0:00

It is free for all Friday or in

0:02

the Council Trent podcasts i'm your host categorizes,

0:04

apologist and speaker train horn Monday and Wednesday

0:06

we talk apologetics in theology. And

0:08

today on Friday we're also going

0:11

to talk apologetics and theology That

0:13

she went on to share with

0:15

you is an interview that I

0:17

had on the You Tube Channel

0:19

Potential Theism The host is actually

0:21

non religious himself, but he's fairly

0:23

supportive of my work at the

0:25

he considers the apologetic work that

0:28

I do worth looking at reviewing.

0:30

Critiquing. I've. Even seen him

0:32

on social media have agreed with

0:34

some his post criticizing. Other.

0:36

Individuals who offer stereotypical or not

0:38

well thought out criticisms of atheism

0:41

and agnosticism. So I really enjoy

0:43

going on the show I talked

0:45

about. You know, why be Catholic?

0:47

Differences between Catholics and Protestants? How

0:49

sometimes Protestants? Are you like atheists?

0:51

Check out my book on that

0:53

if you want more. So. Without

0:56

further ado, Here is our interview.

0:58

And. One things I like about your channel is it's

1:00

there's little bit of everything. I never know what's

1:02

coming out, like sometimes you'll cover one topic and

1:04

in the next it'll be like oh, here's a

1:06

debate review and I'm like, well, As. Totally

1:08

different from your last year stream, so

1:11

you're always covering different things, so deftly

1:13

check that out the links in the

1:15

description. So. What I wanted to

1:17

ask you about today is folks who maybe

1:19

in a similar situation as may, maybe either

1:21

x protestants or x evangelicals and they've left

1:24

the faith. They. They no

1:26

longer believe in God, but now they're

1:28

They're open. To. The possibility of believe

1:30

in and.again And maybe they're even open

1:32

to return into Christianity. So I guess

1:34

a good starting place would would be.

1:36

Why? Do you think they should be

1:39

Catholic? Well, I think they should be

1:41

Catholic because I think Catholicism makes the

1:43

most sense of the world around us.

1:45

It makes the most sense of. The

1:48

physical and scientific facts of the

1:50

world and makes the most sense

1:53

of human experience. It makes the

1:55

most sense of our moral intuitions,

1:57

immoral frameworks. Once we. Put.

1:59

Them. in a coherent way. So I

2:03

think that that would be what would make the

2:05

most sense. Now I would admit that if

2:07

you are an atheist or

2:09

an agnostic, there's a fair

2:11

number of steps one would have to go through

2:13

before you would become Catholic.

2:16

So different people have different ways of presenting

2:18

the case, but the

2:20

way I would look at it is

2:22

that if you are an atheist or

2:24

an agnostic, one should answer the question

2:26

of who is Jesus of Nazareth. If

2:29

he was not divine or did

2:32

not rise from the dead, then that at

2:34

least takes Christianity off the table. There could

2:36

be other religious belief systems that are true,

2:38

you'd have to investigate those. But

2:40

if Jesus wasn't who he said he was, not who

2:42

the Apostles said he was, that takes that off

2:44

the table. But if Jesus is

2:46

who he claimed to be and who the disciples

2:49

and the Apostles and the leaders of the early church

2:52

claimed him to be the

2:54

risen God incarnate, then

2:56

that would make Christianity the true

2:58

religion and other religions would just

3:00

be in varying degrees towards the

3:02

truth. Some closer than others, but

3:05

that would give you good reason to be Christian. And

3:08

there, I think Catholicism would make

3:10

the most sense for someone because I think it

3:13

has the best approach for crossing

3:15

the gap. So the gap would

3:18

be, alright, and I went through this myself when

3:20

I was in high school. I was a deist,

3:22

I was never an atheist, but I

3:24

wasn't Christian either. I thought there was a God

3:26

out there who started the universe, but that's

3:28

it. But then after being convicted to

3:30

become Christian, I thought, okay, well now what do I do? I

3:33

believe in Jesus, he rose

3:35

from the dead, there's the Bible, okay,

3:37

there's these documents people call the Bible,

3:40

there are all these churches around. Why

3:43

should I believe, just because I believe Jesus rose from

3:45

the dead, why should I believe that the letter to

3:47

the Hebrews is the inspired word of God? Like there's

3:49

a few steps one has to go through. And

3:52

I find that Protestantism has a harder time

3:55

crossing the gap from Jesus

3:57

rose from the dead to 60 56

4:00

inspired books that is a sole infallible rule of

4:02

faith. Then Catholicism does, which Catholics

4:04

would say, well, we believe Jesus rose from

4:07

the dead. He created one

4:09

church. He gave the apostles the

4:11

authority to establish that church. The

4:13

apostles gave their authority to their

4:16

successors. And eventually

4:18

their successors taught

4:20

with divine authority, varying

4:23

levels of authority, I should say, that divine

4:25

revelation can be found in what the church

4:27

teaches, and in this collection

4:29

of sacred writings that we call the Bible.

4:31

So for me, I

4:33

feel like it's easier for me to cross

4:35

that gap of understanding all of Christian revelation

4:38

within this Catholic context than any other

4:40

Protestant context. So one of

4:42

the things that I've noticed in like my own journey is

4:46

when I think about these topics, you

4:48

know, you wrote this book when Protestants

4:50

argue like atheists, but I find myself

4:54

as an atheist arguing like a Protestant. So

4:56

like I'll approach like

4:59

Catholic resources. I had a guy named

5:01

Catholic dad on social media, send me

5:03

a bunch of books, including yours. And

5:06

as I'm reading them, I'm sort of approaching

5:08

these things like I'm still a Protestant. Have

5:10

you noticed that, like atheists who

5:12

still argue like Protestants? Oh,

5:14

absolutely. So for example,

5:17

I've noticed that there are atheists who

5:19

would say, for example, well,

5:22

back when they were Protestants, they might have

5:24

been more literalists

5:26

when it came to interpreting the book of

5:28

Genesis. So they would hold this sort

5:30

of framework that the book

5:32

of Genesis and modern science

5:35

are incompatible. So what

5:37

that means is that Genesis is right

5:39

and science is wrong. And so you

5:41

hold that particular young earth creationist Christian

5:43

view. But

5:46

then eventually they come to a point where they say, oh, never

5:49

mind, I've looked at the evidence. I

5:51

think modern science is correct about the

5:53

age of the earth, common ancestry of

5:55

living organisms. So If they're

5:57

incompatible and science is right, that. In

6:00

Genesis is wrong. If Genesis is wrong, the

6:02

Bible is wrong. If the Bible is wrong,

6:04

Christianity is wrong and so they had they.

6:07

They say they keep that kind of same.

6:09

Limited. Framework that they might have has

6:12

a Protestant. They just. Switch. Out

6:14

there, that, if then conditionals, so to

6:16

speak of, but there's still operating within

6:18

that similar kind of ah, that kind

6:20

of a framework. Okay, so

6:22

let's talk about some of those objections

6:24

that a x Protestant may have as

6:26

are exploring these topics. So you know

6:28

the doctrine of so a script or

6:30

a for example. Of. When.

6:33

You abandon that, but you're you're trying to

6:35

like. Investigate Catholicism one and

6:38

I think that. Protestants,

6:40

Here it's and often is that Catholics have

6:43

a low view of the bible. So.

6:45

Maybe go over what is the Catholic view

6:47

of the bible? Short:

6:49

So the Catholic view of the bible

6:52

is that it is the word of

6:54

God. Was so it

6:56

is inspired. Ah, it is

6:58

authoritative. It is without error.

7:01

Ah, So it is God's word.

7:03

However, as Catholics, we don't believe

7:06

that God's word is confined to

7:08

the written word alone. By.

7:10

In the early church, for example, The.

7:12

Word of God existed

7:15

for twenty years. Before.

7:18

The The Sorry the unwritten word of God.

7:21

Existed for twenty years before the written

7:23

Word of God and the New Covenant

7:25

ever came into existence. With Vi, the

7:28

earliest of Paul's letters like first Us

7:30

Alone is for example, but inverse Us

7:32

Loney and Paul talks about how ah,

7:34

the Word of God was preached among

7:37

you. Ah, so we do

7:39

certainly believe that. Divine

7:41

revelation comes to us in the

7:44

form of God's word. Are

7:46

ultimately we would say that revelation

7:48

comes in most complete form in

7:50

Jesus himself that he just is

7:52

the word of God, God's single

7:54

word or however we as human

7:57

beings needs need things and propositional

7:59

content. The fully absorb them. So

8:02

he would. So it's gathered. She'd say

8:04

that both sacred scripture and sacred tradition

8:06

are equally authoritative. They are God's word

8:09

and written an unwritten form. Ah,

8:11

But we'd also say that God gave us

8:13

that You gave us a church with a

8:16

teaching office was called the Magisterium. And

8:18

that provides away an authoritative

8:21

means for understanding. What

8:23

Divine Revelation? Teachers? What

8:25

does what is sacred

8:27

Scripture mean? What constitutes

8:29

sacred scripture, Or what

8:31

constitutes sacred tradition? As.

8:34

I would say that we certainly have. A very

8:36

high view Scripture and at the church

8:38

catheter say the church is not above

8:41

the Bible. Where. The Church is

8:43

the faithful custodian of scripture and

8:45

serves and serves. God's. Word

8:47

and written and unwritten for hims.

8:49

So obviously Catholic bibles are bigger

8:51

than brought a survival. Silks are

8:54

these are these other books equally

8:56

as authoritative. Yes,

8:58

so what you're referring to

9:00

are the duro canonical books

9:02

of scripture. Ah, while Protestants

9:04

often call them apocrypha, Was

9:07

so six this of Sienna You

9:10

is a late medieval Jewish convert

9:12

to Catholicism and he developed this

9:14

three tiered class. a three tiered

9:17

classification system. for Catholics. There are

9:19

the Prado canonical books Ah that,

9:21

Catholics and Protestants of the same

9:24

twenty seven bucks of the New

9:26

Testament. We. Differ about the

9:28

content of the Old Testament Protestant

9:31

bibles would have as thirty as

9:33

see will be thirty. Nine.

9:35

Yeah, thirty nine bucks. Yeah, that's

9:37

right thing know we're thirty bucks.

9:40

Their sixty six books in the

9:42

ah, Protestant Bible. And

9:45

more in the Catholic Bible.

9:47

As. A We had the the

9:50

Kathy Bible would include. These.

9:52

Other books like Tolbert first

9:55

and Second Maccabees. baruch

9:58

be wisdom Solomon,

10:00

Sirac, and longer forms

10:03

of the books of Esther and Daniel. So

10:07

these longer works are called

10:09

Deuterocanonical. So proto-canonical would

10:11

be the books of the Bible that are the same in

10:13

Catholic and Protestant Bibles. Catholics would

10:15

say the Deuterocanon are those

10:17

books that are in Catholic Bibles, like the Old

10:19

Testament books I just shared with you, but are

10:22

not in Protestant Bibles. And Apocrypha, we would

10:24

say that refers to books that Catholics

10:26

and Protestants agree are not divinely inspired,

10:28

like the book of Enoch, for example,

10:30

or other early church writings like the

10:33

Shepherd of Hermas or the Didache.

10:36

So they are different, but I

10:38

would say that when you look

10:40

at the Bible that Jesus and

10:43

the apostles quoted from, they primarily

10:45

quoted from the Greek translation of

10:47

the Old Testament, and that

10:49

was a Septuagint. That included these

10:51

Deuterocanonical books. You

10:54

can also find these books

10:56

being written in

10:58

a special script, reserved for

11:01

inspired books that are considered inspired among

11:03

the Dead Sea Scrolls. You

11:06

see the church fathers quoting from them.

11:08

You even see in scripture, sorry,

11:10

in the proto-canonical books, you

11:13

have, for example, the

11:15

book of Hebrews, Hebrews chapter 11, referring to

11:20

incidents in sacred history

11:22

and quoting from the book

11:24

of the Maccabees describing

11:26

martyrs as a part of sacred

11:28

history, not just secular history, which

11:30

would give evidence that the author

11:32

of the letter of the Hebrews

11:34

believed the Deuterocanonical book of Maccabees

11:37

was inspired scripture. And I think going

11:39

through, when you look at the early church fathers, there's

11:41

a growth in their

11:43

citation of these books as

11:46

scripture alongside the other proto-canonical works.

11:48

I have a chapter on that in my

11:50

bookcase for Catholicism. I've also debated the subject

11:52

with Steve Christie, who is a Protestant topologist.

11:55

He wrote a book called Why Protestant Bibles

11:57

are Smaller. So people want to

11:59

see like nitty-gritty debate on some of the

12:01

more technical issues, they can definitely check out

12:03

that debate between him and I. Yeah,

12:06

and I definitely recommend this book if

12:09

anyone has objections. Maybe

12:11

you come from a Protestant background. This would be a

12:13

good book to look into those. So

12:16

another subject that they

12:18

may struggle with is the Marian doctrines.

12:20

So can you clarify the Catholic view

12:22

of Mary? Do Catholics worship Mary? It

12:26

depends on what you mean by the word

12:28

worship. So the word worship

12:30

has undergone a semantic shift. And this

12:32

is important when we talk about words

12:34

and vocabulary, we have to remember that.

12:38

The older use of the word worship

12:40

just means to give one

12:43

their worthship. So

12:46

you have older, even older Protestant

12:48

prayer books that where the husband

12:50

says, to the wife,

12:53

I worship the and I

12:55

worship thy body, I worship the, but it

12:57

doesn't mean you worship in a divine way.

12:59

It means you give one their worthship. It's

13:02

similar to how we address a judge, we might

13:04

say your honor, for example. So

13:07

worship in the sense of worthship. Catholics

13:11

worship Mary by giving her the worth

13:13

she is due. But

13:15

lots of people, even giving judges, magistrates,

13:17

parents are due honor. We

13:20

give honor and praise to

13:23

all creatures in virtue of what they

13:25

deserve. With God, of course,

13:27

being infinite goodness itself, the creator

13:29

of all things, God deserves the

13:31

highest honor, the highest worship. And

13:34

so Catholics would say that the worship that is

13:36

due to God alone, like sacrifice, sacrifices

13:39

can be only offered to God.

13:41

There were heretics in the early

13:43

church called the Coloridians who made

13:45

sacrifices to Mary, and this was

13:47

condemned as heresy. So we

13:49

would say that the honor due to God

13:51

unique to him is something that cannot

13:54

be given to Mary. But

13:56

I would say for Protestants, among

13:58

all of the creatures that. God

14:00

made. Which. Of

14:02

those creatures should be held in a

14:04

highest honor that if God exists and

14:07

God it. Entered into the

14:09

creation he made. And. He

14:11

chose to do that through another creature

14:13

is god that was created human body

14:15

from south x Nile. Though they chose

14:17

not do that, he chose to be

14:19

born lights Human beings are born. The.

14:22

Fact that the second person of the trinity

14:24

became man. And now for all

14:26

Eternity. God. The second

14:28

person and finity God the son and

14:30

his human nature will resemble another human

14:32

being. health bear physical similarities marry I

14:34

find quite striking and I would seem

14:36

makes sense as to why Of all

14:38

the creatures God made. The. One

14:40

that should be held in the highest honor. Would.

14:43

Be the creature who bore the creator with in

14:45

her womb. At so that that makes

14:47

that sense to me. And so I think that

14:49

sometimes Protestants can confuse the fact. That

14:52

the highest honor among creatures is given

14:54

to marry to mean that the highest

14:56

of all honors is given to her.

14:58

That is the certainly not the case.

15:00

Even St. Louis de Montfort, who as

15:02

very extravagant language of marry in his

15:05

writings says Marius but a mere Adam.

15:07

In. Comparison to God. Okay

15:11

so jp as why believe Mary was

15:13

perpetual version. Sure

15:15

I would say for the same

15:18

reasons that we believe that Mary

15:20

was a virgin. Before.

15:22

Christ was born. What? Is

15:24

interesting is that process often So I

15:26

certainly believe in the virgin birth. Ah,

15:29

And I think I'm I ask them

15:32

okay, Do you agree? Then do you

15:34

believe. That ah, that Joseph

15:36

and Mary did not have

15:38

sexual relations during her entire

15:40

pregnancy Because many of them

15:43

will quote passages in the

15:45

Bible. That. Seats that Mary

15:47

and Joseph did not have sexual relations

15:49

prior to the conception of Jesus and

15:51

we all agree on that point. Now.

15:54

Why is his teaching so important? Ah,

15:57

it's as a process a what's the big deal with mary

15:59

was perpetual virgin. Well, for the

16:01

same reason it's a big deal, Mary was a

16:04

virgin prior to the conception of Christ. It's

16:06

a miraculous sign to show

16:08

that Jesus does not have

16:10

a human father. He has

16:12

no earthly father. He has a father who's

16:14

a legal guardian, kind of a stepfather. But

16:18

the miracle of the virgin birth, of the

16:20

perpetual virginity of Mary, I would say, the

16:23

fact that Mary did not have

16:25

any sexual relations whatsoever, it

16:27

is a miraculous sign, it is

16:29

a wonderful sign of the

16:31

uniqueness of her only child, that

16:33

he has no earthly father. So

16:36

now why believe that Mary remained

16:38

a virgin after the birth of Christ? Because

16:41

as I said before Protestants will affirm the

16:43

virgin birth even though from Scripture it's

16:45

not entirely clear that they abstain from

16:47

sexual relations during the pregnancy, but most

16:49

Protestants will say, yeah, of course, well,

16:51

you know, well, why do you believe

16:53

that? I

16:55

would say that there is evidence in Scripture

16:58

that points to this. It points to Mary not

17:01

having other children, like the fact that

17:03

John is entrusted to Mary at the

17:05

cross when Jesus's

17:08

brother and his brothers would

17:11

become believers shortly after that point. It would make

17:13

more sense for them to care

17:15

for his mother. But I

17:18

would say, and there's also some

17:20

evidence in Luke chapter 1, Mary's confusion

17:23

about the angel Gabriel telling her that

17:25

she will bear a son. She

17:27

says, how can this be

17:29

since I know not man? Some have

17:31

argued that evidence that Mary took a

17:33

vow of virginity and that Joseph was

17:36

more of a custodial guardian. People

17:39

say, well, all that means is, you know,

17:42

they were engaged, they weren't married yet, so

17:44

she's confused, like how am I going to

17:46

have a child? I'm only engaged to Joseph,

17:48

I'm not married to him yet, but that's

17:51

a misunderstanding. Joseph and Mary were never engaged,

17:53

like we talk about modern engagement in American

17:55

customs. In Hebrew, in

17:57

biblical Jewish betrothal ceremonies, There

18:00

were two parts there was the

18:02

initial betrothal which made you husband

18:04

and wife you could have sexual

18:06

union lawfully and then there

18:08

was a period that lasted up to a year

18:10

where the marriage wasn't complete because you had not

18:13

moved in together is often during this time. You

18:15

know once you are married then the

18:18

husband would leave his parents home and he would

18:20

go out and create a home you

18:22

know build a home from scratch or create or

18:24

acquire a home for his new bride is a

18:26

lot harder than what we have today. And

18:29

so there is this interim period and that

18:31

appears to be the interim period when

18:34

Jesus is conception takes place so they were lawfully

18:36

wedding they were allowed to engage in sexual union

18:38

at this time so it just seems sort of

18:40

odd for Mary to give this phrase that you

18:42

might say well there's nothing in the

18:44

text that talks about her having a vow of

18:46

virginity. Where and then just a

18:49

custodial guardian you're correct. The

18:52

other reason that i would give is

18:54

that historically the view of mary not

18:56

having other children seems to be what

18:58

has been received among the early church

19:00

as a historical evidence. No

19:02

one now there's different you might

19:04

say wait a minute you undermine your case earlier you

19:07

talk about the brothers of the lord you can't be

19:09

a perpetual virgin if you have other children. Some

19:11

of argued the brethren of the lord in

19:14

scripture are cousins that's one view it's

19:16

not the view that i hold i

19:18

hold the older view that was common in the

19:20

eastern church that the brethren of the lord were

19:22

children of Joseph from Joseph previous

19:24

marriage. I'll wrap up here

19:27

i know there's a lot here but it's a big issue i

19:29

find this lot of evidence actually for this you

19:31

historically and biblically in mark chapter six Jesus is

19:34

referred to as the son of mary rather than

19:36

the son of Joseph which is an odd term

19:38

in the ancient world normally the son of your

19:40

father not the son of your mother unless your

19:42

mother was a really famous queen or something about

19:44

the case of mary. But richard

19:47

bacham a protestant author says referring to

19:49

Jesus as a son of mary and

19:52

nazareth would make sense to distinguish him

19:54

from joseph other children that were the

19:56

sons and daughters of his first wife.

19:59

So this is an early. view, the

20:01

protoevangelium of James refers to the brethren

20:03

in this way and talks about Mary

20:05

being raised in the temple and making

20:07

this vow and Joseph being a spouse

20:09

to her to protect her after she

20:11

had left the temple, that

20:14

the view that the brethren of the Lord were step

20:18

siblings, they were adoptive siblings, that

20:22

was actually the view that was

20:24

held. No one believed that, that was the

20:26

view that was held until the fourth century.

20:30

No one who held office

20:32

in the the early church believed

20:34

otherwise. Tertullian, yeah, but he was already

20:36

heretic by that point. So

20:39

I think there's good reasons biblically and historically to

20:41

show that in God choosing to become

20:44

man, Mary's virginity was

20:46

perpetual in nature to be

20:48

an awe-inspiring sign to point

20:50

to the fact that Jesus was special, he

20:52

had no earthly father. That

20:55

was a lot, have a chapter out in my book, I

20:57

hope that was a sufficient place to begin

20:59

with that. So JB

21:01

says Catholic support mythicism, no brothers of Jesus,

21:03

but I would say actually,

21:05

you know, somebody like Carrier would say that

21:07

James was the brother of the Lord in

21:10

a spiritual sense, that's not what you're saying.

21:12

No, it's not. Now this is

21:15

interesting, I remember reading Richard

21:17

Price, Robert,

21:20

Robert Price, what am I thinking? Robert,

21:23

yes, he's a hilarious guy.

21:26

I love when certain atheists,

21:28

when they get old enough, they

21:31

just stop caring what other people think and just

21:33

tell it how they see it. We're seeing this

21:35

more with Dawkins and Bill Maher. I think Robert

21:38

Price has also done this, he'll just say stuff even is

21:41

politically incorrect. And I think he's a

21:43

hilarious guy. And he wrote a book

21:45

a while back called The Christ-Smith Theory

21:47

and Problems, it's something like that. I got

21:49

it on my shelf over here somewhere. And

21:52

in there, he talks about the Most

21:55

difficult evidences against the mythosist

21:57

view that Jesus never existed.

22:00

And he he makes it okay, opines

22:02

or he says, you know Catholics was

22:05

embarrassed about Gleason's one nineteen talks about

22:07

James a brother. The Lord you know

22:09

you believe Marriage Pretzel Virgin How can

22:11

this be? How can Jesus or brother's

22:14

got to explain this way And he

22:16

says likewise, Mississippi like us have to

22:18

explain this away as well because if

22:20

Jesus had. A flesh

22:22

and blood relatives. While then he can't

22:25

be a mythical figure. Was

22:27

so. You have myths as explain that

22:29

is that is the brother of the

22:32

lord and in more of a spiritual

22:34

sense. but I find those explanations to

22:36

be. Very unlikely

22:38

because James is being

22:41

distinguish from other christians.

22:44

Who. Would also have been considered brothers in the

22:46

Lord. Are you know brother? You know of

22:48

brothers and sisters of the Lord. Ah,

22:50

I've I'm price and Harrys access to

22:52

that Not Not workable. Ah I do

22:54

think though that the these steps sibling

22:56

explanation does work because if you're an

22:58

adopt his sibling you are. You are

23:00

a brother. Like any other, you're treated

23:03

in the same way and the term

23:05

brother is often you is used in

23:07

scripture. Or whether you are.

23:09

Bought. Whether you add the same mother

23:11

or the same father, So for

23:14

example, if you go in the New Testament, you

23:16

remember the John the Baptist lost his head. Over

23:19

protesting Herod. I'm

23:21

marrying his wife's brother. You

23:23

cannot have your brother's wife. Is

23:26

what's on protested the Herod. Now.

23:29

If you look at haired and his brother

23:32

in the her Roedean family tree they actually

23:34

it's it's the read the text of First

23:36

to Harrods brother whose brother Philip. By.

23:38

If you look at the her Odeon free. They.

23:41

Have they do not come from

23:43

the same mother? They. Were

23:45

both. They're both. Eyes

23:48

Children of of Herod. But.

23:51

But they had the same father but they had

23:53

different mothers actually but the term brother was still

23:55

use their even though they did not come from

23:57

the same mother and I would say the same.

24:00

Then be true. Of brother used

24:02

to be the James rather the Lord

24:04

vs Jesus that they have the same

24:06

legal adoptive father but they had different mothers.

24:10

Okay, so let's talk about Marian apparitions.

24:12

So where are the things that I've

24:14

noticed And I have your book here

24:16

When Protestants argue like atheists as it

24:18

when it comes to Marian apparitions, that

24:21

sometimes Protestant sound like. Online.

24:23

Skeptics. Of.

24:26

Yeah. Have you noticed that? and do you think

24:28

it has the potential for undercut their arguments for

24:30

the resurrection? Oh I

24:32

I think it does to say. To.

24:35

Write off right off the sacked

24:37

oh this. These. People.

24:40

Never. Saw. You.

24:42

Know post Mortem air because the

24:44

idea here is, as skeptics will

24:47

say, there are natural explanations for

24:49

the claim that Jesus his Disciples

24:51

saw. The. Post Mortem. Jesus Jesus

24:53

after he died. Now Catholics, it's

24:55

an open question whether Mary died

24:57

We believe she was assumed into

24:59

haven't. Ah, but that may have half

25:02

the majority of theologians say that happened after she

25:04

died, that it's possible she was assumed alive and

25:06

a half and less to says he died for

25:08

simplicity sake. I've

25:11

noticed an intriguing parallel between

25:13

online. Skeptics will make arguments

25:15

against the claims of seeing

25:17

the postmortem Jesus there who

25:20

is is hallucination cunt. You

25:22

know, contagious belief system. These

25:24

are legendary. Appearances never actually

25:26

happened. Ah, Suggestion Things

25:28

like that. And. Then seeing

25:31

Protestants who will take numerous examples of

25:33

apparitions of marry and say all will,

25:35

these are hallucinations, contagion, priming. Some of

25:37

these are ledges and happen or they

25:39

go gave. you could argue that hard

25:41

about people seeing the postmortem Mary. I

25:44

can undercut your your own claim saying we

25:46

should believe the Apostles really did see. The.

25:48

Postmortem Jesus or this is a claim

25:50

Both Hector Abba Los and Bart Ehrman.

25:53

Abdelaziz an atheist airman's more of an agnostic,

25:55

I think. That they

25:57

they make these arguments You believe. Because.

26:00

La times they were engaging Protestants

26:02

apologists William Lane Craig, Michael Kona,

26:04

Gary Habermas and they often times

26:06

I find in the. I

26:08

will say as I do feel lonely when I'm

26:11

out doing the resurrection arguments. I'm doing this guy

26:13

stuff. I feel like I'm surrounded by a sea

26:15

of Protestants doing a lot of this research and

26:17

work on these arguments. and then I'm like the

26:19

one kathak like a where we out here doing

26:22

some of the stuff as I feel like it's

26:24

geared towards them and so Abelow Son erm and

26:26

will say to the Protestants. You. Know

26:28

you, it's. The. Same reasons you don't believe

26:30

in marian apparitions. That's why I don't believe

26:32

in the appearance that posts resurrection appearances of

26:34

Jesus and I could I trust with the

26:36

middle of say no, I think they're both

26:38

sell it. Does it mean I think every

26:40

single claim every time somebody sees Mary and

26:42

a piece of toast or Jesus and a

26:44

piece of toast as legitimate. But.

26:47

I am certainly my worldview lousy to be more

26:49

open so I think there are many protestants they

26:51

connect the bite the bullet in the say yeah,

26:53

you're right, The. Same standards I

26:56

use to affirm that people really

26:58

did see the postmortem sees us.

27:00

I've got it from these people. Saw the postmortem

27:02

marry. Well. Now.

27:04

What am I do with that If you have

27:07

marry appear you people and saying I am the

27:09

Immaculate Conception. That. She's in the nineteenth century.

27:12

There is a O A

27:14

Wonderful Argument is a philosophical paper

27:16

called by I'm Tyler Mcnabb.

27:19

And. Joseph Blago called a modest see

27:21

inductive argument for Catholicism just saying

27:23

that these kinds of marian apparitions.

27:26

These. Are the cause the kind of evidence we

27:28

would expect of Catholicism or true? And so

27:30

it it. Makes. The

27:32

posterior evidence ah more more

27:34

likely to raise for that

27:36

the truth claims of Catholicism.

27:39

Or since your name dropped Tyler. But now

27:41

I will point out that last week he

27:44

was fussy on the channel. We had to

27:46

postpone it's issue beyond sometime early next year.

27:48

So stay tuned for that's where he's gray.

27:50

You decimal deathly stating they interview his. He

27:52

solid. Yeah. So I had sale Allison on

27:55

recently as. Nice as seem

27:57

to suggest. You know, Some. of

27:59

the evidence for the Marian Ephesians, he doesn't seem to know

28:01

what to do with it. But

28:03

he seems more open-minded. But then

28:06

there's somebody like Mike Lacona, who I've seen

28:08

imply that the Marian Ephesians may be due

28:10

to demonic activity. And I asked Dale about

28:12

that, and Dale said, he's

28:14

not comfortable doing that just because they

28:17

attributed the demonic activity to Jesus. So why would he

28:19

do that with the Marian Ephesians? What do you make

28:21

of that? I think

28:23

Dale's being very honest here in that regard.

28:26

I do talk about that when I say

28:28

some Protestants. I think Mike is right when

28:30

he says, look, if I'm using the same

28:33

historiographical principles, and I'm looking at

28:35

these people who made this claim, they were in a position

28:37

to know it's true, you have

28:39

groups of people who claim to have seen

28:42

Mary at the same time, like

28:44

the children of Fatima, for example.

28:47

And this is something that I've put forward. I'm going to do

28:50

more research on this, really nail it down, about

28:52

the unlikelihood of groups hallucinating

28:56

the same thing. To

28:59

say it seems like if you were

29:01

an honest Protestant, that you

29:04

would have to agree that in

29:06

several Marian apparition cases, these

29:08

are veridical experiences that people at

29:11

least saw something. It was

29:13

not a purely private religious experience they

29:15

had. So you might say, fine,

29:17

it just appeared to be Mary, but it was

29:19

actually a demonic impersonation. And I think Dale makes

29:21

a good point here. If you're going to say,

29:23

well, it's demonic, why would

29:25

you say it's demonic? Well, because

29:27

these Marian apparitions are teaching false

29:29

doctrines, for example, like veneration of

29:31

the saints and seeking intercessory prayer.

29:34

And if they're teaching false doctrines, then they

29:36

have to be demonic. Okay,

29:39

well, then that gets

29:41

you a little bit problematic there. How

29:44

do you know that the doctrines are false? Maybe

29:46

it's just the case that you're

29:49

incorrect about the falsehood

29:51

of these particular doctrines, and

29:54

that the apparitions actually are genuine. So

29:57

I think that you're right that Jesus,

29:59

people. said he does,

30:01

people said of Jesus, oh, will he

30:04

cast out demons by the Prince of demons? Jesus's

30:06

reply was, okay, why,

30:09

how does that make sense? I mean, that's my

30:11

dynamic translation. Why is Satan

30:14

undermining himself? Why

30:17

would the devil choose

30:19

to impersonate Mary, to

30:24

encourage people to become Catholic? I

30:26

do find that this explanation puts you, it's

30:29

kind of funny, it kind of separates you into one

30:31

of two camps. Because I think many Protestants today who

30:35

don't engage in polemics against Catholicism,

30:37

see Catholics as just fellow Christians.

30:39

We work together, we're

30:42

both engaging secularism. And

30:44

I know many Protestant apologists who would

30:46

say Catholics are Christians, Catholicism, it's just

30:48

another denomination that I don't agree with.

30:50

Like you might have an evangelical Protestant

30:52

who says, yeah, I'm not Catholic, but

30:54

I'm not a Calvinist. It's just theology

30:56

I disagree with. But

30:59

I find that it's very hard to slot Catholicism

31:01

into that point. Because if these apparitions

31:04

are the case, the devil doesn't just

31:06

pull out all the stops to get

31:08

people to join a mistaken theological belief.

31:11

It would seem like that only two

31:13

groups could be right at this point. Either

31:15

Catholics are right that the Marian

31:17

apparitions that are approved are genuine, or

31:21

extremely anti-Catholic Protestants who

31:23

say Catholicism is not

31:25

Christian, it is demonic,

31:27

it is diabolical. So

31:30

I think this argument is interesting is it

31:32

kind of separates you, now you gotta kind of pick

31:34

one of the two. Do you think it's diabolical and

31:36

demonic? And if you're not willing to say that of

31:38

Catholicism, it seems like you have to be pushed a

31:40

little bit more towards that it

31:42

just actually is genuine. You don't have a nice

31:45

like middle ground between the two. So

31:48

I know I saw a clip once that I think Pine

31:50

Creek Doug tried to use to

31:52

get under the skin of Protestants. I think it was

31:55

you. You said something along the lines

31:57

of that. You think that there's better evidence for

31:59

some of the Marian. The other reasons than

32:01

the resurrection. Can you clarify

32:03

that? Yeah, so that was when

32:05

Dog and I had a debate

32:07

on the resurrection and of. By.

32:10

The way I do want to say that are

32:12

among my list so of non si es. People

32:15

that I enjoy watching. Ah, I

32:17

will put Dog and Pine Creek a

32:19

very high up there. I do

32:21

find him to breed. Pretty. Humorous

32:24

us they didn't take itself too seriously

32:26

and is willing to push back against

32:28

atheists. When. They are

32:30

being when they're being ridiculous and that

32:33

he holds you actually Conservatives. This ends

32:35

on. On. Several issues why I

32:37

do, so you actually appreciate that.

32:39

But yes, we were having we're

32:41

having a debate on the Resurrection

32:43

of Jesus. And. I think he has

32:45

brought up this point before with Protestants so I

32:47

think it has more of an effect on them

32:50

then what on me for them? Catholic saying? You

32:52

know if you know, if you believe in. Ah,

32:54

That users the know, why not believe

32:57

in the miracle of Son of Saddam

32:59

Of the idea that you know. Thousands

33:01

of Portuguese Catholics assembled and saw the

33:03

Son. Of moving and

33:05

erratic ways in the sky

33:08

and people who is. Where.

33:10

It was raining outside. People's clothes tried like

33:12

almost instantaneously. Things like that's what I said

33:15

in the debate would Die Was at. I,

33:17

I said there's more evidence for

33:19

Fatima in the Resurrection than immediately

33:22

after I qualified it to say

33:24

in some respects. So in some

33:26

respects like we look at the evidence

33:28

for Jesus his resurrection. The.

33:31

Earliest. So like the

33:33

say the event happened in the year. A.

33:35

D Thirty Three. Guys. Are

33:38

the first the the earliest attestation

33:40

of that event. If

33:43

you're being generous, would be five years

33:45

later. When. you

33:47

have the riding down of a

33:49

creed discussing the resurrection appearances that would

33:51

later be quoted in paul's first letter

33:54

to the grenadines for sprint the

33:56

and fifteen soon as the most generous

33:58

people would say the Atastation

34:00

of the post resurrection appearances was five years

34:02

after this after the fact now

34:05

that the the miracle of the Sun of Fatima

34:07

Was recorded in newspapers like the next day So

34:09

we have better evidence in that

34:12

respect in that the attestation of

34:14

the event is really really close

34:16

To the event itself. Nobody doubts The

34:20

veridicality of the event that no, sorry. Nobody

34:22

doubts that the event happened

34:24

and requires explanation. It's not just it's

34:26

not like Saying

34:28

that the miracle the Sun took place

34:30

in medieval Europe in the year 840

34:33

and the first person to write about it

34:35

was a monk in the year 1100 like

34:38

something like that You could you could say there's good

34:40

reason to think that that that it never really happened

34:42

in the first place You can't really do that with

34:45

Fatima Now

34:47

there's other evidence for the resurrection you don't have a

34:49

Fatima like you have this sincerity of

34:51

the Apostles their willingness to risk

34:53

Martyrdom you don't have

34:55

that element in the Fatima appearances

34:58

So there are different elements, but

35:00

I do think that if you are moved by

35:02

the evidence of the resurrection I think the evidence

35:05

for various Catholic miracles Should

35:07

also move you now an objection one

35:09

might raise you you might say fine

35:11

but Trent there are Protestants who do

35:13

miracles there are you know Protestants who

35:16

Miraculously heal people it's claimed or have

35:18

done certain things So

35:21

there are claims of Protestant

35:23

miracles doesn't that undercut Catholicism?

35:26

I don't think so because if a Protestant

35:28

were to perform a miracle in the post-apostolic

35:30

age That could just be

35:32

God affirming theology that Catholics agree with

35:34

like Jesus is Lord Jesus

35:36

has commissioned people to do his will But

35:39

if you have things like you know the

35:41

Fatima miracles Eucharistic miracles That's affirming very specific

35:43

theology that I would say is incompatible of

35:46

Protestantism All right,

35:49

so let's move on from Marian apparitions one

35:51

of the things that I've noticed online with

35:54

like philosophically minded Atheists

35:56

that I know you're familiar with is

35:58

they seem to have an interest and Christian

36:01

universalism. So can somebody be a

36:03

faithful Catholic and be a Christian universalist? It

36:10

depends what you mean by a universalist.

36:14

If you mean that it

36:17

is definite that

36:19

all people, all creatures will

36:23

be in heaven for all eternity. If it's

36:25

definite that all creatures go to heaven eventually,

36:27

I would say

36:29

that that view would not

36:32

be possible for Catholics. Early

36:34

ecumenical councils condemned pretty

36:37

similar views held by the ecclesial writer

36:39

Origen. So I would

36:42

say that universalism in the definite sense

36:44

of saying that all human beings

36:46

will definitely go to heaven. It's

36:49

a fact. I would say that that's a view

36:51

that Catholics would not be able to hold. You

36:53

could hold a view. It's been

36:56

called hopeful universalism, but I know people who

36:58

hold it, they don't prefer that descriptor. They

37:00

might call it the dare we hope view.

37:02

It's based on the writings of the

37:05

late Cardinal. Sorry, he didn't become

37:07

a Cardinal. Actually, he was not nominated

37:09

to it. Hans Urz von Balthasar. And

37:13

this view has also been popular among people like Bishop

37:15

Robert Barron. And it's the idea that

37:18

it's theoretically possible because the

37:20

church only infallibly teaches who's

37:22

in heaven, not who's in

37:24

hell. It is

37:26

possible, though incredibly unlikely,

37:28

it's possible that not

37:31

everyone died in mortal sin, that everyone

37:33

was, you know, people are invincibly ignorant or God's

37:36

able to purify them of sin. They don't die

37:38

in a way that precludes them. God

37:40

gives them sufficient grace. There's a way God

37:42

has made it so all people can be

37:44

saved, even if we don't understand it. I

37:46

would say that's a view that has very

37:49

low probability, but

37:51

it is one that has bare

37:53

possibility. And so one could hold out

37:55

for that view if you say, well, I

37:58

don't see how I could be Christian. unless

38:01

there is this minuscule

38:03

possibility out there for God

38:05

to make right

38:07

what I think has been wrong. I

38:10

think that they could be Christian as long as they

38:12

consign it to a lower level of probability, not

38:17

a definite level of foreseeability.

38:22

So what about annihilationism? Can you be an

38:24

annihilationist and be a faithful Catholic? I

38:27

would say that the weight

38:29

of the tradition is very

38:31

heavily against annihilationism. What

38:33

is difficult here is that annihilationism would

38:35

be the view that the damned are...

38:41

Some people do not go to heaven, but

38:43

their fate in

38:46

hell is eternal

38:49

but not conscious. So they have an

38:51

unending fate, if you will, or at

38:53

least they will not have an

38:56

unending conscious torment. They will not

38:58

have an unending conscious fate in

39:01

hell. They will experience

39:03

hell and then they will cease

39:05

to exist. They will be annihilated.

39:08

I am not aware of a magisterial

39:10

statement that has condemned

39:12

annihilationism. It's a fairly

39:15

newer view. I actually read

39:17

that there was an anthology put out called

39:19

The Catholic Guide to Annihilationism that attempted to

39:21

argue for some of it among the church

39:23

fathers. It's somewhat of a

39:26

newer view. It was made popular by

39:28

a Protestant pastor named Edward Fudge. There's

39:31

actually a movie based on him called... I

39:34

think it's called Hell and Mr. Fudge. I

39:36

think Sean Astin might

39:39

play Mr. Fudge and he put

39:41

forward this annihilationist view. I think

39:43

he was writing

39:45

about it back in the 60s and he's probably done

39:48

the most definitive treatment of it. So

39:50

it's a newer view. The church has a

39:52

lot of statements on hell and I feel

39:54

like if you squint really hard you can

39:58

cohere them with annihilationism. that

40:00

you know you're that the fate of

40:02

the damned is that they are eternally

40:04

separated from God which is kind of

40:06

true for the annihilated but

40:09

yeah I feel like it's

40:11

when you look at the tradition and

40:13

the magisterial statements teaching about hell I

40:17

would say it leans heavily against I'm

40:19

not I'm not there's there's no infallible

40:21

teaching against that view and

40:24

I'm not aware of a specific magisterial

40:26

teaching confronting it because it

40:28

is somewhat new among Protestants but

40:30

I would say it's it would

40:33

it would be a difficult one to hold as

40:35

a Catholic but not necessarily impossible okay

40:38

so let's talk about a hot-button issue LGBTQ

40:41

rights sure so

40:44

you obviously are coming

40:46

at this from a conservative stance where somebody

40:48

like me who maybe has liberal

40:51

views they may struggle with the Catholic position

40:53

on l LGBTQ issues maybe they're gay or

40:55

they're trans or they have friends or family

40:57

who are this is a major stumbling block

41:00

for them what would you say to them

41:03

well what I would say is that

41:05

when you look at what the

41:08

Catholic Church teaches you look at paragraphs 23 57

41:10

and 23

41:13

58 you have to make a distinction

41:15

between persons who have various orientations or

41:18

identities various attractions and identities and particular

41:21

sexual acts and

41:24

it's important to make a distinction between the two for

41:27

example take when it comes

41:29

to the sin of sodomy for example when

41:31

it comes to the sin of engaging in

41:33

intentional ejaculation

41:36

orally or anally the

41:39

people who commit that sin the most

41:42

are people who have opposite sex numerically

41:44

I should say the people who would

41:46

commit that sin the most are people

41:48

who have opposite sex attractions not

41:50

same-sex attractions so the

41:52

teachings about the ordering of our

41:54

sexuality it is not meant to

41:57

Designate a particular group of people.

42:00

As others are less than human, were

42:02

worthy of particular score and and other

42:04

people as is fine and dandy and

42:06

whatever they do. Ah, Numerically

42:09

the people that misuse sexuality them

42:11

the most or be those with

42:13

opposite sex attractions and acting like

42:15

that doesn't happen. Ah, Is.

42:18

It's. Not good at all of us are called.

42:21

To use our sexual powers in it

42:23

and an ordered way. We're also called

42:25

to treat one another with respect, compassion,

42:28

and sensitivity. So the Catechism The

42:30

Catholic Church says. That.

42:32

Ah, those with these attractions must be

42:35

accepted with respect and passion and sensitivity.

42:37

Every sign of unjust discrimination in their

42:39

regard should be avoided. Server example, I

42:41

remember back in the Nineteen eighties or

42:44

back he says he was an outside

42:46

of Washington. There. Were a

42:48

group of nuns who are running

42:50

a hospice for men who were

42:52

dying of Aids during the Aids

42:55

epidemic. Ah was interesting. Actually was

42:57

Aids. Was. First called

42:59

Ritz, it was called Gay related Immune

43:01

Deficiency Syndrome Grids than later was called

43:03

it was called Aids. I'm people weren't

43:05

sure exactly how was spread you know

43:07

So there was this concern. Like any

43:09

close contact you get Aids and last

43:11

Sigma in So people with Aids as

43:13

the at that time are treated like

43:15

lepers. Many of them were many of

43:18

them who are acquiring this were self

43:20

identified gay men. And so

43:22

these nuns were caring for these gay

43:24

men as a hospice with many were

43:26

banned by their families and you

43:28

had people who are protesting nuns doing

43:31

this in their residential neighborhood calling it

43:33

a public health hazard. And I

43:35

would say that's a beautiful example of

43:37

treating some with respect, compassion and sensitivity.

43:40

Exactly how Christ with would treat

43:42

someone and not that's to deny medical

43:44

care for someone because of their sexual

43:46

orientation. That to me would certainly

43:48

be an example of what book recall

43:51

homophobia. Now that being said,

43:54

When. we address the issue single

43:56

isn't homophobic to say sexual acts in

43:58

person's the same said are wrong. Here

44:01

I would just challenge people. I

44:03

understand that it's a contentious issue. For

44:06

me, when I look at it philosophically, I need

44:08

to take a step back. And

44:10

I did this once actually I was at a college and

44:12

I was giving a talk on homosexuality and some atheists came

44:14

up to me and said, we don't like your, you know,

44:17

well, actually what they said was we

44:19

liked your talk, we were going to protest. And

44:21

during Q&A, we had all these questions about

44:24

Leviticus, but you didn't bring up the Bible

44:26

ones, you just talked philosophy. And I said, yeah, that's right.

44:28

It's a philosophical issue for me. So what I

44:30

did with them is I took two pieces of paper. And I

44:32

and I said, let's write down sexual acts,

44:35

you know, sex between married couples,

44:37

sex between a same sex couple, sex between

44:39

an adult and a child, non consensual sex.

44:42

And then we start writing other things. What

44:44

about inset, incestual acts? What about acts

44:46

with humans and animals, humans and robots, and we're writing

44:48

it all down. And I said, all right, so we

44:50

got all these sexual acts here on this paper. I

44:53

think our goal is to write a

44:56

draw a fence around the acts that

44:58

are permissible, and the acts

45:00

that are forbidden. And we're going to disagree

45:02

about where we draw those circles. But

45:04

I said to them for me, like it seems like

45:06

you and I agree, especially on these more disordered acts,

45:09

animals, non humans,

45:11

incest, and also

45:13

talking about when sex is is just bad

45:15

as a virtue beyond just

45:17

consent. Like I think many people with

45:19

their sexual morality is just consenting adults.

45:22

That's just like bare minimum,

45:25

that I think a lot of people see that a committed

45:28

sexual relationship is morally

45:30

better than it is more

45:32

virtuous than just like a one night stand. But how

45:34

do we explain these things? And I said

45:36

to them for me, if sex

45:39

makes sense, is that which unites men and

45:41

women to each other. And that's

45:43

when it's ordered because it's because it's ordered

45:46

towards procreation and unity of the spouses. That

45:49

Really gives me a good handle to

45:51

understand why these other sexual behaviors are

45:53

disordered beyond. just kind of a yuck

45:55

factor. Now I'm being very clear, I

45:58

Am not saying sexual relations. Between

46:00

two men are two. Women are morally

46:02

on par or of the same kind

46:04

of thing as some other sexually disordered

46:06

acts. I am not saying that. What

46:08

I'm saying is that when you take

46:10

a step back. It becomes difficult

46:12

to draw a wider circle of permissible

46:15

sexuality without including things that are that

46:17

are fairly disorders. This came up actually

46:19

in my discussion with Our Destiny and

46:21

Jasmine Jaffar on the Whatever podcast are

46:24

a few days ago and they had

46:26

they kind of to bite the bullet

46:28

on be Cod, incest and and other

46:30

things but. If. You're seeking another

46:32

a neither way to see sexuality as

46:35

ordered. I think we're going to see

46:37

it confined to the context of. Men

46:40

and women as such as the sexual

46:42

act to there was a couple recently

46:45

to man i forget their names are

46:47

top my head but. They. were

46:49

showing like. Holding. Two babies

46:51

to twin boys they had adopted. Through

46:54

surrogates, And that's is. Really?

46:57

Breaks my heart because I believe

46:59

that children. Have. A

47:01

right. To. Their

47:04

mother and their father and a

47:06

child should only be deprived of

47:08

their biological mother and father in.

47:11

Extreme situations like the mother and father

47:14

does answer to care for them. but

47:16

when you separate sex from the male

47:18

female union and dynamic. I

47:20

think it leads many of these other disordered things that

47:22

to me is. Where. One can start

47:25

the dialogue on. Those. Who

47:27

are not religious and are looking at

47:29

catholicism? I think it's about taking that

47:31

larger step back. When his sex ordered,

47:33

when is it disordered Have because both

47:36

sides. As. Answer that question So I

47:38

know that was a lot there. And it's

47:40

controversial by hope that obesity since starting. Point.

47:43

Okay, sumlin of bring up a tweet

47:45

that I've posted recently. Sir.

47:49

So. Just for contacts. I work at

47:51

a Catholic hospital and I'm so I

47:53

said liquids hanging in our department's office

47:55

at the Catholic Hospital I work at.

47:59

a sauna So one of the things

48:01

that I've noticed is There's

48:04

a perception that say Pope Francis

48:06

has softened the church's stance on

48:09

same-sex issues and

48:12

a lot of the Catholics that I know Aren't

48:15

as conservative as say you are or even

48:18

like the the church is historic teaching

48:20

Real life real life is a lot

48:22

different than Catholic Twitter. Yeah,

48:24

so what would you say? What would

48:26

you say to the folks who think? That

48:30

actually the church is becoming softer on

48:32

these these issues Yeah,

48:35

I do think it's no Secret

48:39

that many people identify

48:41

as Catholics who reject

48:45

Some of the church's teachings on

48:47

morality or sexual morality or other

48:49

teachings human beings are imperfect For

48:52

a variety of reasons. We have

48:54

cognitive imperfections. We are susceptible

48:56

to irrationality

49:00

For believing things without great reasons for

49:02

believing things because we want to be

49:04

empathetic for example believing things for emotional

49:06

reasons There's a whole host of psychological

49:09

biases you can describe why people will

49:11

believe something That is just

49:13

not true because they have an emotional bias towards

49:15

it or something else like that

49:18

So you're right. You're going to have people identify

49:20

as Catholic who see nothing wrong

49:22

with same-sex behavior who think abortion Is

49:25

morally permissible And here

49:28

with those individuals I challenge them like what

49:30

is your ultimate framework for ethics? Philosophically

49:32

and theologically is it what

49:35

God told us is it what we can

49:37

know from reason rather than just emotional appeals?

49:40

I think many times I have conversations with these people they

49:42

start to see the incoherence

49:44

of rejecting their reasonable

49:46

inferences or the inference from divine

49:48

revelation and just going from purely

49:52

Emotional experiences and that's that's

49:54

very difficult because throughout human

49:56

history Even in

49:58

the modern age you have people, they

50:00

have defended things that were immoral because

50:03

they had an emotional bias. In the

50:05

20th century, for example, it was legal

50:07

in this country. The Supreme Court in

50:10

Buck versus Bell upheld

50:12

the right of the state to

50:14

forcibly sterilize people against their will.

50:17

And even if the church spoke out

50:19

against bioethical wrongs,

50:24

the wrongness of sterilization, whether it's

50:26

voluntary or involuntary, you would have

50:29

people just saying, yeah, but I just

50:31

can't, why would we have a world

50:33

with these imbeciles in it? And it's

50:35

just better for society overall. And of

50:37

course, things like segregation or racial

50:40

segregation, other issues related

50:42

to antebellum slavery. You

50:45

had people who get caught up in the zeitgeist, and

50:48

even some people within the church who get caught up

50:50

in it. So I do

50:52

think that Pope Francis, what he is trying very hard

50:54

to do is to move

50:56

away from just the discourse about

50:59

sexual activity being just about

51:01

sexual acts, and looking

51:03

at the person in all of

51:05

their psychological complexity, their

51:08

social complexity, understanding

51:11

different levels of culpability that people

51:13

have for sexual acts and

51:15

understanding where they're coming from, how they

51:17

could have been. And a

51:19

lot of times Pope Francis, he'll

51:22

say something to be compassionate, and it gets taken

51:25

the wrong way. Like when he's, I think he

51:27

said once, for example, that same sex people, children

51:30

have a right to a family, and they think

51:32

he's saying, oh, he's talking about surrogacy and

51:34

these kinds of surrogate adoptions. No, he

51:37

is condemned things. He says gender

51:39

ideology is an evil form of

51:42

colonialism. He has

51:44

repeatedly affirmed marriage as a union of a man

51:46

and a woman. In that context, when

51:48

he said people have same sex people with attractions

51:50

of right to a family, what he's saying is

51:52

like, don't kick out your child and put him

51:54

on the street. And many people

51:57

who, many teens who are homeless,

51:59

many Many of them identify

52:01

as LGBT and they're

52:03

homeless because their parents forcibly kicked them out

52:05

of the home, which I would

52:07

say that a child should never be

52:09

kicked out of the home and put on the street.

52:12

They should only be removed from the home if

52:15

they are a danger to other people at the

52:17

home, whether a moral or physical danger. So if

52:19

you have a child who is, I'm going to

52:21

sell drugs and I don't care, or I'm going

52:23

to have sex with opposite sex

52:25

or same sex and I don't care, and they're

52:27

a bad example of their siblings, maybe

52:30

they need to go and stay with their grandparents for

52:32

a bit or another relative, not just be put out

52:34

on the street or something like that. So

52:36

I think that the Pope is really

52:38

trying to reach out to people on

52:40

that human level and get past just

52:43

the sniping and the stereotypes. But

52:45

you're right, there are Catholics who don't hold to

52:48

this church teaching, but whether the teaching is true

52:50

is not dependent on how many

52:52

people believe it. It's dependent

52:54

on just whether it is

52:56

true and are there good reasons to believe it's true?

52:59

And I do think there are. Okay,

53:01

so we got a question from JB.

53:04

He says, as a philosopher, if moral

53:06

intuitions disagree with the biblical church teachings,

53:08

are the church or intuitions wrong? Sure.

53:11

And I think that in order to answer this

53:13

question, we have to look at how church

53:17

teachings have different levels of authority.

53:20

So things that Catholics believe at the lowest

53:22

level of authority would be permissible.

53:24

So there are some things that the

53:27

church has not said no on, at

53:29

least not yet, but allows

53:32

it to be permissible. So

53:34

for example, the church

53:37

allows at this point, it allows

53:39

people to adopt human

53:41

embryos who have been abandoned. These are

53:43

called snowflake babies. So human embryos that

53:46

have been abandoned by their parents and

53:48

left in cryopreservation, the church

53:50

does not have a teaching about what are

53:53

the only appropriate ways for helping these

53:55

children. Must they remain in

53:57

cryopreservation or can they be adopted

53:59

not as a means just to treat infertility,

54:01

but for the good of the embryo so

54:03

they don't have to be in cryopreservation indefinitely

54:05

forever. Some

54:08

people might have a moral intuition, well,

54:10

look, if surrogacy is wrong, this isn't that

54:12

different than surrogacy. I just

54:14

have an intuition this is wrong. We

54:17

shouldn't be intervening in this way. In

54:20

that case, they might even think

54:22

that the church allowing this permissible,

54:24

they might have a moral objection to. That's

54:28

okay for them to have. This is something that's permissible. It

54:30

might change later. That's the lowest level of church

54:32

authority. But as you get higher

54:35

within the church's teachings, your ability

54:37

to dissent and disagree based on

54:39

your moral intuitions gets lower and

54:41

lower. So you have, for example,

54:44

doctrine, things that are taught that require the religious

54:46

submission of mind and will. These

54:48

are teachings that Catholics must

54:51

obey, but they are

54:53

not morally at fault if they privately

54:55

are unable to accept it. So for

54:57

example, the church's prohibition on in vitro

55:00

fertilization, this is

55:02

taught at the level of doctrine. And

55:04

so what it requires of the faithful is that they

55:08

cannot engage in the act or

55:10

publicly dissent against the teaching, but

55:14

they can privately hold their doubts about whether

55:16

they can dissent to think this is wrong.

55:19

I don't agree, but I'm going

55:21

to respect what the church has taught and I'm not going to

55:23

do this. I'm not going to argue against

55:25

it. But in my own heart, I

55:27

don't agree with that. Then

55:29

the highest level of the teaching would

55:31

be infallible teachings, especially those that are

55:33

dogma, ones that the church

55:36

infallibly teaches as being a part

55:38

of divine revelation. That's something one

55:40

must believe, or you're held morally

55:42

accountable. One must believe Jesus

55:44

is the Son of God. So if you have a

55:47

moral intuition that, for

55:49

example, a

55:52

good God would never create a world

55:54

like this, so God must not be

55:56

perfectly good, you cannot

55:58

as a Catholic hold that moral intuition because

56:01

the Church infallibly teaches as part

56:03

of divine revelation that God is

56:05

good, God created a good world,

56:07

and God permits or allows evil

56:10

for good reasons. So your level

56:12

of... So it's important to remember

56:14

that moral intuitions are also... I

56:16

am not an infallibleist of moral

56:18

intuitions. They are a decent guide

56:21

to get the discussion started.

56:24

They are necessary for many moral disagreements

56:27

and discussions, but moral intuitions themselves are

56:29

not infallible. They can be defeated. We

56:31

just have to make sure we have

56:34

sufficient evidence in order to defeat them.

56:36

But if the evidence against the intuition

56:39

is infallibly defined

56:42

teaching of the Church, including moral teaching. So

56:44

for example, I would say the Church infallibly

56:47

teaches that prostitution is immoral. Now

56:49

there's a dispute about whether it

56:51

should be legal or not. Augustine

56:53

and Aquinas said, maybe it should

56:55

be legal so the world isn't

56:57

convulsing with lust. I think

56:59

that's an impredential judgment that doesn't hold

57:01

up today because prostitution is linked

57:04

with increased sex trafficking, abuse and exploitation

57:07

of women and children. But if they

57:09

saw the stats today, they'd agree it

57:11

should be illegal. But the morality of

57:14

the act, that's something that's infallibly

57:16

taught to be wrong. Sex is not

57:18

something. It's wrong to sell sex

57:20

among people. It's a gift between men and women.

57:23

No moral intuition contrary could ever tell

57:26

you that it's good. So it's

57:28

going to depend in that regard. Okay,

57:31

so final question. What advice would

57:34

you give to the potential theists out there like

57:36

myself? Well,

57:39

I would say continue

57:42

being open-minded. I

57:45

guess advice just like in general or what

57:48

do you? Yeah, just in general.

57:51

I would say be careful

57:54

about this mindset. I think

57:56

some people are

57:58

more worried about believing. something that's

58:01

false, then failing to

58:03

believe something that's true. So I remember

58:05

once, like I was debating Matt Dillahunty,

58:07

and I think he said something

58:09

like, my belief system, what I try to do with my

58:11

epistemology is he said, I try

58:13

to maximize my true beliefs

58:15

and minimize my false beliefs.

58:17

The problem with that approach is

58:19

that those are actually exclusive.

58:22

They're goals that tend away from each

58:24

other. So for example, you

58:26

could maximize your true beliefs by just

58:28

believing every single thing that's told to

58:30

you. You will probably have the most

58:32

number of true beliefs if you just believe everything

58:34

people tell you. The problem with that approach is

58:36

that your life's gonna be very unwieldy because you

58:39

have a ton of false beliefs also mixed in

58:41

there. And then conversely,

58:44

if you want to minimize false beliefs, you could

58:46

just say, I'm never gonna believe anything people tell

58:48

me. Now you're gonna have very

58:50

few false beliefs, but

58:52

you're hardly gonna have any beliefs at all. You're gonna miss

58:54

out on many good things. And I

58:56

think for many non-theists, there's a concern that becoming

58:59

Christian, you know, well

59:02

what if I believe something that's false? Yeah, there are

59:04

problems with that. But there's also

59:06

the problem of failing to believe

59:08

something that's true that has very

59:10

good and important consequences for you.

59:13

So I would just

59:15

say to remain open-minded, to not

59:18

think that you have, in order to

59:20

make a decision for atheism or Christianity,

59:22

you have to comprehensively be able to

59:24

answer every objection to each side. Nobody

59:26

can do that. But

59:29

I would recommend, especially if you're potential

59:31

and you're on the fence, if

59:33

you are on the fence and

59:36

you emotionally want Christianity to

59:38

be true, then

59:40

I might recommend Pascal's Wager. So a

59:42

lot of times atheists rail

59:44

against Pascal's Wager and I get it if

59:47

it's used to just avoid hell. If it's

59:49

just, hey believe in God because if you're

59:51

wrong, well you'll never know.

59:53

It's just oblivion. If you're right, you

59:55

get heaven. But if you don't believe in

59:57

God and you're wrong, if you're right, you

59:59

won't know. And if you're wrong about atheism, well, you're

1:00:01

gonna go to hell forever. Well, you know, what's the

1:00:04

safe bet? I don't like that

1:00:06

approach. It has all kinds of philosophical problems Pascal's

1:00:08

wager only works for this very

1:00:11

limited person if for you

1:00:13

the only Live options

1:00:15

or atheism is and Christianity other

1:00:18

religions don't make sense If the

1:00:20

only live options are atheism and Christianity one

1:00:23

two you are on the fence, it's 50-50

1:00:26

either way and Three

1:00:28

you want Christianity to be true. It

1:00:31

makes you happy Live

1:00:33

as if it were true Give it

1:00:35

a try and just believe that to

1:00:38

make an analogy. It might be similar

1:00:40

to somebody imagine a philosophical atheist who

1:00:43

struggles with nihilism and you

1:00:46

know is the is Nihilism true

1:00:48

is the world purposeless or is

1:00:50

there purpose or is Antinatalism

1:00:53

true to say is should I

1:00:55

have children or not have children? I'm

1:00:57

just I'm real I'm really on the fence is a good or bad.

1:00:59

Let's stick with I guess maybe like nihilism To

1:01:02

say look if you're on the fence

1:01:05

and you want life to have purpose Live

1:01:07

as if it does you have nothing

1:01:09

to lose and everything to gain By

1:01:12

by living such a good way even if you

1:01:14

can't philosophically refute the nihilist I think there's something

1:01:16

similar Christianity if you want to be true you're

1:01:18

on the fence It's the only live options live

1:01:20

as if it were true Pray,

1:01:22

don't worry if you don't get a call back.

1:01:24

I don't hear audible voices when I pray but

1:01:28

continue exploration and pray and live as

1:01:30

it were true and You

1:01:32

have nothing to lose because there are

1:01:34

sacrifices involved, but there are

1:01:36

also many benefits There's practical benefits to religion.

1:01:38

There are emotional benefits I

1:01:41

think in that case it's good to live

1:01:43

in that way and to just can even if you

1:01:45

don't go that full route continue

1:01:47

to be honest explore and Be

1:01:50

open to the evidence but

1:01:54

Realize, you know, there is a danger

1:01:56

in being agnostic forever. Sometimes

1:01:58

you just it's like the man who

1:02:00

wants to get married and he thinks, yeah, but what if

1:02:02

I marry the wrong woman? And it's safer if

1:02:05

I never marry anybody. Yeah, but

1:02:07

there's also a cost if you stay a bachelor your whole

1:02:09

life and you live in your dingy studio apartment and

1:02:11

you never married the wrong person, maybe

1:02:13

you also missed out on many people who are

1:02:16

right or satisfactory and missing

1:02:18

out on things that are true, good, and beautiful

1:02:20

is also a harm. And I wouldn't want any

1:02:22

potential theists to do that. All

1:02:24

right, Trent, thank you so much for joining me on

1:02:26

Potential Theism today. Thank you guys so

1:02:29

much for listening and if you

1:02:31

want more great content definitely consider

1:02:33

supporting us here at Trent Horn

1:02:35

podcast.com