welcome to Episode four of the word on fire show I'm Brandon Vaught the content director at word on fire and once again we are joined by Bishop Robert Barron Bishop Baron so great to have you always good to be on with you Brandon today we're talking about atheism the show is titled answering the atheists and in particular we wanted to focus on this trend of the New Atheism Bishop Baron you've written several articles and videos over the years in response to many of its main proponents including people like Christopher Hitchens Richard Dawkins Sam Harris etc this is kind of a not a new content of atheism but a new style a new mode of communicating it what do you see as something that marks it different from older forms of atheism yeah and I think the point you made there was a very important one that I don't think as I read these gentlemen there's anything particularly new in terms of the arguments most of it is a rehashing of people like Ludwig Feuerbach Sigmund Freud jean-paul Sartre the sort of classical atheist so it's a rehearsing of those arguments I'd say a couple things about the novelty I think it was a post September eleventh phenomenon a lot of his books came out just as the last decade was getting underway and I think it was a revival there of the old Enlightenment argument so in the wake of September 11th what do people see they saw fanatical religion and the old Enlightenment argument was that because religion is irrational the only way it can defend itself is through violence so I think that's what prompted these new atheists secondly I'd say it's new in its vitriol and in the kind of meanness of the approach go back to someone like SARS or even Freud or Feuerbach they're certainly enemies of religion but they took religion seriously and they engaged it in a much more kind of highbrow fashion what I see in the New Atheists is sort of disdain for religion you know like the old atheist they think it's wrong but they also have this kind of condescending to stain for it that only an idiot could possibly subscribe to these views so I've always found that really off-putting about what's new in the new but it's not content it's as though oh we found some really really convincing new arguments these arguments are as old as the hills yeah I think for that reason the a the New Atheism is worth answering again not because it's substantial but because it's more and more prevalent it's sweeping across the culture especially on the Internet atheists are disproportionately represented online so for all of those reasons we thought we'd tackle some of the most common arguments that you hear from the New Atheists so let's start with this first one I think this is the most popular one you know I run a web site strange notions calm which atheists and Catholics dialogue and this is the most common one we hear it's what evidence is there for God it reminds me of the great atheist philosopher Bertrand Russell he was asked what he would say if he found himself standing before God on Judgment Day and God asked him why don't you believe in me and Russell said he would reply not enough evidence God not enough evidence so what do you say to someone who says there's just no evidence yeah good and actually I'm pleased here that's maybe the number one thing that you hear on your website because in some ways it's very easy to refute that the trouble is the loaded term evidence evidence is a term it's drawn largely from the sciences so you're looking for physical evidence for whatever phenomenon you're discussing or you form a hypothesis and then you say well let's look for evidence that would back up this hypothesis that's fine within the scientific framework that's part of the scientific method looking for empirically verifiable or physical traces in the world well if that's what you mean by evidence I agree with them there's no evidence for God but here's the trick God is not subject to the norms of the scientific method because God is not a being in the world God is rather as Thomas said if some essay the sheer act of to be itself in and through which all things that the sciences look at come to be so the one thing you're not gonna find is God using the scientific method because he is prior to and more ontological basic than anything the scientist can investigate here did I suggest and I have done this to new atheist who used that evidence appeal to evidence I'll say no there's no evidence for God if you mean it in your typical scientific way but there are plenty of rational warrants for belief in God I put it that way because then you're not limiting it to what the sciences can discover but then you're open to Thomas Aquinas who argues from the contingency of the world to the non-contingent ground you're open to all sorts of rational approaches but which aren't scientific so I would urge people that appeal to this argument to broaden their epistemological horizons I mean is there's more than science there's more than the scientific method you can be utterly rational and not be scientific you know so the trouble with the whole evidence appeal or science is the only way to know reality what you're saying that so homer and Plato and Shakespeare and Dante have no truth claims to make well that's nonsense they're saying all kinds of true things about the world but not in a scientific way so change the term from evidence to rational warrant and then we'll take it from there you talk a lot in the mystery of God study program which we'll get back to a little later in the show about some of these reasons or rational warrants for believing in God so if you want to have a deeper look at some of those check out Bishop Barron's mystery of God study program the second common argument you'll often hear from atheists is based on maybe a cursory exposure to Thomas Aquinas or Aristotle's arguments for a first cause and many atheists after reading that will conclude well if everything has a cause then what caused God how could God be the first cause because then you'd still need to say well what caused him so and how would you reply to that well it's a sophomoric sort of argument because the principle is not everything has a cause the principle is contingent things have a cause things that don't explain their own being have a cause and the whole point of the demonstration is that we finally must come to one reality namely God namely epsom sa that isn't caused so the trouble there is they just get off on the wrong foot you think the the principle is everything has a cause no contingent things have a cause so now the argument unfolds if a contingent thing like you know you and me or this room has a cause well then what caused it okay is that contingent or not if it is we got to keep looking back and back you go but the one thing you can't do is appeal to an infinite causal series because then you haven't found a ground for contingency at all if you must come the argument concludes to some reality which is not contingent so I think we have to dismiss that kind of sophomoric observation but I'll you know I'll say a lot of really smart people have made just that observation but as I say it's not really grasping the nettle of the argument we're in fact proving that there is at least one reality that doesn't have a cause so to say like what cause God is a bit like saying why isn't a triangle a square you know it's the one thing God can't be is caused one of the other popular objections you'll hear and I think this has increased as our culture has leaned more toward a scientistic point of view and I don't mean just hailing science for all the great good it's done I mean exclusively seeing science as the only way to know things in the world is the objection that will science has disproved God or religion or that they're somehow incompatible how would you reply to that well let me first talk about what your opening observation see scientism the trouble with it namely the reduction of all knowledge to the scientific form of knowledge is self-contradictory because you say to someone where did you see that principal how did you experiment so as to derive the truth of that principal someone that says all true things are known to the scientist that's not a scientific claim that's a metaphysical kind of claim and we can debate it and dispute it but scientism in itself is is self refuting its self contradictory see people there there is certainly beguiled by science think of the movie the Martian which I like very much but it's undergirded by this kind of assumption that science will explain everything and believe in we see there's the problem right there if you say I believe in science well then that's a non-scientific claim so people that are non scientistic like you and me we got our foot in the door the minute you say that oh I believe that science is the all explaining thing well clearly it's not because you didn't scientifically derive that principle well you've mentioned before to that science depends on certain philosophical presuppositions that can't be explained by science so things like the intelligibility of the world or the principle of causality talk about that yeah well think of that's a good example of what I was just describing what he has to undergird any scientist of any stripe psychologist physicist botanist chemist is they assume the intelligibility of what they're gonna be examining the more you think about it this stranger that that seems though why would you just naturally assume that the being that we encounter will be rationally understandable but every scientist has to assume that but there's there's no experiment that shows you that truth rather all experiments are based on that assumption that comes I would argue from theology it comes from a keen sense or you say philosophy at a high level a keen sense of the Creator God if there is one ultimate cause of all things and that ultimate cause is intelligent then you will expect intelligibility in all things again the more you think like that the stranger it becomes if we take its soul for granted but it's a fundamentally theological assumption that undergirds the sciences oh yeah I'm every type of does science disprove God right again that's almost a self contradictory as well as I said God is not a being in the world the sciences in all their different dimensions deal with things in the world that can be empirically verified or experimented upon right there's the method but what they kid in principle comment upon draw conclusions about is that transcendent reality in and through which all worldly things come to be that's why when as scientists he said oh I've proven God through science that's as nonsensical as saying I've disproven them through science science is not a a tool that can be used in the adjudication of this question that's why other rational methods like philosophy have to be invoked NASA sent or Cardinal George often said was we we rushed too quickly to religion and science what we need is the mediating discipline of philosophy it shows you that you can speak in a rational way about realities that transcend the sciences and once you get that okay now you see how religion too can be rational so I think that mediating discipline of philosophies is key to recover here but see don't allow the scientistic mind to dominate it's it's a house of cards it'll collapse in upon itself I think we should boldly claim the rational tools that we have to show that God belief in God is reasonable and stand up and resist the scientistic advocates tell me if this jives with your experience but a lot of times if I talk to an atheist or a skeptic of some sort who claims that science has disproven God or rendered him useless or unnecessary almost inevitably they view that God as a scientific explanation and even more often as sort of a being within the world and it really gets to this deeper issue of is God just a being one hypothesis among many or you see the ground of all that exists because they'll say like at one time we didn't know how thunder and lightning work I thought it was God slamming down his Thunder his hammer like Thor and now we do so we don't need God to explain that or we didn't know how the how the Sun and the moon and the planets all moved through the cosmos but now we do so we don't need God to explain that but that view of God wouldn't you say is a is a deeply misunderstood view of what we mean by God I would say that Thomas Aquinas anticipated akhom by a century and formulated a version of Occam's razor you know which is the view that all things being equal these simpler explanation should be preferred right so when Thomas is articulating an objection to God's existence he uses that he says well can't all things be explained through an appeal to natural causality and so if that's true why do we need God so that accident that objection is as old as time as Aquinas certainly was he what's the answer the answer is when you're you're looking for God you're right you're not looking for one contingent cause among many you're not looking for okay for the moment I don't really understand this but eventually I will oh that's what causes thunder you know what are you looking for God you're looking for the ultimate cause of the very to be of the universe you're not looking for one more of however big it is one more contingent cause what you're looking for is the answer to the question why is there something rather than nothing and that is not a scientific question that's a philosophical question or theological one so again it's a it's a being lured into the trap of scientism I think when people say well natural causes explain everything they can't explain why there's something rather than nothing why the very to be of the universe is so I think that it's the collapse of other rational forms into one rational form namely the scientific you mentioned st. Thomas's assumption that one of the arguments that can be posed against God is the argument from parsimony that we don't need God to explain some of these things therefore God doesn't exist the other argument that he thought was a strong one but ultimately answerable against God was the age-old problem of evil so I want to spend a little more time on that one because I think for many atheists on the ground this is really the most personal heartfelt reason why they could never believe or follow God so what is the problem of evil and and how would you at least begin to flesh out an answer yeah good and I think you're right it is I think the most compelling argument against God although as I'll try to clarify it's more emotionally compelling than intellectually compelling time as acquaintance put it this way again in these beautifully understated arguments he made against God he said if one of two contraries be infinite the other would be altogether destroyed so he said if there were infinite heat there'd be no cold so God has described as the infinitely good so if he exists how could there possibly be evil that's a pithy and very tight formulation of the argument from from evil how do you respond well I'll give you time as his response and he was drawing on something much earlier than himself namely of the reflections of Augustan where Gustin said God is so powerful that he can permit evil so as to bring about a greater good so a first clarification is that evil is not something you know Agustin saw this evil is a privation of the good think of a cavity in your tooth that's bugging you it's a lack of a good that ought to be there think of a cancer that's compromising your system it's a lack of what ought to be there think of blindness it's a lack of vision that ought to be there so it's not like dark side of the forest light side of the force so you've got two powerful things fighting each other evil is not a thing it's an absence so first of all there's no power and certainly not God who produces or creates evil you can't create it or produce it it's permitted by God permitted now why go back to Agustin so as to bring out of that a greater good you know we can give loads of examples of this certain goods that would not exist were there not certain evils Tom has his own example which I've always loved is there's no life in the lion without the destruction of the Antelope you know so the lion and all of its glory and beauty wouldn't exist unless the Antelope were devoured by the lion God permitting evil so as to bring about a good that wouldn't otherwise be there his other example is there's no virtue of the martyr without the tyranny of his tormentor you know so think of it even though it might seem weird but no Hitler no Edith Stein no Hitler no Maximilian Kolbe no Hitler brought an out think of the enumerable acts of nobility and courage and kindness and so on that happened during World War two precisely because of the suffering so that's the principle that's principle now I totally get I can feel people hearing me reacting I totally get the emotional reaction to it I don't mean that in a condescending way at all I mean I experienced it when something goes bad in my life and God how could you do this how could you allow us to happen like when your microphone falls down and you say yes how could you do this why are you doing this to me so I get the emotional power of it but go back now having articulated this principle go back to the intellectual side God by definition it has an infinite mind and God is presiding over all of space and all of time think about that all of space all of time what do we see of space and time but this tiny tiny tiny fragment can you see how it's a little off-kilter for us therefore to say this makes no sense there's no redeeming value to this well I mean how in the world would you know because by definition a finite mind cannot take in the workings of an infinite mind see that's why I say from a purely intellectual standpoint the objection kind of fades away it's like a little child three-year-old child who couldn't possibly understand what his parents are about and who is facing some some suffering they have imposed upon him and wondering like how in the world could they be doing this well think of that difference and now multiply it to the enth degree the difference between our finite minds and God's infinite mind which is worrying about all the space of all time of course things seem anomalous to us of course they do but it would be arrogant in the extreme for us to say because I don't get it there's no meaning that's like beginning math student in sixth grade looking at you know Einsteins most elaborate formulas and saying well this is a bunch of nonsense they're just silly symbols on the page you know well a Forte's you're right raised to the enth degree that's us in relation to God so those are some points I would use in responding to this extremely powerful objection at least from the experiential standpoint you recently came out with a whole new study program called the mystery of God who God is and why he matters it contains a whole collection of resources but the main component is this six part video course where you look at many of the questions we've discussed here in much more depth so yeah he tell us a little bit about why you created that program why now and and tell us a little bit about what's in it yeah you know I think I did it Brandon because I was getting so annoyed at the new atheist and and especially at the impact they were having on young people I mean so many people have come to me and saying ah I've been to college now even in high school and these really compelling arguments against God then you see the new atheists who are very skillful evangelists I think you described that way they're very skillful evangelist at propagating their message and they're using all the new media etc etc so I feel the church has got to be in that arena and it's got to be there as a pose 'voice so that's why I did it I wanted to present something that was not like you know reading a 500 page philosophical study but was substantive enough to give everybody but maybe especially high school kids college kids some way of answering these objections what's in it is really a encapsulation of my doctrine of God class so I taught for 20 years at Mundelein seminary so I had a 10-week thoroughgoing course in God and I thought let's try to bring that down to a more digestible level without flattening it out without dumbing it down so that was the that was the instigation for it and that's more or less the content so we talked about all the issues you've raised among others and I hope young people can use it you can learn more about that at mystery of God calm and it's especially if you have a young adult child maybe he's going off to college this would be a great gift to give them to solidify their understanding of God and how to answer many of these atheist objections in addition to the video course there's a study guide written by Trent horn who is an apologist at Catholic Answers there's a pocket guide to answering atheists which contains a condensed version of several these points so find that at mystery of God calm the next segment here we're gonna bring in our first caller a few shows back I told you that we're welcoming calls from you if you'd like to ask a question of Bishop Baron you can go to ask Bishop Baron comm and you can record a question either on your phone or your computer and send it in and each episode will pick one question that Bishop Baron can answer today the question comes from David a young father who asked a question that's really pertinent to the topic we're discussing here so I'm gonna play that question now [Music] my name is David from Michigan and my wife and I are expecting our first child in a few months in your work you often discuss the nature of God theologically making sure to point out that we as Catholics don't think of him as just a super powerful being among many but something greater and more fundamental than that how would you recommend teaching children about God in a way that they can understand while not making him out to be just another being among a mini yeah it's a great question I'm very grateful for it stay with an analogy I'll say something now positive thought the science is I'm always positive about the sciences it's scientism I don't like let's say you got a little tiny kid so you're just you're wise about to give birth so a little tiny kid and he wonders daddy where's where's the Sun go at night and you could say things like well the sun's you're going to sleep and the sun's going to sleep fine fine that's probably young mind can take in know he grows up moves through life starts going to school and you might use maybe slightly more sophisticated analogies now the Sun gets bigger and bigger goes more more school and now you get them into the sciences and then maybe you do Stephen Hawking at the end of the day my point is it's okay to follow this sort of natural pedagogy think of Thomas Aquinas and this discussion of God has assumed si not one being on many that he's not contained in a genus he's actors purists think of all of that as like you know it's graduate school that's rational reflection on God and its highest pitch well not everyone's ready for that Thomas it one time received a letter from a an older woman who said friar Thomas is it is it true to say that the names of the Blessed are written on a scroll in heaven well Thomas intuiting undoubtedly that that he wasn't dealing with a very sophisticated or educated person wrote behind said well there's there's no real evidence for that but there's also no harm in thinking it so when I was a wonderful answer you know he was acknowledging well no look that there's really no ground for that kind of literalism but it won't do any harm to think so and I think that's a guide our thinking about how we educate our kids now here's the thing what happens to a lot of people is they get stuck at all the sun's going beddy-bye you know that they get stuck with a very childish approach to religion what I would encourage you to do is keep pressing keep pressing so that the child as he develops and matures intellectually won't get stuck at this primitive level Reed I'll go back to the the new atheist read the new atheist and you'll find they're going after very primitive childlike childish views of God so I would say don't let your son or daughter get stuck but press them on religion as you'd press them in the science and you may be pretty unhappy I bet if when your child is 20 he still thinks and the son goes beddy-bye but we're somehow okay with a lot of our twenty year olds staying at that level in regard to their faith so anyway that's my fervor II know but I'd say it's okay you don't have to begin with God is if some essay you can begin as the Bible often does look at parts of the Bible where God is very much personified in a sort of you know literalistic way fine fine but then the Bible moves on and it gets it addresses other audiences it's as though Israel is being lured as it matures intellectually anyway that's kind of a rambling answer to your good question let's close here with a request that we've gotten from several people who have written into the show after listening to the first couple episodes and hearing some of your book recommendations they said we want more of those we want book recommendations on each episode so this one on atheism we've talked about a couple resources already definitely your mystery of God series mystery of God calm Trent Horne who wrote the study guide for that also has his own good book called answering atheism but would you recommend for some other resources to either understand atheism better or to be able to respond to it we know at a higher level if you want to go high octane get David Bentley Hart's book his book is very fine and it revolves around the point we were making a lot today that it's a it's a misunderstanding of God that gives rise to a lot of these objections a little further back in the 20th century get to all read Allu box the ramaa of atheist humanism I think it's very helpful at understanding how this fits into the more contemporary conversation then you know I go back to the classics go back to Aquinas and read the first 13 questions of the Summa theologia if you want graduate school high octane reflection and Bishop Baron is probably too coid to recommend it himself but his own book on Aquinas covers Thomas Aquinas his arguments for God and gives a more digestible approach to them than just reading Aquinas straight through thanks so much for tuning in to this episode 4 of the word on fire show be sure to download the podcast at word on fire show com also be sure to subscribe on iTunes and please submit your questions at ask Bishop Baron comm because we'd love to hear from you and answer your questions right here on the show thanks again for tuning in and we'll see you in the next episode of the word on fire show you [Music]