because you failed to spell moron properly.
Bishop Barron, I really appreciate your videos. I recently had a friend of mine tell me she didn’t believe in the Existence of God. Through her I learned that God works in mysterious ways. I, with my 14 years of Catholic and Dominican education, couldn’t give her intelligent apologetic responses. This drive me to tears but also drove me to a deeper appreciation of my own Catholic Faith and Education. It made me want to go to a Catholic College. I currently now attend Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. If you could keep my friend Julia and I in your Prayers, I’d much appreciate it. God Bless and Many thanks, Joseph Costello
The Kingdom of God is within you. What matters is that God is in my heart, that, in time of trouble and need, there is no doubt that my Father is with me here, now. Science wants to measure something outside of space/time.
God is beyond any human finite comprehension. Not even a supreme being, but beyond any being that exist even in imagination. Yet men's finite mind inescapably pursue the infinite God, that ultimately ends in Faith....
The sneering doesn't help, friend. Whatever the fluctuating quantum vacuum is, it is not absolute non-being. And precisely as fluctuating and determined by quantum laws, it is contingent. Therefore, it requires an explanation. No infinite regress of contingent causes is possible. Thus...
Fr Barron, your lectures & sermons are so uplifting! Whenever I get discouraged about anything, I find my heart forever-lifted out of itself w/ all things true & beautiful & good. You have spoken many times (often implicitly) on how we internalize knowledge as truth within a scientific framework. But I don’t think I have ever heard you lecture on how we knows things to be true that are not necessarily reducible to scientific methods. I am thinking of the field of phenomenology. Would you please teach us? :)
Dear Bishop Barron, We need priests and teachers who are not afraid to broach the tough questions, who are not afraid of being labeled this or that by those in disagreement, for we are headed in a catastrophic direction in this country and the world. We are censoring thought and denying possibilities of advancing our knowledge by following corrupt ideas and people. We are being asked to accept that which goes contrary to our religious beliefs and sense of moral correctness. We must educate ourselves, but true education does not come easy. Bishop Barron has put his time in and still does. He's always reading his Bible and other works "out there" in the world. He has his finger on the pulse of humanity...always trying to learn more. We all need to do the same, for we are in danger of losing our freedom precisely to those who pretend to want justice and equity for all. They are deceivers and materialists. Let us focus on reading God's Word and sharing that Word (Christ) with others, humbly. Let us prepare a place for the Spirit of God to live within us. Let us fight the good fight! Thank you Bishop Barron. You are an inspiration to us all!
We cannot measure what God is. With the finite we try to understand the infinite. Supernatural cannot be limited, nor ever completely understood by natural. I guess, that's where Faith comes in. Yet, our faith is not unfounded. That's the whole essence and fire why we seek to understand!
Faith is never in opposition to truth either. Correspondence is asserted when one argues for ultimate truth or even argues against ultimate truth. If ultimate truth is unassailable, then it stands as one of our most solid evidences of a disembodied reality. If the disembodied reality of truth cannot be disproven without asserting it, then we have a powerful basis to assert other disembodied realities. One of these is God. This does not mean we equivocate God as truth itself, but rather we accept that realities without material body or substance can exist. To argue against this is difficult unless you deny correspondence. Then we start over again.
One more point - if truth exists as a disembodied reality, believing in truth or having faith in truth is not contrary to reason. It is an example of faith and reason in harmony.
Compelling reasoning--but more compelling, Father is the sub text of your wanting others to understand God because that is the beginning then of true wisdom and knowledge, life and love. God Bless you and your work.
The volition for being is love. It is the "why" for all being. This is what everyone misses and is the final dot you all need to connect, and it's time. If the Prince of Peace isn't you ,who is it? The "how" is easy and there are a million big answers. Love is the VOLITION.
This is a great explanation about who God is. Our world today thinks God should be explained and proven by using the scientific method, but He cannot. God, although we can envision Him to some extent using our imaginations, cannot be fully captured in our minds or words. Fr. Barron is great at explaining this, and I hope many viewers can deepen their understandings of what the Catholic Church defines as God.
this video made my day: your words are inspiring and are a deep relief, Prof Barron, especially now that I feel my faith so weak in light of the disruptive words of certain scientists and opinionist against the religious sensibility
I cannot grasp the things which I cannot understand ,And I except God is.I hope someday that he helps me to be all that he hopes me to be.I am grateful for the little bit of awareness of his Love for me and my ability to receive his Mercy and grace. For that alone I am filled.
The quote was perfectly within context. You can go back and re-watch the video to be sure. I grow extremely wearisome of honest people like me being accused of being liars by liars. I'm reminded of RatinoalWarrior's lyrics in "Beyond Reason": "I know, we taking it out of context. That's what you would say next like it's so complex." It's worth a listen.
Yes! Why is the question of God the most beguiling question on the table? It's their own need and yearn of that which is greater than us that drives them to ask these questions. In the end we are all born with a sense of a higher being.
Fr Barron, I love your commentaries. Thank you so much for producing then continuously and excellently. I know you love to read, I do so as well, and feel safe reading books you recommend or comment on. I wonder if you could comment on a book which I found at first interesting, but after finding out the author is an atheist, I wondered if it would be beneficial to actually read it or would I be at risk of being confused? The book is called Lying by Sam Harris. Would you mind commenting on it if you've read it, or commenting on reading books by atheists or Protestants? Would it be a threat to my understanding of our Catholic faith? God bless you Sir.
It is written somewhere I can't remember where. "That when man finally peers his head over the mountain of what will be called knowledge he will find that religion has been sitting there all along."
For me this is probably Bishop Barron's most memorable and thought-provoking small video. A classic. A slight criticism: He mentions the “Russian cosmonaut” who went into space and saw no God there. For his info and yours, Yuri Gagarin never said this. First Secretary Nikita Khrushchev did so, rhetorically, in a speech. It may be understandable that Gagarin, an Air Force officer, refrained from commenting on his words. Gagarin was baptized, he and his wife had their daughter baptized, and they used to celebrate Christmas and Easter and keep icons in their home (Wikipedia).
Hi, The one issue I have is that you say Atheists drop the question of why there is something rather than nothing if I understood correctly. It is a good question that is being answered by physicists and astronomers, it is not a question for theologians or philosophers at the moment, logic can only go so far in some of our great questions for which we seek answers. When I looked into this question that all the debate was about I stumbled upon Lawrence Krauss and his book "A Universe From Nothing". He also has a lecture he delivered which is on the same things in his book, this lecture is here on RU-vid on his channel. It is very insightful, for a philosopher (in the making) and an ex-christian this is very important information to hear and it is on a topic we all seek answers for, whether we be atheist, theist, theologian or philosopher. Even if you do not accept Krauss' work as truth it brings some more information to the table in regards to this big debate on why there is something rather than nothing. It is a contradiction that something can come from nothing or that something can exist outside of existence however our notion of nothing is being challenged according to Krauss. The nothing we once imagined to be before the big bang, creation, whatever you want to believe actually isn't just nothing. The nothing has properties that can lead to things to be created putting it simply, so nothing is not how many people have imagined it in the past and thus this brings new challenges in this heated debate over the question of why there is something rather than nothing. I don't do Krauss' work justice in this comment, I highly recommend you have a look at his lecture here on RU-vid and read his book if you can. All the best
....and when one makes philosophical arguments about causality, and that something can't come from nothing, therefore God...that is also a speculation...and then to make that very abstract argument, and then point to the Bible and say it was this God....that's not just speculation, that's a huge leap of faith! :)
...teaching people to be empathetic, with the same vigor that we teach them to be competitive might also be a useful way to help foster "goodness" between people.
Again, Fr. Barron continues to astound me with his clear and simple thinking. Could you possibly comment on Magic? Like just pretending to cast spells. My Dad disproves of it, but my friends think its fine. Just want a third opinion. Thanks! :D
...none of us exist in a vacuum...we live collectively, in a society...and depending on what sort of society we agree to strive for, and for what reasons we want this society...these things determine culturally what we believe are 'objective morals'. Obviously there are things like murder, theft, lying, and other personal attacks that I don't want inflicted on me...and from that I can postulate that others wouldn't want that inflicted upon them. Thankfully I had peaceful, loving parents...
I love that fact that my favorite Catholic apologists and my favorite Orthodox apologists are in basic agreement on the most basic theological issues. Catholicism is not exclusively "Western." The East has no monopoly on "Orthodoxy."
"[I]f someone asks me whether or not the theorem I proved with Borde and Guth implies that the universe had a beginning, I would say that the short answer is “yes”. If you are willing to get into subtleties, then the answer is “No, but…” So, there are ways to get around having a beginning, but then you are forced to have something nearly as special as a beginning." -- Alexander Vilenkin
Trying to explain this to my grandpa who’s a scientist and an antithiest. Yet in contrast this was explained to me by my now catholic childhood best friend who growing up was a very militant athiest.
"Saying the Universe always was goes against physical cosmology no matter how intuitive/"simple"/"likely" it sounds." I fully agree, but when another side suggests something far more unlikely, it's logical to bring in the likelihood factor. The big bang requires a beginning, but a god does too, no matter how you choose to describe it. If I'ts capable of bringing about the universe, as a sentient being, or otherwise singular and separated object, it itself must have an origin.
If I may even be so bold as to draw a comparison between St. Paul and Fr. Barron who also makes use of new media and examines/references modern culture and pointing out truth in an effort to evangelize and share the Good News of Christ with the modern world in a relatable manner. Just some thoughts on an interesting topic for discussion. All the best, Kyle. (Part 3)
...so, as social creatures we've come to realize the value and good that comes from our collective capabilities, and we rely on each other to succeed in ways that we never could as isolated, uninterested individuals. So in that we collectively strive for the 'good', our moral ideas are objective. We follow just laws, we treat others how we wish to be treated, we strive to get along. Of course we are also subject to tribalism...my team verses your team...but these are human characteristics
My own favorite analogy for the relationship of "God" to His created space-time continuum is the relationship between an author and his/her narrative. The characters within the story cannot approach the level of the Author's existence; if the Author "exists" at all, the characters in the story don't "exist" at all, for their "existence" is not at all commensurate with the Author's "existence."
I can completely feel what Bishop Barron wants to explain; what many of atheists' fault is that they try to prove denial of God by rationalist way, because assume that God can be captured by mind, which is simply not as God can only be experienced by hearts.
God is more than a God, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc. Because of His love, He is our Heavenly Parent. That's because Jesus was the first person to announce that God was our Heavenly Father! We must also know that after the Fall, He worked continuously throughout history to prepare His people and the world to welcome the Messiah, and thus build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. Because of the reasons was killed on the Cross, God has to send the Lord of the Second Advent to complete God's will on the earth.
"...and [we're] accused of magical thinking!" Fr. Baron, I had to agree with you so completely that I laughed. I greatly enjoy how you can take such a deep philosophical issue and present it in such a way that I learn something. I can "track" on how you develop your logic. Thanks. BTW: I also like posting your videos to my facebook page. My way of helping get the "word" out (pun intended). God bless you and your ministry.
Only if it's bound into time (which it wouldn't be, as the Bang was the start of time as well as space). As for the dilemma of being outside time but still acting, that can be solved via Chiros (non-physical, non-linear "time" for lack of a better word). You can always do the thought experiment of the Series of Natural Integers (properties existing necessarily despite quantatively describing contingent things). God would be a similar necessary existence.
