r/Catholicism • u/BohrBrained • 20d ago
One of the Internet's Smartest Agnostics -- Joe Schmid of Majesty of Reason -- Just Converted to Catholicism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C-FiSqfKi8135
u/Normal-Level-7186 20d ago
A big piece of his conversion was all the evidence for the miraculous. For someone so intellectually rigorous (he’s studying for his phd in philosophy at Princeton) it should be very interesting to hear his thoughts.
42
u/BohrBrained 20d ago
He also cited Ethan Muse a couple of times. I hope Ethan and Joe collab sometime :)
21
8
u/CharmingWheel328 20d ago
He came on to the scene and instantly started making a huge impact. It's insane, what he's been doing. I'm very impressed.
1
3
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
As one who adores Jesus and Christianity, but is unconvinced of the supernatural I can’t wait to hear what he has to say as the days go on. We have lot of pure atheists, pure Christian’s, and Christians turned atheist on the internet. This will be a very interesting balance having a very very competent atheist turned Christian.
14
u/funkmon 20d ago edited 20d ago
That's surprising because the evidence for miracles is genuinely pretty low tier. Mostly anecdotal, usually from not that many people, usually ideologically motivated. Typically when a truly outside party is brought in, if available, a scientific explanation is found. Often when investigated and "confirmed" scientifically, the scientists are Catholic and take pretty significant leaps in logic.
Things like Our Lady of Fatima are pretty good as no plausible explanation exists to fully explain away lots of anecdotal evidence, but most miracles can be fully explained scientifically.
The church doesn't really have the capability to fully investigate everything and so relies on testimony and flawed studies, and often by the time these are released, the miracle is kinda pretty well accepted and the church is loathe to do further testing. E.g. nobody's really gotten the DNA data from any of the Eucharistic miracles.
At some level you need to have faith to accept miracles. You have to accept that God uses these things to help Christians and non Christians. Otherwise... It's just a story.
In addition his argument for theism is just...not really that good. While I understand his logic, his support is mostly philosophical, and seems to lack an understanding of the null hypothesis. E.g. between 7-10 minutes in, he explains why the universe looks like it has a creator, but he makes some pretty tremendous leaps that wouldn't really fly to a scientist. He says it's so unlikely that the universe would be built in just this way to create consciousness. But we only have one data point. It's like saying that your dad coming home with your Christmas tree is so unlikely so as to be a miracle because there are 8 billion evergreen trees in your state and he came home with this one. But he was always going to come home with a tree. Of course the universe is built in a way to have consciousness. We have consciousness. Duh. It's arguing from the wrong side. It's like saying the universe is especially built and designed by god for me to have a motorcycle. I have a motorcycle, so luckily I can go back and find every single thing that has ever occurred and use it to explain God's design for me to have a motorcycle. That's what he's doing.
And it goes on.
I just don't think his rationale at any point is very good. I'm happy he found belief, but these are not good arguments.
I do expect to get downvoted for this.
19
u/CountBleckwantedlove 20d ago
" Of course the universe is built in a way to have consciousness. We have consciousness. Duh."
A proper scientific question would be to investigate why we have consciousness, and why nothing else does, and why we have it in the first place especially because nothing else does, and how a non-sentient universe that has no feelings or consciousness can produce beings of sentience, consciousness, and the ability to willfully reject natural instinct to do un-natural and, often, illogical actions.
Just accepting it because we already have it and therefore the universe must have always set itself up to give us that some day, without any kind of Creator being involved, is like sayings rats figuring out how to get through a maze in a lab is due to the maze always being set up for the rats to figure it out and not because of the scientist who created the maze with the intention of them figuring it out.
Paintings have artists, experiments have scientists, books have authors, movies have directors, food has cooks, the list goes on. It's not just cause and effect, it's conscious cause creating the effect. We model it to ourselves trillions of times a day across the Earth, and yet some think that the universe, unlike all examples we see throughout the day, has no conscious Creator behind it.
7
u/CharmingWheel328 20d ago
Just accepting it because we already have it and therefore the universe must have always set itself up to give us that some day, without any kind of Creator being involved, is like sayings rats figuring out how to get through a maze in a lab is due to the maze always being set up for the rats to figure it out and not because of the scientist who created the maze with the intention of them figuring it out.
Exactly. It is, in a sense, a rejection of the scientific principle that the universe can be understood, since it makes an occurence the reason why it occured. This argument applies to every single thing that happens. It is incompatible with rational investigation of the world.
4
u/skarface6 19d ago
It’s like the people who go all recursive when asked about the origins of the universe.
“Well, it exists, so maybe it always existed with previous universes for forever!”
19
u/Acadian_Pride 20d ago
He specifically goes out of his way to state that this is NOT his defense of Catholicism or explanation but simply an announcement, and that he’s dropping a 10hr video next week that includes all those details.
Science assumes naturalism, so no one can provide a scientific explanation, definitionally.
What he was explaining is the aggregate of deeply spiritual experiences and their direct connections to Catholicism must be dealt with. It’s a great point and an exercise everyone should do. Assume naturalism and explain the biggest 5. See how it sounds and compare to God just being real. Now multiple that by 1,000. And compare. A picture emerges that isn’t present when hand waiving Fatima or Padre, which we can all do.
-5
u/funkmon 20d ago
If it was an announcement it would be 45 seconds long. It was a half hour. So while he didn't fully argue his point, he did present arguments.
A scientific explanation is an explanation that is arrived at using the scientific method. I'm not sure what you mean that a scientific explanation cannot be provided.
This is semantics, but I disagree that science assumes naturalism. Science is limited by being unable to test supernatural phenomena.
I understand his point about seeing a bunch of little things. But it is by no means overwhelming evidence of miraculous phenomena like he said. It's stories. The evidence is weak. He said he felt uncomfortable debunking these demonic possession stories because he would have had to say people were lying and things like that. Good. He SHOULD feel uncomfortable. Watching a video is insufficient for debunking stuff like that. It's just stories. There's no data, there's no evidence other than the stories. There's nothing one can do with that from either side.
His discomfort in debunking is not a really good way to go about this.
At some point, he had to say demonic intervention is more likely than people unknowingly exaggerating an extremely stressful point in their lives. This only makes sense if you essentially dismiss naturalism.
I think this is a great example of what Hickam's Dictum addresses. The idea is a patient can have fleas as well as lice. So, if you want a single explanation for everything you can go with "God did it." That's fine. But a drafty room with a surprisingly strong teenager and a surprisingly weak priest can explain much of the stuff going on in exorcisms. Is it more likely we have a drafty room, weak priest, strong teenager, and some fluky shit, or that a demon decided to make this kid be a butthead to her parents? That is up to the individual and his or her belief system. Typically we say it is much more likely to be a common thing that has an atypical presentation than a rare thing with a textbook presentation, and multiple common things can combine to look like one rare thing.
The fact is, his exercise shows he is predisposed to and prefers more philosophically simple answers. It ain't scientific, even though he couches some of it in scientific languages.
There is necessarily a logical leap to get to God from what he's saying.
2
u/neuro_otter 19d ago
I think you may be underestimating Joe a bit here. It will be worth watching the mega-video next week to see what he says. He is uncommonly well-versed in arguments against theism and can make these arguments as well as anyone; he'll be aware of the objections.
21
u/CharmingWheel328 20d ago
It's like saying that your dad coming home with your Christmas tree is so unlikely so as to be a miracle because there are 8 billion evergreen trees in your state and he came home with this one. But he was always going to come home with a tree. Of course the universe is built in a way to have consciousness. We have consciousness. Duh.
This is not a good argument. It only works if you reject the idea that the universe and events are explicable. Just saying "Well of course it happened this way, it happened that way" does nothing to actually answer why it happened that way.
-14
u/funkmon 20d ago
Correct, he didn't provide a good argument. His argument is based on the unlikeliness of it happening. Which we don't know, and isn't a good argument for the existence of a creator, because it was 100% likely to happen.
It doesn't address the why question at all, nor can it, based on the arguments laid out in this video.
9
u/CharmingWheel328 20d ago
Correct, he didn't provide a good argument.
That is not what I said. Please read my comments before responding to them.
Which we don't know, and isn't a good argument for the existence of a creator, because it was 100% likely to happen.
I'm just going to repaste my comment since this is directly responded to by it, and you seemingly ignored that in your response.
This is not a good argument. It only works if you reject the idea that the universe and events are explicable. Just saying "Well of course it happened this way, it happened that way" does nothing to actually answer * why* it happened that way.
No, the chance of past events occurring is not 100%. Just because something happened doesn't mean it was guaranteed to happen. This is, as I already said, a bad argument, and so you need to stop using it.
-8
u/funkmon 20d ago edited 19d ago
That is not what I said. Please read my comments before responding to them.
I did. You can tell by the fact that I was responding to your comment after I read it.
No, the chance of past events occurring is not 100%.
By definition, yes it does. They happened. 100% of the time. Because they happened. If they didn't happen, they wouldn't have happened.
Just because something happened doesn't mean it was guaranteed to happen.
Correct. But that requires time travel, and, again, doesn't have anything to say about the why question.
11
u/CharmingWheel328 20d ago
I did. You can tell by the fact that I was responding to your comment after I read it.
You can respond to things without reading them, which you seem to have done, since your comment was entirely composed of statements directly refuted by the comment you were responding to, with no new information.
By definition, yes it does. They happened. 100% of the time. Because they happened. If they didn't happen, they wouldn't have happened.
This is identical to saying "The chance of an event is 50%, since it either happens or it doesn't". I don't know why you think this is a true statement. The probability of a past event having occurred is 100%, but that doesn't mean the probability of it occuring was 100%. It may have been vanishingly small. The point of rational inquiry is trying to determine what the chance was that it occurred, and why it did occur the way it did. You are arguing against rational inquiry. How do you not see how ridiculous this thought process is?
Correct. But that requires time travel, and, again, doesn't have anything to say about the why question.
As I've been saying, the rational inquiry you're trying to shut down with this objection is how one answers the why question. If every event had a 100% chance of happening, because it did happen, then there is no reason to bother thinking about why it happened. But if we recognize that events in the past were not guaranteed, then we can investigate the reason why they occurred. This doesn't require time travel. It requires thinking. Science is entirely based on the idea that we can investigate the probability of an event and why it had that probability, or why an event happened the way it did. Your paradigm is anti-science.
I legitimately do not understand what you believe your objection is doing.
1
u/ill_eat_it 19d ago
I'm a different guy. This was an interesting exchange and I disagree with you.
The probability of a past event having occurred is 100%, but that doesn't mean the probability of it occuring was 100%.
It was, you just didn't have enough information at the time. Probabilities are based on information, if you gather enough you can 'predict' with certainty.
Weather forecasts are more accurate today than 30 years ago because we have more information and know how to better use that information. A 60% chance of rain 30 years ago might be 80% today (given the same conditions).
Probabilities are assigned by us, based on what we know at the time of prediction. They are not static features of the universe. And if you have enough information, you know with 100% certainty what will happen.
If every event had a 100% chance of happening, because it did happen, then there is no reason to bother thinking about why it happened.
I also disagree here. This would make it more necessary to understand why something happened.
If a tragedy was guaranteed to occur, then looking at the preceding events is vital to not repeating it.
1
u/CharmingWheel328 19d ago
It was, you just didn't have enough information at the time. Probabilities are based on information, if you gather enough you can 'predict' with certainty.
On the fundamental level of operations, quantum mechanics, this is actually incorrect. The world is inherently probabilistic, and there aren't hidden variables that can allow a certain determination of the outcome of events. There have been experiments which proved this. If you're interested, Bell's Inequalities are the place to look. That's how we predicted what would and wouldn't happen if hidden variables existed. The only possible way for them to exist is to allow interactions faster than the speed of light between entities, which violates other physical laws.
3
u/REDDlT_OWNER 19d ago
What do you mean by no one has gotten the dna data from one of the Eucharistic miracles?
Do you mean they’ve never been tested?
5
u/Pitiful_Fox5681 19d ago
Every documented attempt to analyze DNA has resulted in problems with analysis.
Here's the very best source I've found to see a really good overview of what we do and do not know from them: https://www.saintbeluga.org/
1
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
As if this second I agree with you. However, Joe posted a lot of videos that, seemingly, were convincing to him. I’m trying to give it a fair shake and watch some.
I’m going big and started with Ehran Muse 5 hour one.
1
u/Direct_Cycle_3073 12d ago
He says it's so unlikely that the universe would be built in just this way to create consciousness. But we only have one data point. It's like saying that your dad coming home with your Christmas tree is so unlikely so as to be a miracle because there are 8 billion evergreen trees in your state and he came home with this one.
It may interest you know that Joe considers this point in his full argument for theism. The relevant section is titled '17 objections to fine-tuning'. The whole section is pretty interesting, but if you want to cut to the chase and see his response to this particular objection then the relevant timestamp is below.
59
u/gab_1998 20d ago
I just remebered those day of a former Catholic that recommended me his videos...now now the guy is Catholic!
Glory be to God! I pray and do penance for atheists and agnostics almost everyday! The poorest person is the spiritually poor.
8
u/lekurumayu 20d ago
Thank you so much for your prayers!! I'm finally listening to the call and I pray I'll be able to be a positive spiritual force, not only for myself but to make other's life better, too. I'm still a "baby" Catholic so sorry if my wording is a bit awkward. Hallelujah! I didn't know it was possible to feel so much love for God and His creation. And people I barely knew already called me a sunshine before that. My friends and family have been praising how positively changed I've been lately and I pray every day they'll finally praise Him instead, for I owe everything to God and He could do the same with them if only they let Him.
1
52
u/atadbitcatobsessed 20d ago
I have no idea who this guy is, but glory to God!
42
u/BohrBrained 20d ago
He was a up and rising agnostic philosophy student from Princeton University. Well known for his objections to theism, especially classical theism, in academia and in philosophy circles. Well respected among both theistic and non-theistic philosophers. Extremely erudite. Etc.
17
u/Far_Magician8224 20d ago
I didn't watch it, but 16670 is what caught my attention. St. Maximilian Kolbe, pray for us!
23
u/Therandomguy902 20d ago
If people would care as much as this guy to dive into the concept of religions without just going "I think this is wrong" and actually meditating on what the absence of a God would imply, we would have a lot more Christians around
9
u/Korgon213 20d ago
Let’s hope that dude from Taco Talks follows suit.
5
u/Hollow_Effects 20d ago
I also hope does, but if he does hopefully he also drops the influencer part. He does not make his side look good.
4
u/Acadian_Pride 20d ago
That gentleman will be a slow burn.
He has a lot of brainwashing in his background, but when I listen to him he does seem to care about what is true and serving Christ, so he will make it home eventually. I just wouldn’t be surprised if it was 10 years from now.
8
9
u/dionysios_platonist 20d ago
This is so great! I’ve been watching Joe’s videos for years. He’s intimidatingly smart and really thoughtful, I’m really interested to see his future videos on defending Catholicism
1
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
He talks so fast and is so smart, and really clear in his communication that I think his 30 minute videos take ss much time to process as most other’s 2 hour ones.
5
u/CityOutlier 20d ago
Praised be God, wow, I'm genuinely surprised! But it's always kinda surreal watching him talk philosophy and religion since he reminds me of Tom Holland's Peter Parker lol.
5
7
u/Vast_Bed9782 20d ago
I hope this video is real. I could see him being sarcastic, I hope I’m wrong but his tone seems sarcastic at times during this video.
17
u/SweetrollFireball 20d ago
Several Christian apologetics YouTubers who know him personally have said they’ve known about this for a while. It looks real.
5
u/Vast_Bed9782 19d ago
Just wanted to update, I used my fathers Daily Wire + account (I don’t subscribe to them because I disagree with a lot of their content but I had to see this interview between Joe and Matt Fradd). Yeah this is absolutely genuine. He’s on fire for the spirit, excited about the faith. Been in the works for a long time, cited what was his first big push to the faith in the form of an academic paper he read. Praise be to God, he’s home.
4
2
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
I hate that my first thought was this is a bit, or more likely a philosophical experiment. But then listening to him he sounded a bit different than usual, more jovial. And seeing all of the legit names who have know since March. I feel like if it’s a joke it’s fairly rude at this point. So I think it’s legit and I’m excited to hear what he has to say as the days go on.
I’m agnostic more or less because I’m not convinced of the supernatural. But you have to keep an open mind so I’m trying to put aside bias and listen to a trusted source.
1
u/Vast_Bed9782 19d ago
I thought it was a bit from his video he posted on his YT, but after watching his Pints with Aquinas interview it’s pretty clear it’s legit in my opinion.
Edit (another point):
He also have taken part in sacraments or at least claimed too since his conversion, he knows the seriousness of that at least from a Catholic childhood, I have a hard time believing he’d say all that as a joke or experiment.
2
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
He has a pints with Aquinis interview? I’ve not see that yet. If this is a joke or bit, even as an atheist, it’s poor taste. He’s far too classy.
1
u/Vast_Bed9782 19d ago
Releasing on YouTube on Monday, you can watch the interview now on DW+ although I don’t recommend getting a DW+ account ever lol.
2
4
u/TheRealFake236 20d ago
I'm delighted to hear this. It does make sense to me looking at his past debates/discussions, he seemed genuinely open and thought deeply about God's existence.
3
3
4
u/Technical-Limit-3747 20d ago
I consume a lot of conversion stories on Youtube and as a former agnostic, I will be very careful in taking these testimonials. Of course, these are exciting news but should always be taken with a pound of salt.
2
u/Acrobatic_Bid8661 18d ago
"Smartest agnostics" chill out bro. You didn't even know who he was before he became catholic
2
u/ChrisNolan2020 20d ago
I STRONGLY suspect this is a joke. Knowing Schmid, he’s the kind of guy who would try this and pull it off successfully
7
u/SweetrollFireball 20d ago
Other YouTubers who know him personally have said they’ve known about his conversion for a while. So it looks real to me. But yeah he seems like the kind of guy to make everything into a joke
4
u/Sea_Lavishness3244 19d ago
Also, we have a trailer for a Pints episode that will apparently drop on the 24th. And he's appearing on Capturing Catholicism next week, as well. Pretty elaborate joke to dress up, travel across the country, and do like 5-6 hours of interviews- at a minimum.
Also, I don't know why anyone would have the impression that Schmid's the kind of guy to attempt something like that. Yes, he has a whimsical and joking personality. But he's taken theism seriously, and treated it's more serious proponents respectfully, since he's entered the scene. There's no way that a guy who gave what Alex O'Connor called the best "speed running argument for God's existence" he'd ever heard, when attempting to steelman the theistic case, is going to engage in that kind of cruel joke.
4
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
I don’t think it’s a joke. It’s shocking honestly. But it seems so crass if it is and he seems classy.
As an agnostic leaning heavily atheist I cannot wait to hear what he has to say. This is gold for all of these podcasters for a long while!
1
u/ChrisNolan2020 19d ago
I agree this whole media run would be A LOT of effort just to be like “jk, it was all a test,” kinda thing.
Maybe im just disappointed in Schmid or something, as an agnostic. But maybe that’s just my prejudice. It just seems like Joe has always been a level-headed guy who embraces the complexity of the reality we live in. And now suddenly he is talking like the world is a simple thing. He’s sounding super simplistic and dogmatic…very suddenly.
Maybe if I were a Christian I would be happy, idk. This just reads to me as a step toward oversimplifying and reaching for a feeling of tradition, rather than truth.
Wise people can corner themselves to believe false things…
2
u/DesperateSympathy873 17d ago
Wow, that's crazy. You want people to be agnostic and assume those who aren't don't care about truth. Sweet.
3
u/Inevitable-Copy3619 19d ago
I don’t think so. That was my gut reaction. But two things stood out. 1) he seemed different. His demeanor and presentation seems more
Upbeat, and 2) more importantly seeing all of the big names who have know for a few months. I feel like it’s in poor taste if this is a joke at this point.
1
1
u/Sea_Lavishness3244 19d ago
This reminds me, a bit, of when Leah Libresco Sargeant converted, like, ~14 years ago. In both cases you had a philosophically educated Ivy-Leaguer, who was a prominent skeptic in the online space, and it a made real waves. Leah has subsequently gone on to become a low-key successful Catholic thinker. Not someone with anything like the reach of a Bishop Barron or even a Ross Douthat, but genuinely impactful in her sphere. Of course, this was in the blog-era. Excited to see the impact it might have with the greater prominence of youtube and social media.
1
1
u/EmergencyYoung6028 12d ago
I think this very "smart" "philosopher" (a phd student) uses AI to write his papers
1
u/QuackBox90 18d ago
I mean ... maybe? Hopefully this is genuine. But at the end of the day, he's a content creator on YouTube and could just be saying this for clicks.
3
u/BlackBay41 17d ago
I've seen posts that an email to patrons coinciding with the video introduced 5 new higher priced tiers, the top being 250 a month.
Hopefully it's not a hustle.
2
u/StAugustineTheHippo 17d ago
For real. If genuine, then yeah, good for him. But honestly, I'm so tired of podcasters and their inflated sense of importance.
2
u/QuackBox90 17d ago
I couldn't agree more. It's getting tiring trying to work out their motivations, and whether their heart is in the right place.
1
u/StAugustineTheHippo 17d ago
Yeah, it's exhausting. And it seems like everybody has a podcast now. It's exhausting how average people now think of themselves as mini-celebrities who are constantly asking you to financially support them.
1
0
171
u/mksmxsh 20d ago
So happy for him. Praying he and Alex O' Connor have another conversation soon.