Bishop Robert Barron Goes to Facebook Headquarters
Click on this link and listen to the speech given by his Eminence, Bishop Robert Barron who was invited to speak at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California. What is the irony of this situation? And does that impact the "kairos" of the speech? How does Bishop Barron establish his ethos, more specifically how does he establish his arete, phronesis and the eunoia within the speech. How does Bishop Barron appeal to pathos? How does he put into sync the audiences emotions and how is he attempting to get the audience to "thrive"? In other words, how does he align the emotions with reason? What is the overall message of the piece and do you feel he does that successfully? If so, how? And if not, why? Provide specific examples from the speech.
Part 1:
ReplyDeleteOver the past decade, the political and religious discourse within the country and abroad have become increasingly inflamed. Tensions have risen among people of different faiths, political parties, races, and social classes. On September 18, 2017, Bishop Robert Barron addressed these tensions, but specifically within the religious community, at the Facebook Headquarters in Menlo Park.
To me, the irony behind this situation is the location of the speech. Facebook has been found to have diminished the possibility of any fair political or religious discussion. They have been a big proponent of subjective truth, better known as fake news, by clearly pandering to a liberal audience through the removal of conservative Christian accounts. By simply looking at the “trending” section of Facebook, it is not only difficult to find positive Christian commentary, but it is, to a larger extent, difficult to find news that is truthful or relevant. This behavior clearly does not aid in furthering peaceful religious discussion; it only inflames it. In this way, I feel that the timing of the bishop’s speech could not be more opportune. His address comes at a time when many are unable to carry out religious discourse in a peaceful manner.
Throughout the duration of the bishop’s speech, he is successful in establishing the three components of ethos. He effectively displays arete, or moral virtue, by conveying his desire to find a way to argue and discuss virtuously, instead of the violent nature prominent in society today. He is also successful in building his phronesis, or practical wisdom, by understanding his audience. The audience in front of him most likely does not share his viewpoints on the most pressing political and religious issues, so he introduces something more fundamental — the need to understand how to carry out religious discourse. Also, throughout the course of his speech, he shows that he understands the topic, which further establishes this aspect of ethos. The final aspect of ethos, eunoia (good will), is also established by the bishop because he is easy to relate to. He does not act superior to his audience, but rather, as an equal. He demonstrates that he wants to introduce them to a different method of discourse, not necessarily impose it upon the audience. This effectively establishes his credibility.
Just as he establishes his credibility, Bishop Barron is similarly effective in appealing to pathos. In the beginning of the speech, the bishop applauds Facebook by stating that it is a “spiritual power” whose main purpose seems to be to connect much of the world and unify it through discourse. In this way, the bishop appeals to the pride of his audience, many of whom were staff of the company.
Bishop Barron was similarly capable in utilizing logos on his audience. Because the staff are largely connected to science and technology, he seemed to assume that many of them would sympathize with scientism. To counter this by using logic, the bishop asks how one would know the scientific method is the only path to knowledge. Was an experiment conducted to reach this conclusion? If not, is this not the empirical thought that those of faith are condemned for?
Part 2:
ReplyDeleteBecause Bishop Barron effectively utilizes various rhetorical strategies to construct his argument, I do feel that his message was delivered effectively. The overall message delivered seems to be that society as a whole must begin to take steps to de-escalate the rising tensions between those of different faiths. (Many aspects of this address, however, are just as applicable to social and political tensions, which have similarly escalated.) However, the bishop’s argument was not effective simply because of ethos, pathos, and logos, but also because of his division of his argument into five components: faith is not opposed to reason, scientism must be overcome, mere toleration must not be tolerated, voluntarism must be avoided, and patience must be exercised when attempting to understand an opposing viewpoint. However, his discussions of scientism, toleration, and voluntarism, in particular, are what most impacted me to come to understand his view.
Within his discussion, Bishop Barron condemns scientism — the belief that all knowledge comes from the scientific method. While speaking of this component, he emphasizes the fact that while literature and philosophy may not have been derived from the scientific method, they do contain general truths about life and thought. Religion, then, is much the same. All of these sources can be utilized to find the objective truth. While each may take a different approach, they often provide the same result. So, when science is used as the only way of discovering truth, the first steps in the destruction of discourse begin.
The bishop also draws a fine line between open-mindedness and mere toleration. While we should be open-minded to new ideas, we simply shouldn’t tolerate it for the sake of toleration! When this occurs, as the bishop states, religion, or any other controversial topic for that matter, becomes like a hobby — something that we keep to ourselves. Within religion, there exist numerous moral principles and “truth claims.” If these claims are made, just as they are in science, they should be discussed and debated, not just kept to oneself. If religion is privatized, so to speak, religious discourse is further diminished.
Finally, voluntarism, the overcoming of intellect by will, also further destroys religious argument. This idea (which could be found in George Orwell’s 1984) rests on the idea that one’s freedom determines what is good and true. When this occurs, argument and discussion turn to violence, as they simply become a “clash of wills.” This imposition of ideas on others just because “I said so” furthers the ever present divide and leads to the full mutilation of the purpose of discourse. In these ways, Bishop Barron is successful in constructing an argument based on reason that supports the need for peaceful religious discourse.
Amazing job thoroughly explaining Bishop Barron's five methods; I one hundred percent understand them now. I also enjoy your personal opinion on the recent posts and situations happening on Facebook that religion is often being dismissed or fought about.
DeleteI, like Maddie, have a better understanding of the five methods Bishop Barron used after I read your blog post. I really like how you used 1984 by George Orwell in your post because it shows that you can make connections to things we have previously learned. Great job!
DeleteI like how you compare what Bishop Barron says to the current political climate, as each are similarly plagued by misunderstanding and lies. I also enjoy the connection you drew to 1984. Overall, it is a great explanation.
DeleteIn this day and age, someone is always mad about something. It seems we can never be happy, and if we are, there's always a catch. Just turn on the news and you'll learn all about the next scandal our next big fight. It's really sad that this is what our society has come to. If we can argue about these somewhat trivial issues, why can't we argue or faith? As a Christian, I always find it awkward when someone comes up to me and asked me why I believe in God. I believe in God because I've seen Him in the world: in the faces of others, their words, and their actions. I do not believe in God simply for the purpose that I was raised to. I was raised in a very separated family and I was rarely taken to Church. We were what you call seasonal Catholics: that means Church on Easter and Church on Christmas. I had to work my hardest to achieve the depth of faith that I have. This includes working retreats regularly and staying connected with my family in faith. Being a Catholic isn't easy, especially when someone protests a peaceful march for abortion yelling about why it is right and that “you don't respect yourself if you're a woman that isn't Pro-Choice”. More than myself, I respect the life of every single child. It is not our choice who gets to live and who gets to die. Abortion is basically a mass genocide with the billions of babies killed every year because somebody decides that “it's their body, it's their choice”. Women in developing countries have been getting more and more sick from abortions performed unsafely because they don't know the dangers. We need to be able to argue our faith to stop tragedies like these. God is with us, and He is doing everything He can to help. We just need to open our eyes and wait for him and make the best life that we can while we do. If you disagree with me on this topic, please talk to me about it. If I can't discuss it, than why do I believe it?
ReplyDeleteI become very offended by people. I have a strong opinion about my faith and the topics around it. The most annoying thing ever is abortion. THAT IS A LIVING HUMAN INSIDE OF YOU, YOU ARE COMMITTING MURDER BY ABORTING THAT BABY! I believe that everyone who further completes an abortion should be arrested for murder. That baby has a heartbeat, living DNA, and visible body parts. Do not tell me that it is your body so it's your choice, you have completely different DNA compared to that baby, you are not the same person. You're basically Hitler for destroying those babies. Next time someone talks to you about abortion or the possibility of actually doing the act, tell them they're Hitler. They won't like being called a leader of a mass genocide against humans. I also believe that people should not be judged on their faith. Everyone has their own opinion, if I believe that there is God who is going to save me, then let me be. If you don't think there is a God, I'll pray for you. There is no reason to judge or put harsh words on one another for what they believe in. If you want to be Lutheran, go right ahead I'll support you. If you want to be Atheist, I'll probably want to say something but if that makes you happy, then so be it. If I want to get on my knees in public and start praying, that is my decision and not your area to judge me. Through the government, I have my right to practice whatever faith I want wherever I want. Do not tell me how to live my life, and I won't tell you how to live yours. So be respectful and mind your own business.
ReplyDeleteAt the moment, the only thing that ever happens is negative. People do not know how not to cause problems, and it is actually pathetic. Religion is one of the many topics that people have been arguing over for ages. Bishop Robert Barron wanted to teach everyone how to argue about religion. The only way that people actually know how to argue is by just raising their voice. Therefore, not actually being productive nor getting their point across. As Isaac stated above, I completely agree the irony is the location of the speech. I figured the bishop would have been in a stadium with a big audience because this was done for Facebook. I do not understand why he was kept in such a tiny room. I think Bishop Robert Barron did a great job of establishing good will because he wanted to teach us how to properly argue about our religion. One thing I noticed about this speaker was his voice seemed to be very monotoned for most of his speech. At some points, he definitely could have tried to be more intriguing. Talking about religion really fires me up. This is because everyone is just so stupid about the whole thing. Yes, people will not have the same beliefs as you, but that does not mean they have any right to judge you. In today's society, I think many some would rather not talk about their religion because they are scared of being judged because they are "different." It is so sickening that people think it is okay to make fun of others. I have learned that arguing over religion is the most stressful and annoying thing ever. There are way too many different views on religion. People just need to let others live and do whatever they want based on their religion.
ReplyDeleteIt truly is pathetic how people act towards things that they don't believe in. I feel that Bishop Barron was likely put in that room due to the size of the audience. Religion in the workplace is extremely controversial, so I'm assuming that is why.
DeleteOccam’s Razor is a way of thinking proposed by Friar William of Ockham which states, “Entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity.” Meaning that the more complex a solution, the less likely it is true. This way of thinking has often been used to refute religion, but Bishop Robert Barron applies the logic to his speech at Facebook Headquarters in Menlo Park.
ReplyDeleteThe irony of the situation is that Bishop Barron chose to give this speech at Facebook Headquarters. Facebook is owned by thirteen companies, among several other individual shareholders. All thirteen of these companies have either expressed anti-religious values, or have refused to comment on their religious standpoint. Facebook itself is not free from this bias, either. Facebook has been accused of using targeted ads on its users. Targeted ads have been used by companies in an attempt to sway popular opinion. Facebook used targeted ads in support of several anti-religious advertisements, including some anti-life advertisements. This irony both adds to and detracts from the kairos of the speech. Religious groups may find that since Bishop Barron is giving this speech in a popular anti-religious area, his message has an even greater impact, while those with anti-religious sentiments may believe that Bishop Barron should have given the speech to a more accepting audience.
Bishop Barron manages to establish his ethos just by his title and position. Being a bishop, he likely holds either a master’s degree or a doctorate in theology, has a deep moral virtue, and is a generally good person, establishing his phronesis, arête, and eunoia before he even begins to speak.
Bishop Barron appeals to pathos throughout his speech, something that is extremely difficult to do with a crowd of people who would normally disagree with him. Bishop Barron addresses every possible angle of his argument, giving credence to points that actually make sense, substantiating every claim he makes and refuting those points that do not have any kind of basis behind them. For instance, he refutes the claim of “sciencism” by showing how it is an argument that destroys itself. This way of speaking ties directly into the overall message of Bishop Barron’s speech: do not discount an argument before you examine every fact. I agree with this sentiment wholeheartedly, nobody should accept a claim at base value. Every angle of an argument must be scrutinized before it is to be believed. Bishop Barron examines every counterpoint before he comes to a conclusion, and he makes sure that he chooses the side that has the fewest inconsistencies. Often times, Occam’s Razor is used in an attempt to refute religion, but Bishop Barron uses it to substantiate religion.
I like how you included that Bishop Barron provides answers to all sides of the subject, very good point. I also agree that one should not disagree without full knowledge of the subject.
DeleteI tend to avoid religious argument and discourse as I don’t really like the confrontation and all, but I suppose in this moment it is somewhat necessary that I provide a stance, so here goes.
ReplyDeleteOne thing I absolutely hate is when people use religion as an excuse to justfitt discriminating against people, claiming that “God hates gays” and whatnot. Sure, the book of Leviticus states that homosexuality is a sin, but to simply use the law of Leviticus to advance your discriminatory viewpoint is completely disregarding the coming of the Son of God, namely Jesus. When He came to Earth, He preached a doctrine of love, peace, and equality for all. He never turned someone away saying “ya know, I don’t like that you aren’t heterosexual (or any other quality people use) so you can just have fun with your demons, boy bye.” Instead, He unconditionally loved each and every person, and when asked what the most important commandment is, He replied, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Luke 10:17) This highlights His teaching of love. He doesn’t say “love your straight neighbor” or “love the neighbor who is like yourself” but instead says neighbor, as we should love everyone, regardless of color, sexual orientation, or anything else. Jesus never saw people for the color of their skin or who they loved, but instead saw them as children of God, a viewpoint I think we all could learn from
Definitely agree with you on the whole religious argument thing, and I like how you took what Bishop Baron said and applied it to actual scripture, good work!
DeleteI definitely avoid arguments too! I really think Barron made arguing much less scary after this speech though. I love how you said that God is accepting of everyone and I think the speech is trying to convey that as well.
DeleteI do not like being involved in religious arguments either. I really liked that you connected Bishop Barron's speech to verses right out of the Bible, and that you talked about how God sees us and that we could all learn from it.
DeleteIn today's society, I too just like to avoid the topic of religion. Everyone is way too cruel about judgement, so I would rather just keep to myself. Also, I love how you incorporated the Bible into your blog.
DeleteI like how you plainly state you don't like arguing where as I do. There in again with what I argued, we all have different opinions and how you state your essay shows your opinion. This, I think, is completely okay to just stay out of the matter.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBishop Robert Barron provides five useful ways to have a good and successful arguement about defending religion. The irony of the situation is that he specifically refers to do this over the internet or social media and he is speaking at the Facebook headquarters in California. This is actually a good thing for Bishop Robert Barron because it gives him an audience who is there to listen about social media. He uses this to his benefit by making the overall subject of his speech defending on social media. Bishop Robert establishes his ethos from the beginning by stating his business as a spokesman who uses Facebook to show his work. Specifically, he establishes arete by stating the purpose of his speech is not how to fight with people about religion but rather to argue towards peace. He establishes phronesis because he is a priest who has to defend his faith and shares his ways to do so effectively. He tells the audience to avoid voluntarism and reject scientism when defending religion. Eunoia is incorporated into his speech by relating to his audience that these five ways are useful and can be used by anyone. Bishop Barron uses pathos by praising Facebook for its purpose to be an international useful and fun site; this is important because his audience is mostly staff or users of Facebook. Bishop Barron clearly states the truth that faith is not an invisible idea with no proof because it does not align with scientism. He uses his emotions behind this to explain that there are many philosophical people who did not use the scientific method to make discoveries. He specifically refers to literature such as Shakespeare. This connections that the Bible and other important literatures prove truths without scientific ways. Overall, Bishop Barron successfully provides five methods to defending faith, reason is not opposed to faith, the scientific method isn't the only way to discover truths, voluntarism should be avoided, and understanding and patience needs to be used. The big picture is that faith is not something that should be ignored or kept to oneself. If it brought up, the person should be able to use the five methods to either defend or educate the disbeliever.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed your discussion about the rhetorical strategies used by Bishop Barron during the course of his speech. You really elaborated on each component of ethos, which was very important for Bishop Barron to establish, especially due to the fact that he was facing an audience that most likely disagreed with many of his fundamental beliefs. Great job!
DeleteI like the alternate take you had on the irony of the situation. Not many people drew any more conclusions than the location of the speech, but you found the irony in speaking about digital media. Good job.
DeletePART I
ReplyDeleteBishop Barron’s speech should be seen and/or heard by everyone, because I feel like it could really slap some sense into our society, which is on its way down the toilet as I type this. His speech is so poignant, as it points out how religion can coexist with reason, even in these times we’re living in where scientific reason and fear of offending people displaces religion in our society.
The irony of his speech is that it was given at Facebook’s headquarters, of all places. As we are aware, Facebook has, especially since the launch of the 2016 election campaigns, been notorious for being a catalyst for “progressive” ideas, such as social liberalism. Most of the self-identifying progressive people who work for Facebook are often very liberal, and are the types of people who would be quick to shut people down for having an old-fashioned, counter progressive mindset that involves having a religious identity. That’s why it’s so ironic that a Catholic bishop would want to speak there, but at the same time, Facebook is also known for heated, uneducated arguments concerning religion, so here we are.
Bishop Barron is very effective at delivering ethos in his speech. Arête is shown from the very beginning (~45 seconds into the video) when the bishop discusses how Facebook actually has spiritual power if we use it properly. If you think about it, it’s true. If we know what we’re doing and how we can effectively argue about religion, Facebook is shed of its image as a breeding ground for sacrilegious, overly-liberal, progressive, and poorly-developed arguments against religion. It is on this moral virtue that Barron begins to discuss his five tips for the successful argument of religion, all of which embody phronesis. He is sharing his wisdom with us all throughout his discussion of good religious argument. His entire speech also embodies eunoia, as the bishop encouraging healthy, well-developed arguments in favor of religion shows his intentions for goodwill. The bishop also appeals to pathos by telling how we, as a society, are going about religious argument all wrong, which riled me up a little bit and got me thinking about how we, as a society, can improve.
PART II
ReplyDeleteNow for the big question. Do I think the bishop was successful in the deliverance of his message? The short answer: Hell yeah! Why? We’ll, if you listen carefully to each of his five tips, it becomes pretty clear that this guy knows his stuff. His first tip, which is being aware that authentic faith is not opposed to reason, makes complete sense. If you consider yourself a religious person, you must know why you feel that why; a “just because” answer doesn’t work here. Unless you know that faith goes hand-in-hand with reason, logic, literature, and philosophy, it’s hard to fully accept faith for what it is. In order to fully be able to accept your faith, you must know all about it. I loved how, at this moment in the speech (~6:40), the bishop puts in into 21st Century terms. Getting to know our faith is like getting to know a person by “creeping” in on their social media accounts. When we learn all about people, their lives will eventually open up to us and we will know everything. We will be able to walk away and share everything we know factually. This is how faith is developed. In our quest to find God, we basically have to “creep” on His life, and after a lifetime of looking at His life, He will open up to us when we make it into Heaven.
The rest of the bishop’s points further contribute to the success of his message. Overcoming our tendencies as a society to reduce knowledge to its scientific form allows us to see the big picture and how God really is everywhere. Because scientism is self-refuting, it also makes a terrible basis for a religious argument. It really shoots itself in the foot because you really can’t empirically explain that empirical explanation is the only way to obtain knowledge. Also, I feel that using scientific explanation as a way to refute the existence of God is pointless because most of the things in the Bible CAN be explained by science. (Here’s an article to read if it tickles your fancy: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=99580&page=1)
The third point is very pertinent to our American society in 2017. To be able to argue effectively for religion, we have to do more than just tolerate it as a part of private life. It really is for everyone. This desire to hide religion perfectly embodies the goal of the “progressive” people in our society, who feel that we should not be able to express religious ideas in our daily public lives. But treating religion like a hobby forbids the arguments that these people like to have because, as the bishop said, you cannot argue a private matter (which, I think, shows phronesis, as it is not wise to argue over a private matter.). If one wants to argue about religion, he or she cannot sweep it under the rug as nothing more than a person’s hobby. Rather, one must realize that it has a place in public life. I feel that this, too, makes the bishop’s argument a complete success.
His fourth and fifth points also make his argument a success. To argue successfully about religion, we do have to realize that God is the only one capable of being a true voluntarist. In my opinion, learning to overcome the tendency to act in a voluntarist fashion meshes well with what the bishop talked about in his first point, when he said that authentic faith is not opposed to reason. Arguing as a voluntarist makes you forget that faith is supported by fact, which makes it far too easy to let your will get in the way of what you know is right. This point is supplemented by the fifth point, in which, to argue effectively about religion, we must be willing to hear others out on why they feel the way they do. The bishop himself said that it is not right to have a rapid-fire argument with someone over religion. In arguing, time must be allotted to hear others out on why they feel the way they do.
All in all, I’d say that the bishop’s argument is a success. It really shows that we, as a society, suck at arguing about religion, and now we know how we can improve.
Your discussion of Bishop Barron's speech is phenomenal! It really shows that you took the time to analyze his speech and think it through. I agree fully with everything you said, as it is evident today that anyone with values contrary to the liberal elite is labeled as a bigot. His argument, I also felt, was definitely effective, as it really pointed out the flaws in not only religious discourse today, but also political discourse. Great job!
DeleteReally enjoyed reading your analysis because not only did it help me to understand, it also made me giggle at the same time. It is very clear that you took your time here, good job!
DeleteI just love how deep you dove into this subject. Your analysis gave me a better light of what this speech is really about. I love how you tied it all together. Good job!
DeleteWhat I love about doing these blogs is how they allow me to have a new understanding of things every weekend, which is always good. Bishop Robert Barron has continued that trend. Religion nowadays is an extremely touchy subject, and for Bishop Barron to go into a place full of people who most likely refute religion and talk about the Catholic faith takes major guts. I love how multiple times he talks about his, "work with technology." This really swayed me to his side and I'm sure it did the same to the audience as well. Personally, when I think of a bishop, I think if a stern old man who is extremely by the book with their faith. And to see Bishop Barron being all chill, talking like a normal human being really makes it easier to listen to his point. However, his acceptance of technology rather than trying to ignore it is what makes him appeal to his audience the most. In today's world, technology is everywhere. We wake up from our alarms on our phones, use computers and iPads at work and school, go home and do things like play video games or watch tv, the list can go on and on. And it seems like the common belief is that this technology is a form of temptation to us, and while it can be just that, it is also just the opposite. This technology allows us to be closer to God than ever because it exposes us to the other side of the argument. The technology allows us to see the people who refute and mock our beliefs, and thus we can prove them wrong and be stronger in our faith. This understanding that argument and technology is the wrong thing is extremely inaccurate, and Bishop Barron's understanding of this is what allows him to be the amazing rhetor that he is.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you on the benefits of the blog! There are so many things happening in the world, and we know just a small portion of them. I also think it was constructive for him to mention technology in a place that changed it.
DeleteI agree, technology has become so prevalent and is still on the rise and I'm glad that included that in your post.
DeleteI entirely agree that technology needs to be incorporated as it and the Church grows. I also liked your point about how people mocking you can actually deepen your faith. Great outlook!
DeleteI really loved this speech because Bishop Barron is bringing up a topic that needed addressed and did it so successfully and in such a eloquent way. His five useful tips were great and I loved that he tied all of them together. The irony in this speech to me is the setting. He is speaking to a crowd of people focused on social media and not really religion at the moment. The kairos is still appropriate though because in this day and age many people fight (not argue) about religion online or on social media. I also think this speech is appropriate because he isn't just talking about one religion but rather all of them together. Bishop Barron shows his moral virtue, or arête, by explaining that rather than fighting about religion we should argue and work towards peace and not violence. He uses phronesis, or practical wisdom, by not only talking about arguments about Catholicism, but about every religion as a whole. He never calls just one religion out, he accepts all of their different point of views. Bishop Barren establishes his eunoia by not calling anyone out but rather acting as their equal in a regular, public discussion. Bishop Barren uses arête, phronesis, and eunoia to bring out his ethos or credibility. As I watched this speech I really was interested and believed in what he was saying because he was in a pursuit of the truth. I think all good rhetors and speakers should pursue the truth which made me believe him. Bishop Barron establishes pathos by always keeping the audience interested with topics that are important and need to be talked about. I think the point of the speech is to keep everyone calm, but on the inside make them have the desire to proclaim their faiths and really speak up about it instead of privatizing it, like a hobby, as he explained in his speech. I also think it is important that he never once called anyone out but rather just explained people's mistakes and how they could make it better. As a result, he doesn't offend anyone. He harmonizes emotion with reason by expressing his five points to successfully giving an arguement. Each of his points are very interesting, so the audience never gets bored, but also each of them make so much sense and have so much reason and logic within them. I just love what he is attempting to convey and I think he does it very successfully. The overall message of this piece, is to work towards resolution in religion. But in order to work towards resolution we must argue in an effective way rather than fight which leads to violence. Bishop Barron does this successfully because of his ethos, pathos, and logos as a speaker. He is very reasonable and only wants to make the audience better. Truth is what we all ultimately should strive for, but it should be the absolute truth, or the will of God.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated your opinion on this article. I feel the same way about people not arguing but fighting on social media. I also love how you caught on to how the bishop did not name specific people or talked about anyone in that way. Good job!
DeleteI, too, thought it was a very virtuous and powerful thing that he was able to call everyone out on how religion is argued ineffectively without calling out any particular denomination, because we all know that pointing fingers exacerbates the problem when it comes to arguing on social media. He really is effective in conveying his thoughts due to his skill as a rhetorician, which you did well in explaining.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first few minutes of this blog, I could not contain self. I was laughing and I could not stop. A bishop, at Facebook? Facebook is the place for mom fights, funny videos, and religion and political arguments. I just kept thinking to myself, why is this bishop at Facebook teaching us how to argue religion. Then I realized that we need to learn. Most people on social media are misguided when it comes to religious or even political fights. They don't understand the whole thing, but does anyone really? The main topic fought about on Facebook is abortion, which is a topic that I keep close to my heart. Abortion is killing babies. Period. I hate hearing or seeing, “It's my body, my choice.” or “No uterus, no opinion.” It drives me insane, but some people, like me, do not know how to defend such a thing in a respectful way. Bishop Barron used his knowledge on how to argue religion as his good will to our world. He did a great job speaking to the crowd. In my opinion, he felt the need to educate our people about this. He wants people the argue religion in a way that involves virtue. This is how he establishes moral virtue. Bishop Barron talked about faith and reason a lot too. He said that you can use reason to defend faith among a few other things. He also talked about scientism, which I totally disagree with that topic. Overall, Bishop Barron showed us that you can argue faith in many ways that help the argument instead of adding fire to it. I had a hard time understanding how to argue stuff like this, better after his speech, I feel a little better about it. Like the audience, I was never bored or wanted to turn the video off. I'd love to watch it again.
ReplyDeleteYou really bring some very valid points into the spotlight. You are right that his speech equips us to argue with virtue. Good work! And I agree that watching this video made me wonder if anyone really knows how to argue, because the truth is that no one does.
DeleteI liked your point about Bishop Barron attempted to arm us with virtue when we argue, not anger or hatred. I also never wanted to turn the video off. Good work!
DeleteBishop Robert Barron's speech was very interesting, for a various amount of reasons. I think, obviously, the irony of the situation is the location of the speech. At any given time of the day, you can go on Facebook and see people arguing about just about anything. You can really see people arguing about some of the dumbest things ever. It was ironic that Bishop Barron was talking at the Facebook headquarters about the proper way to have a religious discussion, and I think it dramatically impacted the kairos of the speech. He was very effective in establishing his ethos with arete, phronesis and the eunoia. He used these components of the speech to back up his argument and maintain credibility. He uses arete by stressing his urge to find a way to effectively discuss religion. He uses phronesis by trying to appeal to the people he is talking to. I doubt all the people he was talking to agreed with his viewpoints, so he had to find a way to appeal to them. He uses euonia by not attacking them or their viewpoints, but rather being easy to understand and relate to. By doing this, he incorporated a lot of pathos and effectively connected his passion and emotion behind his speech with the reasoning behind it. I think by doing all of this, he drove his message home very well.
ReplyDeleteI think you worded this very well. I agree with everything you said. Your euonia was very well explained because now I understand what euonia actually is.
DeleteI think you did very well with including the different pillars of language and speaking. You explained clearly what each of them were which is hard to do with certain topics. I also really liked how you included the irony of being in a media location, talking about the media.
Delete