Lex Fridman Podcast #304 Bishop Robert Barron

 Lex has had a very large number of Jewish guests during the run of his podcast, and he of course is also Jewish. I think this is one of the things that has kept me interested in the podcast - it sometimes felt like all these various conversations amounted to an investigation into humanity less in general and more in particular, and that happened to overlap with my own identity and amount to an investigation into myself. The very divergent guests that nonetheless shared some key features helps to reveal more of the truth, like a prism whose facets refract light into all of its colors. This included one rabbi that Lex interviewed, which I think opened up a new subseries in the podcast series, one directly investigating religion, that continued with a representative of Catholicism in Bishop Robert Barron. 

The dominant impression I had from the bishop was his fluency with Thomas Aquinas and Church philosophy/theology. When I was younger, I read (or at least tried to read) The History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell, in which a large chunk is dedicated to Christian philosophy, particularly medieval I believe. I actually skipped over this at the time, but it did expose me to the side of Christian thought that is based on Greek philosophers (mostly Aristotle) that engages in the pursuit of a rational basis for the religion in addition to the more typical faith or spiritual basis. Barron repeatedly referenced and quoted Thomas Aquinas, and although I am vaguely aware that he is considered one of the preeminent Christian philosophers, the interview makes me want to get a bit more familiar.

Barron addressed some major questions on the existence of God and God’s willingness to allow evil to pervade the world in largely philosophical terms, again quoting Aquinas. He stated that evil exists for some possibly unknowable greater purpose, and also denied the ability of science to probe questions like God’s existence. Atheist points about the observability of God are irrelevant to the bishop, since God is in some way “outside” of the world. Despite the philosophy, the bishop kept coming back to the point of love, that God is love and God wants us to love and be loved, etc. 

As for Christianity itself, the interview highlights how the religion can seemingly either be used to promote progresive or regressive goals. The final few questions of the interview were questions about topics like abortion and gay marriage, and these directly followed questions about the Christian influence on the United States Founders. Barron pointed out that the ancient Greek philosophers were highly intrigued by the inequality between people and believed that some were “meant” to be leaders and others “meant” to be slaves. Similarly, the Nietzschean prognosis in his “God is dead'' thesis was confirmed in the 20th century to disastrous effect in the deadly transcendent ideologies like Naziism, Communism, and possibly Capitalism, all killing millions. Barron claims the Declaration of Independence statement that “all men are created equal” is uniquely inspired by the Christian concept of the divinity of humans as created by God in God’s image, a kind of Christian humanism. In this way, Barron attributes ideals like equality and humanity to Christianity and claims that settings “before” and “after” Christianity are devoid of these ideals, or at least are settings where these are at risk of being lost, and are mostly subject to the will to power. Figures like Pope Francis also focus on this side of Christianity, the side that advocates for the poor and the sick and curses the wealthy to damnation. 

On the other hand, the questions on social issues veered into more regressive areas. The bishop toed the party line, indicating that gay marriage and abortion are evil or sinful. He stated that the modern American definition of freedom as a form of sovereignty or agency, including over truth, is not freedom at all, but a symptom of the deadly sin of pride. Instead, freedom is the ability to follow through with the “natural” form of one’s creation, bringing one closer to love and God. He illustrated this definition of freedom with an anecdote in which he was trying to communicate to native French speakers in his broken French - he did not feel free because he couldn’t adequately express himself. I suppose the other kind of freedom would be the ability to change the language of discourse or something similar. I do actually have some sympathy for the idea that our modern American individualism is something like a performance enhancing drug, maybe caffeine - extremely enticing and beneficial in the short run, but then some degree of destructive in the longer run. However, the social mores that Catholics have accepted as “natural” or “what God wants” have changed over time. To claim for example, as the Bishop did, that gay sex is against the natural platonic form of human romatic love in a way that suggests that this is, has been, and always will be true is cherry-picking. In other words, the Church imbues temporal social mores with universal moral content and then ossifies into a stubborn conservatism rather than try to connect to the living, breathing, changing mass of humanity. Catholicism didn’t always require celibacy for its priests, for example.

Overall, I think there is still room for Lex to investigate Christianity, and I think he should do so theologically, historically, and otherwise. I think Christianity is one of those things that is pervasive but not clearly understood, at least by me, and I would benefit from understanding it better.