Nah. Just open them in Preview, open the sidebar with thumbnails selected and drag and drop. That way nobody needs to spam random websites.

He can make 3 = 1 so I think you are correct!

I think that deep trust that Stendl-Rast refers to is almost unavoidable, though Catholic anthropology assures me that humans have been given almost unlimited power to avoid that which is good if we really want to.

I would be careful about distilling the message down to "follow your heart", although I often use almost that language myself. The problem with "follow your heart", depending on what you mean by that, is that it can easily lead to self-delusion and/or self-preoccupation. We have to always be open to being challenged by that which is outside of us. Whether it is an unexpected observation about reality, or a religious teaching that doesn't quite sit right with our intuitions ... whatever it is, you have to always be open to getting your neat little world thrown off balance by that which is outside of yourself. I think both atheists and theists would agree on that point.

That is why I prefer to say "follow the desires of your heart", rather than "follow your heart". To some I am sure that is a distinction without a difference. But the former expression (to me) implies a rational or super-rational reflection on the desires of the heart, not just a blind emotional response.

Anyway, I am delighted that you liked the video. Stendl-Rast approaches Catholicism a bit differently than I do, but he is still one of my heroes.

I watched the video. I wish my teachers back in the day had been as chill as this dude. "Follow your heart" seems to be his sentiment. He almost explains it as if it's unavoidable. Do you think it is?

I would agree that one can't build a theory of reality based on "what feels good", but that is a very different expression from the one that I used. Making one's determinations according to the desires of the heart is hardly the same thing as making ones determinations based on "what feels good". For example, it would not satisfy the desires of my heart at all to indulge in a belief system that I thought was irrational or contradicted by history, no matter how good it might feel.

I am not especially troubled by the fact that different people, all following the desires of their hearts to the best of their abilities, end up with different belief systems. I am not trying to advocate some perennial philosophy kind of thing, but I think we still know very little about whether, and to what extent, these belief systems truly contradict each other. As examples: Is it obvious that one cannot follow the path of the Buddha while at the same time believing that Jesus was our Immanuel, God incarnate? Is it obvious that worship of Krishna violates the First Commandment? Does it diminish the significance of Native American spirituality to say that "salvation is from the Jews"? I don't know the answer to any of these questions, and I suspect that few people, if any, really do. Interfaith dialogue is only just beginning. Even if we do determine, after a few thousand additional years of dialogue, that we really are viewing reality in fundamentally irreconcilable ways, we might still be able to follow the advice of Pope Francis and "walk united with our differences".

William of Ockham, please hear our prayer!