Faith and Reason w/ Jimmy Akin | Pints with Aquinas Episode
Вставка
- Опубліковано 3 тра 2020
- In this episode of Pints with Aquinas, Matt interviews Jimmy Akin on "faith & reason."
Learn more about Jimmy at jimmyakin.com/
Among other things they discuss:
- The problem with fideism and rationalism
- What Christians mean by faith
- Aquinas' response to the double-truth theory
- Do Catholics have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve?
- The Galileo controversy
----------------------------------------- SPONSORS -----------------------------------------
Hallow: hallow.onelink.me/Q25Y/80833e8
Truly Kindred Candles: shop.trulykindred.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd for 10% off)
Covenant Eyes: www.covenanteyes.com/ (use promo code: mattfradd)
----------------------------------------- GIVING -----------------------------------------
Patreon: / mattfradd
This show (and all the plans we have in store) wouldn't be possible without you. I can't thank those of you who support me enough. Seriously! Thanks for essentially being a co-producer coproducer of the show.
------------------------------------------- LINKS -------------------------------------------
Website: pintswithaquinas.com/
Merch: teespring.com/stores/matt-fradd
FREE 21 Day Detox From Porn Course: www.strive21.com/
------------------------------------------- SOCIAL -------------------------------------------
Facebook: / mattfradd
Twitter: / mattfradd
Instagram: / mattfradd
------------------------------------------ MY BOOKS ----------------------------------------
Does God Exist: www.amazon.com/Does-God-Exist...
Marian Consecration With Aquinas: www.amazon.com/Marian-Consecr...
The Porn Myth: www.ignatius.com/The-Porn-Myt...
------------------------------------------ CONTACT ------------------------------------------
Book me to speak: www.mattfradd.com/speakerrequ...
--
Website - mattfradd.com
Facebook - mattfradd/
Twitter - mattfradd - Розваги
What did you think of the discussion? Jimmy is one of the most brilliant people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing.
I just started watching this, but I can tell it is going to be fabulous. Thanks Matt for your podcasts and I am so glad you and your wife are well. Prayed for you often. And hadn't heard the actual outcome til Jimmy asked you here. God bless.
Jimmy Akin is a G
@@a.juseche3799 if I could call homeboy one thing, it'd be a G 💯
On the topic of evolution, I believe Jimmy Akin is mistaken regarding this being a "Disciplinary" measure. Read Humani Generis 37 and look at the 12th references of the Council of Trent. Cfr. Rom., V, 12-19; Conc. Trid., sess, V, can. 1-4.
@Bunnahabhain in Jimmy's defence, he wasn't arguing anything. He answered questions by Matt which were along the lines of, "How have some tried to square original sin with polygenism?" To which Jimmy replied often, "I'm not stating any personal opinion, but here are some ways people have argued this case" or words to that effect.
Yes! I like a lot Jimmy Akin, and his podcast Mysterious World is amazing specially if you are a Catholic nerd that loves mysteries and science fiction🖒
Eres de CR?
I've loved Jimmy (platonically) from afar for a long time, great to see him on your channel. I found his explanation of the church's standing on evolution and man very informative and well explained. He addressed a lot of things I was wondering about and lots I wasn't aware of before. Great interview!
I could listen to Jimmy all day... of course most of it is over my head, but still, I think you did a great job of reeling him in at times to break things down for Simpletons like myself
This has everything to be amazing.
Looking forward to this interview with Jimmy Atkin!
Also having David Wood from Acts17 Apologetics on pints with Aquainas would be great!
After finding your channel each episode I watch makes me more and more curious about my faith and God on a more intellectual level! God bless you for the work you and your staff do
I've listened to many of your podcasts Matt and really enjoyed all of them, but this one is by far my favourite! So refreshing to hear someone well versed in the sciences amd catholicism talk! Loved this episode and definitely going to check out Jimmy's other stuff!
Stoked. Love Jimmy akin.
Love the reference to JP Moreland... Like him a lot. Great work on truth knowledge and scientism
Whoa! Great to get Jimmy Akin on your show!
Great show. And Jimmy just gained a subscriber!
Great episode, love the new look!
Faith elevates reason on a higher dignity. On the contrary reason without faith becomes just a rule of convenience.
Love the quality
Matt.. off topic but, I recently got some beard oil/balm from Beard Octane.. highly recommend them if you haven't looked into beard products before
Love Jimmy 😃😃😃
Ohhhhhh yeeeeeeahhhhhh (koolade voice). This is gonna be awesome
that was fantastic!
Honest question, What is a more acceptable interpretation of genesis according to doctrine and tradition? That Adam and Eve actually lived hundreds of thousands of years ago, or that “anatomically modern” man pre-existed Adam and Eve?
How doctrinally essential is the timeline, or the completeness of the timeline, to our theology?
That countdown though. So tense.
I agree with Fr. Ripperger that macro-evolution contradicts the logical principles of sufficient reason and proportionate causality and therefore cannot possibly be true, at least on the natural level.
Super interesting episode! The Adam and Eve discussion contained important information, but I detected a significant ambiguity/conflation. Akin is adamant that he is not advocating any particular views on the controversial issue as he makes known what theologians have been talking about. I definitely don't think he intended to mislead anyone. Yet, since it's a complex issue, I can envision Catholics hearing his explanation and getting the wrong impression.
At 55:55 Akin describes “polygenism” as a theory that “there were more than 2 original parents.” Next, he explains the view that there is just one original couple is called “monogenism.”
Then from 58:00 to 1 hr 7 mins, Akin gives a historical survey of the Church’s “development”, “movement”, and “notable shift” on the question of polygenism since Humani Generis.
However, after that, Fradd asks an important follow-up question about how someone could explain Adam and Eve, polygenism, and original sin: “How could they combine them together?” Akin explains “two ways that have been tried.” This is the KEY to the discussion that reveals an ambiguity in the survey from 58:00 to 1 hr 7 mins.
The ‘first way’ Akin explains is what Ed Feser called the “Flynn-Kemp hypothesis” in a well-known blog article he wrote in 2014, see here: edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/12/knowing-ape-from-adam.html
Now, Akin points out that on this hypothesis there **is** an original couple of theological humans (or metaphysical humans) created in the midst of a community of physiologically “human” animals. So, that means all along when Akin was recapping the history of Church “development” and “movement” on the issue, he counted Kemp’s proposal as a type of polygenism. [Note: many would call Kemp's proposal "monogenism" showing there is latitude in how these terms are defined]
The ‘second way’ Akin explains is that Adam and Eve are merely a symbol of the first human community which as a whole turned its back on God. This proposal is problematic and seemingly cannot be squared with Church teaching (*again*, Akin does NOT propose this as a live option for Catholics; he just explains what people have been talking about).
So, all this to point out: It doesn’t follow from Church openness to the ‘first way’ of polygenism (i.e. Kemp’s proposal) that the Church is open to the ‘second way’ of polygenism. Moreover, the ‘second way’ seemingly *cannot* be squared with Catholic orthodoxy that “original sin proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam and which, through generation, is passed on to all and is in everyone as his own.”
Hence, Church openness to polygenism can consistently be viewed in light of the ‘first way’ without implying openness to the ‘second way.' And that, I submit, is what should be done unless and until proponents of the ‘second way’ demonstrate how it can be made orthodox.
Akin (ironically, given his recent book) tries to read magisterial significance in a series of non-magisterial statements; he also invokes several arguments from silence (The CDF reviewed a book and recommended a buncha changes and didn't condemn this thing).
The Church, as all law-making bodies, makes her will known by pre-understood mechanisms. She makes her will known by law, not by us inferring what Vatican policy is from the various musings of newspapers. Those are totally irrelevant on the law. If the pope made a law and tomorrow violated it, it would not be evidence that the law was repealed. If Francis tomorrow proclaimed himself personally an atheist, that would not indicate that there is room for growth on whether God is real.
PiusXII's disciplinary statement seems to stand. Akin doesn't seem to deny that either. It is still not permitted to TEACH it, but as Akin says, one could "explore" the question.
@@claymcdermott718 Re: "It is still not permitted to TEACH it, but as Akin says, one could "explore" the question."
It depends on what you mean by "it" since if "it" refers to (possibly) the Flynn-Kemp hypothesis, then I think that's absolutely fine to teach (and should be taught!). If the "it" refers to the purely symbolic view, then I agree we are not permitted to teach that.
Uff I've been struggling whit the theory of evolution for a while, as a former atheist I can say that I've believed in evolution more time than the time I've been a Catholic, so this has been a really hart topic for me because I think that the Biblical history of Adam and Eve don't support the evolutionary evidence, neither the other way around.
I believe that we as christians shouldn't be afraid of scientific discovery nor lack faith in the Lord, I mean all truth is God's. We just should be honest to the evidence and don't freak out when some thing appears to be contradictory, at the end the truth will make us free.
I recommend the recent podcasts in Capturing Christianity whit Dr. Josh Swamidass talking about evolution he really knows his field in biology.
I hope that at some point this won't be a problem for me at least.
God bless you all, and great podcast as always Matt🖒
I used to be a Deist and I too can say the same thing about belief in evolution. In fact, one of the reasons I left Protestantism in the first place to become a Deist was that they denied evolution. However, I have found peace on the topic after I became Catholic. This video is a good place to start. ua-cam.com/video/mdYg5XFAK8s/v-deo.html&t=
My personal advice is when you are dealing with this particular issue, you really need to make sure that you are relying on Catholic dogma and not information from Protestants, as their interpretive lens is different than ours. Start with Catholic principles and then see what the science says, then reconcile the two or don't. Don't do it the other way around. Another good book is the "Realist's Guide to Religion and Science" by Fr. Paul Robinson found here www.amazon.com/Realist-Guide-Religion-Science/dp/0852449224. He lays down some solid principles for you to start with. Listen to Fr. Ripperger's sermons too though, and I do recommend that video first. Don't think this is a false dichotomy of either believing Young Earth Creationism or Darwinian Evolution. There is a lot in between. But you need those solid Catholic principles first.
God bless!
are we really gonna ignore how good the beard looks good on matt? well he beats trent horn on this
@Matt Fradd I wanted ask about, what is the church's stand on Heliocentric theory currently? As it was taught to be heretical by two popes and isn't it infallible??
Delvin George Was it actually condemned as heresy or just the way it was used?
Hope that you eventually post his answer to the Batman vs Superman question.
Re the Adam and Eve discussion you should have Dr Joshua Swamidass on to discuss his book "The Genealogical Adam and Eve." I'm reading it now and seems to square the current scientific evidence with a real first couple who is the ancestor of us all by distinguishing between genealogic and genetic descent.
Yes, his work is interesting, but some of his hypotheses will not work at all easily in a Catholic view. I interviewed him about it here: www.classicaltheism.com/adam
Get Edward Feser back on
Jimmy akin is the best The skinwalker
the beard makes the accent better
Everyone should read Jimmy Akin's book "The Bible is a Catholic Book" he has some really interesting insights regarding the Sadducees and the Pharisees along with other insights from the middle ages that opened my eyes to just how amazing the Catholic faith is.
On a secondary note, and just to give my opinion as a long-time fan. I'm also addressing this not necessarily just towards Matt but to those making suggestions, but if Matt sees this then I hope I state my opinion clearly enough. I don't understand why everyone wants to see Protestants or schismatics on the show? Aren't we living in a time where things are already extremely unclear? "Dialoging" can be good, but I'm not convinced it does anything, especially when it seems like we are saying that it doesn't matter if they convert anyways *It does.* I'm not saying you do this Matt, but I feel like "Inter-religious dialogue" has become like this in its very nature. I would rather you have someone like Fr. Ripperger or Fr. Paul Robinson on the show rather than schismatic universalists or heretical evangelicals. The original point of this show was to learn more about the Catholic faith not some vague form of Christendom that doesn't exist. Kinda silly doing a show called "Pints with Aquinas" with schismatics and heretics. The Catholic faith is the only true religion and I'm starting to think that needs to be said more explicitly considering the times that we are in. Conversions are way down since the 60s and so are vocations, and belief in the Eucharist. And there is an increase in couples contracepting, acceptance of same-sex "marriages" and 100x more annulments. I just don't think this "New Evangelization" is working. It's time for a change in pace
I couldn't have said it better. Thank you so much
I agree wholeheartedly. I think there is a flipside of the coin though, and I'll use Matt's conversation with the Capturing Christianity guy Cameron Bertuzzi as an example. Matt's viewers are probably going to be dedicated Catholics, but by interviewing these individuals that are coming onto the show to have a good-faith discussion we may be exposing hundreds, if not thousands of non-Catholics to the Catholic Faith. I saw a lot of comments by Protestants on that video thanking Matt and expressing their curiosity with the Catholic Faith since they had never been exposed to it. Now as with all things there's a balance that must be struck, and it'd be a waste for Matt to ONLY interview non-Catholics, but there is value in creating dialogues with these non-Catholic figures in order to reach a broader audience.
you need to add some new playlists, it is difficult to find old long videos like this.
How can polygenism be squared with St. Paul's words that "sin came through one man"?
By saying that Eden was not on Earth
You should get David Bentley Hart on your show
Wait ... was that not DBH who I interviewed? ;)
@@PintsWithAquinas does he always have the posh accent IRL?
Copernicus was a priest too
Matt, doesn't Gen 4:14 and 15 kinda outright require that other humans existed during the time of Adam and Eve. Whom else would God be protecting Cain from?
Keithen Hamilton 2 options exist here:
1) the Bible is full of errors and things that make no sense and shouldn’t be relied upon for historical and biological accuracy
2) we can do a bunch of mental gymnastics to find a way to rationalize these passages because we want god to be real and we don’t want to say the Bible is wrong
Actually I think that the Church could infallibly condemn polygenism despite it being a scientific issue, because when it comes to the official interpretation of a biblical passage the Church is in it's realms of authority.
And also it is pretty questionable that the condemnation of polygenism is just a discipline. Pope Pius condemned polygenism referencing Council of Trent Session V which dogmatically rules out the idea of Adam not being the "first man" whose sin "one in origin, transmitted to ALL by propagation". Also the fact that the Council gave an official interpretation of Romans 5:12 also supports this idea. You can't have both Trent and Polygenism and you cannot be Catholic without holding to Trent's dogmas.
Really interesting, I believe the same think that polygenism is contrary to the faith but also to be fair the history of Adam and Eve is contrary to the evolutionary evidence
@@joelmontero9439 It's almost like evolutionary "evidence" is constantly changing and was propagated to undermine the Catholic Church? Hmm. I wonder why the Freemasons and Communists love the theory so much?
"If we can teach man that he is a beast, then we can teach him that we can treat him like one"
@@joelmontero9439 still it is possible that we all descend from a first unique couple and that cannot be scientifically disproved
I think infallibly condemning something like polygenism would be counterproductive and unnecessary, especially if there are alternates which can reconcile both biological polygenism and original sin descending from one couple.
What I don’t get is why catholics believe in evolution like its 100% true.
There is no real scientific consensus on the matter, there are more scientists who think its wrong then one might think and yet its like everyone is too scared to suggest that maybe evolution isn’t true.
1:18 Matt is thinking intensly......
You know how protestants sometimes object to faith and works by saying that good works is *evidence* of being saved rather than it playing a part in maintaining salvation? I don't know exactly how to respond to that.
There is a possibility that they could be simply stating the Catholic position but in a way that we wouldn't put it and that might be misguided through unnecessary distinctions, but it depends on the denomination. The first issue is "Once saved always saved" if they don't believe that, they might be closer to you than you think. Things get a lot easier once someone realizes that they are not guaranteed salvation.
Works are indeed a product of faith, you cannot buy your way into heaven. You cannot merit anything through works if you have no faith.
Often times Protestants will make up their own definition as to what "Faith" means to mean something like recognizing that Jesus is your savior. But to us Catholics, it is something else, if you don't have works than you don't have faith because they are so tied together. Faith is submission to God's will through everything that he has revealed to us. You exercise that faith through your actions or works. You can also make acts of faith or penitential acts, but those too are works. Faith and works are not to be seen as separate entities but rather two things tied together.
At the end of our life, we will be judged based on our acts or *works* of faith. Our main goal in life should not be to create an idol out of an intellectual belief in Jesus, but rather to imitate him which is how we can show our true faith in Christ. I hope this helps.
Do what Jesus did -- don't answer. (Or rather answer the question they should have asked!) In this case I'd say 'As a Bible-believing Christian, you obviously know what Jesus said about the judgement: he said we'll be judged on what we didn't do. And when Christians desperately cry out to him about all the many wonderful things they did in name, he'll say, 'Go to Hell'.
It's a heresy to believe Adam and Eve never existed.
David Bentley Hart. Plz. Plz you need to talk to him.
You might check this out in regards to evolution and why it is wrong:
ua-cam.com/video/mdYg5XFAK8s/v-deo.html
Plus it would be cool if you could interview Fr. Ripperger. He is an exorcist you know!
If you presuppose that god exists then yes you should seek to encompass both gods (potential) intervention (aka faith) and the natural world......but if you don’t presuppose god exists then there is no use for faith.
And if you say that you must have faith to believe god exists then you just have circular reasoning
Maybe you had a negative result because the prayers worked
Jimmy I have respect for you but the physicist analogy is quite fallacious. Scientist don’t make truth claims. They come to tentative conclusions that can be falsified and changed. If a “relativist” is presented evidence to the contrary if they were intellectually honest they would change their opinion (as we have seen in the development of quantum physics)
Robert Sungenis on Geocentrism ua-cam.com/video/Q6nDDrcbrcc/v-deo.html
As much as I respect Robert Sungenis, I spent a long time looking into this, and I can't in good faith adopt his argument from Galileo was Wrong and his other statements. Much of their claims have been debunked here www.geocentrismdebunked.org/
Find someone better. Akin is not a great mind in the Church.
Yeah ... okay.
I used to really like Jimmy but I cannot stand him now. He is also wrong, it doesn’t have to be a dogma to be infallible.
I cannot stand this new move towards evolution. It is completely at odds with the faith.
It is a dogmatic fact that Adam and Eve are the first humans and our first parents. We can interpret the fall and the garden, but we cannot deny that. Nor can we deny their children. To deny the genealogy is to deny the gospel and the promises of God. You cannot have Christ without the genealogy, and without Christ our faith is a lie.
If we take evolution as truth, we deny Original Sin, we deny that Death entered the world when they fell, which is a dogma defined at ecumenical councils, that the world is fallen because of Adam and Eve, and we deny the Dogma that not only did death for us entered the world, but death for all things, per the Council of Trent. Heck, council of Trent is actually more scientifically accurate when it declared as dogma that all entropy entered the world at the fall, because there exists something called genetic entropy which has been shown to be populations are actually devolving.
Honestly I’m tired of this modernist bull crap.
Also, he is wrong about it not being a matter of faith. It is absolutely a matter of faith. Again, to accept evolution and polygenism is to deny Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, and Christ Himself. There is a reason the Genealogy is there.
It’s a dogmatic fact that Adam and Eve existed otherwise your faith is a lie? Guess your faith is a lie, welcome to atheism.
Let me guess, you think the flood occurred too and encompassed the whole earth in water?
Chris D
So a couple of things:
First, Adam and Eve existed. No point in arguing this point because you cannot prove they did not with science.
Second, my faith isn’t going to waiver because some person tells me that they believe religiously what some scientists (not even all) say. I once believed in evolution, but I don’t anymore, so obviously my faith isn’t built on some fragile notion that scientists have to be right.
And guess what, they are wrong. It is just a hypothesis based on things they cannot prove, and anyone who believes them is basing their belief off of faith in the scientists saying it is true. Have you, with your own eyes, seen proof of evolution? Have you personally conducted the tests?
I recommend looking up Genetic Entropy. It pretty much disproves macro Evolution .
Beyond that, I have no desire to argue with fools, so have a nice day.
@@Arkangilos thanks for getting back to me here. I guess I am just a little confused and maybe you can clear up some confusion:
1) You believe Adam and Eve existed because science doesn't "prove" they DIDN'T exist. Hopefully you realize this is fallacious reasoning (I would look up the "argument from ignorance" fallacy - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance). By your logic I would be justified in believing that pixies started the universe because science hasn't proved me wrong. Do you see how this is problematic reasoning?
2) I dont have any arguments with your second point. You shouldn't waiver your faith because someone believes religiously in science. The two concepts are not mutual exclusive though as Jimmy pointed out. I would encourage you to listen to last week on tuesday's catholic answers show where Jimmy takes a call in (from me) and explains that big bang cosmology isnt at odds with Catholicism.
3) I'm not well versed in Genetic Entropy but I will take a look, thank you for suggesting that. However, keep in mind science doesnt make truth claims nor does it prove or disprove anything. It holds tentative conclusions subject to revision.
4) Your last paragraph is a bit hypocritical, hopefully you can see that. I don't think your God/religion/friends in faith would condone you calling me a fool over the internet simply for having an opinion different than yours. I don't think that is acting in accordance with God's commandments on how to treat others.
Chris D
No, I believe in Adam and Eve because it was revealed by God. I said you can’t prove they didn’t exist.
God says they existed. The Church for 2000 years said they existed. It defined infallibly that they exist. That’s why I believe they exist.
There is no true evidence, only speculation, to the contrary.
Evolution is bunk. Total house of cards. It flys in the face of Scripture and the Council of Trent that... “through ONE man sin entered the world, and thus death spread to all men.” Rom 5:12
These “scientific” theories do nothing but attempt to undermine the Christ and His Church.
Adam and Eve existed, they were our first parents, there’s simply no getting around that. Otherwise Christ being one man could not of been the New Adam. IMO
pimper347 you might appreciate this: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/catholic-stuff-you-should-know/id412678859?i=1000466921332
pimper347 I agree, I suppose God could have created other people after Adam and Eve, in the same manner
already with the stain of original sin to continue the population of earth.
The problem is that believing in the seven day period of creation has been proven false, and before that the geocentric theory, may be we could be more careful whit evolution this time and just have faith in the Lord that at the end faith and reason are from the same God
I used to absolutely loathe when people like you would criticize evolution. When I did the digging and realized much of what I was told in High School was based on ambiguous things that had been debunked I changed my view on this. Fr. Ripperger really started me on this path with his video here ua-cam.com/video/mdYg5XFAK8s/v-deo.html&t
Mea culpa
You may be interested to read about Yale Computer Science professor David Galernter's rejection of a darwinian explanation of evolution: "The origin of species is exactly what Darwin *cannot* explain."
claremontreviewofbooks.com/giving-up-darwin/