Get 30% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: blinkist.com/cosmicskeptic Let me know what you think of the new podcast! Looking forward to posting these weekly. Don't forget to subscribe to and rate the podcast on Spotify/Apple Podcasts, if you feel inclined, which really helps me out. Thank you!
I miss the cosmic skeptic who was willing to have tough discussions with people he disagreed with. The skeptic who honestly searched for truth and tried his best to be a good person. It seems like thats gone now, you refuse to discuss this gigantic issue further or ask for help or criticism of any kind. its so unlike you. Unsubbed
I don't enjoy these types of general conversations with fundamentalists because they are dishonest in nature. As a Catholic, this guy believes very specific things that are demonstrably wrong. I really don't care about his philosophy. He is a bishop in one of the most harmful organizations in human history. He is a leader in a cult, plain and simple. This man is celibate because he thinks that is important his 3,000 year old Canaanite god and he lives his life to promote that others make similar decisions. It's nice that he's read some philosophy books but it doesn't seem to have helped him not devote his life to promoting obvious delusions. I'd really like to hear more about how his philosophy interacts with his association with the Church and its many falsehoods. Asking him large philosophical questions allows him to launder his insane beliefs through an hour long conversation. In reality asking a pointed questions like "Can a man come back from death", will reveal the only answer you will get is some version of because the bible tells me so. Because that's all there is to being a Christian. He doesn't get to tack on all this extra stuff because God's scared word isn't good enough to convince people.
I really like the spirit of this channel. It seems to me it is most oriented toward truth rather than some aggressive bashing of someone's beliefs for the sake of it.
I know that this is a deeply unpopular opinion, but as a lifelong skeptical seeker of God, I’ve found that poetry brings me infinitely closer to faith than purely rational argument, and in that sense there are few modern religious thinkers that I enjoy listening to more than Bishop Barron. Great content, Alex!
Except I find beauty in art and poetry and nature, among many other things, and at no point do any of those things drive me closer to a god. I understand your general sentiment, but I don't find it a particularly valuable approach in terms of drawing me toward a conclusion. And I'm not particularly fond of people who imply that just because I don't believe there's a God behind it I'm somehow unable to experienced depth, beauty, or awe. I know the original commenter didn't imply that, but the replies were certainly trending in that direction.
Luke - we are just beginning to understand the neurobiological reasons why what you’re saying here is 100% true. Iain McGilchrist’s “The Master and His Emissary” is a gem and it discussed this topic.
Devout Catholic here from Ireland 🇮🇪. Subscribed . I have listened to both sides of the arguments for past 6 years or so. Eventually coming back to catholocism. I love atheists that interrogate my faith as hard as possible. I love it more when my faith can withstand it.
Im an atheist who is profoundly in love with traditions of the west, including many of the fruits of judeo christian culture. Also been enjoying the two sides of this argument.
So do I. It only reinforces my belief because I always find that at their core, vast majority of them possess only a caricature understanding of Christianity. And it’s intellectually pathetic.
Bishop Barron is such an amazing communicator. I haven’t believed in God all my life and I’m still not quite sure what I believe, but his exposition is very compelling. Major props to you Alex for having this discussion honestly and respectfully.
I would say the same thing about Barron but religion was something I was born into, so to me it just sounds like words are being repeated… since I stepped away from religion I’ve talked to people that still had faith and it doesn’t help. Let’s just say they always tell me the answers are in their book but when there’s a tough question I have it’s either “nobody knows & only god knows, there’s a reason” (even though nobody knows the reason also), preaching or deflection, a request to just have faith or all of the above but not knowing something doesn’t help me because I’m getting back into something blindly & refuse to do that. All I can say is, if it helps you feel good? Go for it, just don’t be a butthole to those who are different because people being who they are isn’t all by choice
@@S3.14codm I understand that you’re frustrated when religious people give you non-answers to the hardest questions. But I think that honest, intelligent theists come closer to answering questions about meaning than anyone else. I tried extracting meaning from the Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens type of philosophy, and there’s just… nothing there. Materialism is philosophically absurd, and there is clearly a realm of meaning. Whether God is at the root of it, I’m not sure, but I’m starting to lean in that direction. It’s not blind faith in anything, any more so than you have “faith” that you’ll wake up in the morning when you go to sleep. Do you have evidence that you will wake up? No. Do you believe that you will? Yes. Thats the kind of faith that’s talked about.
@@nonchalanto the waking up part in your comment isn’t all that great, it just sounds like Feel Good words making it seem like it’s miraculous. Yes tomorrow isn’t promised but when it comes to this I could only see it as chance or a case of probability rather than a miracle. I know there’s a possibility of me waking up tomorrow based on observation of reality e.g. wars? diseases? cosmic catastrophic events? etc. also for me it’s evident that the activity or action of waking up has been done for about 10000 days already, so it’s very likely that I will wake up tomorrow but this differs to each person depending on what is going on with or around them unless there’s a cosmic event then yes we’re all dead. I know there’s a possibility of me not waking up tomorrow because of the acknowledgment of things that’s observed that can take life… Now the question is: have I ever observed a spiritual activity or a supernatural natural phenomenon? No, not once so I’m still going into it blindly being that there’s nothing of it that can be observed. When I say I never felt or experienced anything relating to religious belief people with faith will pin this on me “but did you try”, “you weren’t a real Christian”, “you probably ignored the experience or signs” or the ol “you’re going to hell” scare tactic… again if something makes people feel good, why not. I have a belief in a god (agnostic? If that’s the word) not to feel god though. one can say I sit with the atheist being that I don’t side with many words from many other theist especially those who are very religious
@@nonchalanto i feel like religion might be for you, it seems that these what I call feel good words bring you joy or whatever the case may be! I would suggest it… but I don’t have faith waking up tomorrow, anything can happen
Atheism is the world's biggest dead end. A person who denies the existence of God contradicts himself. Because humans are naturally weak and in need of shelter. They cannot solve most of their problems. People also face many problems that they cannot solve. Sometimes illness, sometimes loneliness, etc. They experience problems. Most people believe in God and they are the only ones who respond to those who ask for help. Existence is Allah, He accepts prayers, there is great harmony in the universe, the sun, the moon and the stars. Could these happen by chance? The last religion, Islam, says that Allah is one and the same. Islam values brotherhood and cooperation.
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection).
What is he calling objective value. I have difficulty listening to these religious jorden petersonesq types. The Bible as literature is fine but without evidence of an actual god,…
As an atheist who was raised Catholic who returned the the Catholic Church as a 30 year old, I appreciate that you are giving Bishop Barron the time. While Jordan Peterson caught me while I was atheist, Bishop Barron secured my return home. Thank you for the podcast!
Probably every Christian is a doubter at heart, but sees reinforcement through "The One that has risen". Alex is contemplative and humble, the Lord bless his soul. Blessings to Bishop Barron to continue proclaiming Lord's Glory.
The problem is doubt about God is actually a grave sin. As a christian I spent every waking day of my life fearing hell and wondering why God was absent in the world. Jesus seems loving but his teachings about hell (and all religions who preach eternal torture) are completely immoral and illogical.
Most people in Alex's shoes would not have said they started eating some animal products again; they would just keep up a charade. Alex didn't. He communicated openly about his struggles even though he was strongly incentivized not to go through the personal attacks for that.
@@asagoldsmith3328 This too. I wonder how many people presenting such a vitriolic reaction are themselves apostates; I think a nonzero number of people and I feel like that’s so hypocritical.
@@asagoldsmith3328 Same exact thought, Asa. I wonder too if there’re other ideologies - political parties and systems, for example - that inspire such deep hatred of the “apostate.” In philosophy, on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine a hard determinist working up a vicious attitude towards a free-willer, a Stoic spouting violence against an Epicurean! But who knows? Human nature can be endlessly confounding!🤷♂️
He was making excuses to murder animals. Alex is SMART enough to consult a doctor or a health expert BUT he spent all that time talking to a DIET FAD advocate. He never mentions about going to see a certified nutritionist because he knows it's better to lie by omission than it is to straight up say "No, I didn't did enough research to find a health expert because I rather simp to Mikayla Peterson."
Ipso facto: The fact itself 8:50 Summum bonum : The greatest good 15:10 Liturgy: the form of the worship cordis homo : heart of man 49:45 enantiodromia: the tendency for things to change into their opposites 1:01:24 Agere contra: acting against 1:01:40 ipsum esse: "being" itself: as in existence itself 1:03:25
I really like how Bishop Barron speaks. When I first heard him talk I remember thinking: this man knows peace in a way that is foreign to me, and I want that peace. It’s so compelling. God bless him.
@@dctamayo If you were smart, then you would have noticed that all religions work exactly like the Nigerian Prince scam. You know... the one where a "lawyer" (prophet/priest/preacher) tells you that he is acting on behalf of a very important person called "the Nigerian Prince" (god) who wants to make you an offer of immense monetary value (eternal life) if you give him some money (an offering/tithe) in advance. If you pull this stunt with any other pretend VIP other than god, the DA will have you arrested for fraud. But if you use "god" as the name of the Nigerian Prince, then we give you a tax exemption. Cool, isn't it? :-)
@@dctamayo I don't want to call you stupid. Can you tell me what it is about the Bishop's words that you like? Is it what he says that pleases you or is it more the manner in which he speaks? Is it because he seems to be comfortable & at ease?
KUDOS to Alex’ mother for raising such a beautiful and emphatetic human being! I’m catholic and all I see in Alex is beautiful loving soul and human being! 😇
I couldn't agree more. I followed both of these individuals before they crossed paths and I can't get enough of this style of discussion. Mutual understandement and compassion is what's the most missing in this world.
I’m so so happy you’re back to making videos Alex! I loved this conversation as a Christian viewer with a lot of questions. I appreciate both you and Bishop Robert Baron for being willing to take on the tough questions and just have an open discussion about it. I really look forward to more discussions like these!
Alex, I'm very impressed with your intellect and your graceful open-mindedness. I'm an evangelical Christian and your insights are refreshing. Bless you 😊
I saw Jesus in a film, and she was the most beautiful and distracting person ever. She created a desire in me when I didn't need anything before. Alex, too, has a sort of theatrical Jesus-esque presence.
Alex. This interview is amazing. This new format is perfect. Keep going. Thanks for letting Barron speak openly about the Faith. Amazing questions and answers.
Alex leans towards an interview rather to an actual debate/discussion. Some views of the invited speaker are challenged, but only to a certain extent. This is interesting because we open space for people to express their thoughts in a more linear way. Of course, sometimes I'd like to see a few more rejoinders, but it's an interesting format anyways. Excited for the next episode :D
@@Lamster66 It seems that it’s often one of the following: 1)obvious emotional desperation for a stable foundation of meaning; 2)some sort of revelatory experience like psychedelic use or a NDE; 3)rigid and often abusive indoctrination in childhood combined with limited capacity for critical self-reflection.
@@Lamster66 I realized LONG ago (I am almost 40, you seem maybe younger than I), that I am a nameless faceless peasant in history, and it was a deeply comforting thought, it relieved me of the burden of feeling like I needed to make the most of my life. It doesn’t bother me to just let my survival instinct keep me going til my time comes. Doesn’t bother me one bit. Depression happens when people have the expectation that they are important. When you realize you aren’t, it feels better, much lighter.
@@Lamster66 Ha! My genuine apologies! I hear you, though. I always tell people, when I was 25, I never thought I’d be 40; now that I’m there, I realize I’m gonna be 70, like sometime next week!😅 I already feel my body aging, and imagine it will only get worse. My aunt died of cancer a couple years ago, in her mid 50s, and besides the fact that it was a horrible way to go, I almost envied her, that at least she didn’t end up like her mother, my grandma, who died the year after and spent the last decade of her life not knowing who she or anybody else was and being profoundly miserable. Now my 90 year old grandfather, sharp as a tack, is all alone. I kinda don’t plan to make it that long, whether nature or accident gets me, or whether I just decide to call it quits. Doesn’t bother me at all to think of it. Im so glad I had the good sense to be gay and never have wanted children. I feel sad for my sisters kids, what they’ll face in the human condition. Barbaric, really, for sentient creatures to keep the whole lot going.
Great interview Alex. You gave enough contrast (pushback) in order to go deeper while being transparent and letting your guest speak his mind. Congratulations!
Alex, that was extraordinary. I couldn’t stop listening. This Catholic thanks you for asking very good questions and masterfully hosting this conversation.
Man im enjoying this debate/conversation. Im glad us atheists have Alex to articulate our thoughts and doubts. I love that hes respectful and not aggressive. BB is a phenomenal person and a perfect person to have this conversation. Loved every bit of this.
The gentle and seemingly obvious deep respect shown toward each other is perhaps the most beautiful lesson that one receives regardless of the wide polarity of views. Thankyou both.
I agree with you. I try to be respectful and non confrontational in my comments with people of different beliefs ( such as Muslims ) and atheists too. One reason is because I don't know it all !
Absolutely. The evangelical fundamentalist sector has poisoned the well here for many nonbelievers (too busy packing for the rapture to read much?). We should not forget that there are many Christian humanists and responsible deep-thinking religious folk. They get overlooked frequently as they don't make as much noise.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 obviously you do "know" jesus was ressurrected from death on a cross,plus i would find it difficult to listen to a representative of a religion(the catholic church) rife with pedophiles and their protectors, as childrens lives mean much More to me than "civil discourse"...
Bishop Baron is one of the rare ones that does such a surgical extraction on the ideas/philosophies that intrigue me, but ultimately feel wrong in a way that's oft difficult to describe without thinking on it intently for a bit. Doing that on the fly mid-convo is really a kind of masterclass on that level of abstract thinking. Kudos.
I'd say he puts too much emphasis on feelings. It's all well and good that he feels Hamlet is some sort of transcendent work, but he has no real reason for it besides him wanting it to be true.
@@StuntpilootStef Perhaps one can consider that subjective feelings have the capacity to transcend our reasoning and calculation capabilities at the cost of precision and confidence in correctness. Feelings help us approximate answers that are currently too difficult to define and answer so we can take action in a reasonable time. For example, it is difficult to rationally calculate what food is most optimal for health but feelings can be very helpful for finding guidance. There is a balance to be struck between feelings and reason as feelings help us act in helpful ways to achieve our goals with limited data while reason helps us improve the accuracy of feelings to take more optimal actions. For example, we may feel that Oreos are most helpful for our health but reason can correct that feeling. Similarly, reason may say that we don't need to eat carrots today but a feeling may provide insight that there is something in carrots our body is currently requiring. Although if all reason is providing is a dismissal of feelings because they cannot be rationally validated or understood, then this is worse than the feelings themselves because it eliminates the capability of taking reasonable actions. For reason to properly correct a feeling, it must provide a better solution, in my opinion. For example, if all reason does is say Oreos are bad and doesn't provide an alternative food to eat, it's better to eat Oreos until we find a food that's more reasonable.
@@coryharasha "subjective feelings have the capacity to transcend our reasoning and calculation capabilities at the cost of precision and confidence in correctness" This is just a very convoluted way of saying guessing exists. Like I said, he wants it to be true, that's why he believes it. He has no rational basis for it at any level. He's not just less accurate or in balance with rationality, he has literally no other reason.
@@StuntpilootStef I disagree that he has no rational basis as it can be rational to believe in one's feeling as containing more comprehensive data than can be analyzed consciously. For example, animals lack rationality but have the feelings necessary to survive in many environments that humans would struggle to survive with reason alone. They are "guessing" in a sense of the word, but their guesses seem to work really well. Similarly, I'm not sure atheism is sustainable evolutionarily. The religious guess so to speak seems to be very powerful for leveraging feelings to motivate survival and cooperation especially in times of great suffering where the less connected to feelings may opt for solutions such as suicide or anti-natalism. Reason minus feeling has the end of death because feelings are the reason to live.
@@coryharasha He's not using a fight or flight response to guess his way to an answer, he's purely using what he wants the world to be. Maybe he's born with it, maybe it's make believe. And you're right, make believe is very handy. If you think a tiger is going to eat you and run away you don't die for being wrong. False positives are not punished, while false negatives are.Luckily, we don't live in a world where we're constantly being attacked by tigers anymore, so your example isn't applicable. It's also fucking insulting to suggest atheists are unable to cooperate or will kill themselves in times of strife. But please, don't use such convoluted words to say simple things, you're not fooling anybody. Just talk like a human being.
I'm not religious, and I don't think I agree with much of what the bishop was saying. But I really enjoyed this interview. It's made me think about things I haven't before and it was a good exploration of ideas. Keen to listen to more episodes of this "new" podcast.
Bishop Barron is a genius, absolutely adore him. He played a huge role in my conversion. Now that I'm Catholic I know this is what I was missing, the fullness of truth. The holy eucharist is everything ❤
Thanks Alex, I'm glad you are producing content, I knew from another video you've not had an easy ride of late! Much love and support. I wonder if Alex (if you read this) you would consider talking to intellectuals from other faiths, I think you are a very honest person with a lot of integrity intellectually and I wonder if you are getting mellow in your old age or if you have a soft spot specifically for Christianity compared to other beliefs you find implausible. I was more than a bit put out by some of the repetitive unchallenged lack of substance to done of the conversation. Your gentle questioning was dismissed, sidestepped and gishgalloped at times, his personal bias and arrogance meant the priest could not even have the decency to credit people with other views and opinions as really being convinced of their own views. Shocking, self defeating and shallow. The intellectual fortetude of a toddler. "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ― Aristotle
@@FartPanther Excellent interview Alex. You are gentle enough to encourage Bishop Barron to express his beliefs to the point of unproven opinion, through to the contradictions of the nature of God. You have sufficient knowledge of the Bishops beliefs to coax out his arrogance and 'holier than thou ego'. The christian faith story appears to be becoming more flexible over time to facilitate new scientific and phycological understanding. However the resurrection story will always doom it to fantasy, unless that too is one day explained as a metaphor.
@@isaac1572 Why do you think "the resurrection story will always doom it to fantasy " ? I assume you mean the resurrection of Jesus necessarily negates the truth of Christianity? I see the opposite. I think the resurrection of Jesus, although rejected by most scientific evidence, is the foundational cornerstone of Christianity that supports the beliefs of Christian faith. So inflexibility in regards to the resurrection is actually something positive. I do agree that the resurrection of Jesus may be interpreted as a metaphor but I think a rejection of the historical crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus would nullify the basic beliefs of Christianity. Respectfully...
@@FartPanther Bishop Baron and Catholicism are philosophically based on Aristotle and Aquinas. Bishop Baron addressed all points. Lots of us find mindless matter in meaningless motion, 18th century materialist worldviews as simply and manifestly absurd. And so they are. The existence of God , as Bishop Baron can show anyone, is easy to demonstrate from evidence and reason alone. Free willed rational beings are not the unintelligible cosmic accidents proclaimed in a frankly dehumanizing way by materialist atheists. Its an incoherent worldview and check out the Marxist atheism - based solutions for the worst world slaughter in all of history. Your animus towards Bishop Baron is obvious and unwarranted. But he actually studied Aristotle. And understood him as did Aquinas. They built the west and the modern.
As a believer, I really appreciate this open discussion. You are asking the right kind of questions with just the right amount of pushback allowing Barron to give a thoughtful opinion or explanation. I've learned a few things about Catholicism that I haven't even learned on Barron's channel. Cheers!
I'm not a christian, but bishop Barron is a great person. Also Alex did a great respectful interview keeping the right balance between too shy and too aggressive.
Alex, I am a huge fan of Bishop Barron. But I came away also a fan of you. Wonderful interview! Thank you for your honest inquiry and thoughtful, challenging questions.
@@michael-4k4000 "Jesus believes in you even if you can see him in the moment" - How do you know this? I mean how do know this specific piece of information? I don't think you do really know it. I think you have just made it up because you think that's how it should be.
So glad that Alex is back and it seems he found an interview format and style of questioning that enables him to absolutely shine, what a beautiful soul he is becoming.
Excellent conversation conducted by two intelligent individuals in a respectful and honest manner. Rare and much needed. Regardless of your beliefs this is worthy of respect.
As an artist who is also an atheist, the inescapable specter of death is indeed a motivating factor for my creation of art. My art explores and questions consciousness and meaning, which is definitely linked to my atheism. I do create art to leave a trace of my having existed in this world.
For about 99% of us, that trace will be undetectable in less than a century after we're gone. Most of us today know the work of maybe 30 to 50 people who lived 100 years ago. That number shrinks even more if you go back 500 years.
@@theboombody all the above are correct but that doesn't do a damn to stop the pursuit of remembrance. in my opinion this pursuit is noble even in the face of insurmountable odds. also I doubt OP doesn't already know this.
I really don’t care if one person converts the other to their way of thinking. What I like, is the respectful discourse that allows people to think, without fear of being belittled.
Amen….people need to be challenged. People need to be tested and He certainly does that, allows, perhaps, actually is instrumental in our testing. Shalom😊
@@carpediem5232 cardinal can mean pivotal (note how also this word's base is pivot), important, but it's base origin in latin means hinge, a pivot. where something turns (cardinalis). The cardinals are the hinge/pivot with which the direction of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (which is God, not just a part of Him) turn towards to, by the election of the successor of St. Peter.
@@brycebensing Yeah seems convenient, that the way a pope is chosen again seems to be 100% explicable by human behavior and actions. How for example can people be petty sure that the next pope will be African? These assumptions are based on geopolitics not any insight into Gods mind. I am aware of church structure and know Latin (from school and university), but instead of a"sign" by God given plausible deniability the process of choosing a pope falls onto over the centuries often blatantly corrupt human actors. Are you suggesting that the holy spirit also was corrupt in the instances where clear corruption can be documented? Or do you have a cop out, like "the holy spirit was on vacation in summer 1492".
Heavens no! That would be a waste of his talent, tying him up in the politics and administration of the church, like what happened with Benedict XVI. He should be made a cardinal, like theologian Avery Dulles.
Fantastic dialogue. Alex asking the right questions and Bishop Barron offering poetic and learned answers. Please have another back and forth in the future together
I listened to your original debate with Bishop Barron and appreciate your willingness to delve into these very deep questions. I was so touched by the fact that you revealed you were raised Catholic, rosary and all. This discussion was even better in particular around finding objective meaning and final causality. Loved it!
Meaning is inescapable. The more profound stuff many think of when the word is mentioned, especially in this context, revolves around existential issues and hangups. But not everyone experiences all such issues and hangups, nor do they do so in the same fashion or to the same degree. Btw, an atheist wrote the best book on meaning one could ever hope to find.
Meaning is a human hang up not n objective part of the universe. There’s no requirement to have an answer for these questions; this is where Absurdism can be useful.
I agree 💯. However, I would like to hear a discussion between Bishop Barron & Pastor John Macarthur. The latter offers a comprehensive & convincing TH-cam video on the many unbiblical practices of the Catholic faith.
I don't know if this means much to you, Alex, but God bless you. If there is such an atheist who is truly, genuinely following his conscience, I think he would look like you. May we be united in Truth one day.
Very respectful attitude and comforting for me to read. So many of the comments call a belief in God as "nonsense" and other unrepeatable words. I also try to respect Atheists and I wish they would show respect to believers. God bless you too. I appreciate your comments.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Doubts (about faith) are good. And I go after meaty things that could, for those with faith, fill in gaps left by a sudden absence of it. If you're interested 😊
Wow! So amazing to see The brilliant young mind and not so young wise mind in a sincere dialogue. This kind of dialogue and not discussion is needed where there is mutual respect for each others world view and belief. Thanks for giving this beautiful hour of my life. Looking forward to such conversations.
IF Jesus's message ever caused anyone to hate god for being a fat, drunken, self-absorbed ointment waster, then he deepened your faith, for your hate was love.
That was an awesome discussion and proof that an atheist and a Christian can have a thoughtful and polite exchange of ideas. Kudos to you Alex and it seemed like a light bulb went off above your head at the end of the discussion when talking about the nature of God. Good luck to you in your search for TRUTH.
At 29:25 Barron calls Cosmic Skeptic out, saying he doesn't think he (CS) even believes his own assertions. And you can see a profound smile appear on CS's face which he then quickly tries to wrestle away and put his serious, analytical mask back on. And I think that plucked a certain chord with CS, whether he wanted it to or not. I don't mean it was a gotcha moment or that CS looked guilty. But it still felt like Barron had called out a behavior which even CS couldn't physically/biologically deny. Whether or not God exists isn't the point. That we all ultimately behave, at points, as if there is a God is.
>Whether or not God exists isn't the point. Yes it is. >That we all ultimately behave, at points, as if there is a God is. That and the atrocious consequences of it are only being justified by the existence of that god. Keeping people from clinging on to delusions is central to keeping them from committing atrocities.
What immediately came to my mind from that assertion was the dozens of times I've heard believers arrogantly assert they know someone (who they've talked very little with) better than the person themself. Now I don't know if that thought was what made Alex smile, but it would've been the reason I did.
This is such a good listen. Despite BB and Alex coming from very different starting points, you get the feeling BB values his time speaking to Alex, almost like a father and son
I studied western philosophy and the case for God at a good university and I believe , am convinced that Bishop Barron with his philosophical ground in western realism is exactly right in his understanding. It really is possible to show the existence of God from evidence, like change, and sound arguments. And I enjoy Alex's respectful engagement. I anticipate that Alex will come to see that his concern for animal suffering which is a very real thing, will come to see that it is the essential goodness of reality that affirms that deep ground of being Who calls us to appreciate goodness, beauty and truth. This really does require the reasoned answer of monotheism. I also found Catholicism to be solid as a rock as Christ founded His church and this despite any human failings of members which will of course always be there to some degree.
@@BlacksmithTWD Hi. The unity of experience and existence mitigates against many 'gods' as they would all have to be united in existence by something like the God of monotheism. In like manner deism has a wrong outlook on causation or intelligibility. Ed Feser does a very good job really answering the God question, and it really is something you can actually know for sure on the evidence alone. The argument for monotheism has never been refuted and it predates even Plato. Its the most important question and the most important answer obviously to get right. Here's a link to Prof Feser giving a quick summary of the argument. Its solid. But take your time and be sure you understand as you delve into it and be demanding. I sure was and I wasn't disappointed . The lights went on in the universe. Cheers and good luck th-cam.com/video/Z5PjiS1MJM8/w-d-xo.html th-cam.com/video/4cLM0N002wI/w-d-xo.html
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! Since evolution is proven to be a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt we know that we are nothing but a species of apes nothing more nothing less so ALL religions and ALL their stupid and often cruel doctrines can ALL be thrown right in the trash! And what a stupid and cruel christian doctrine anyway! Here we have an of course non-existing God who after waiting more than two hundred thousand years since the Homo sapiens came into existence finally decided to reveal himself to all humanity of the whole world and to forgive all our imaginary "sins" by killing his son. Couldn't "he" just forgive our imaginary sins without having to kill his son? After all he is supposed to be "almighty" so that could not have been a hard problem for "him"! And why kill his son if he was already planning to resurrect him anyway? So Jesus just had a bad weekend! Can it be more stupid? And at what time was the non-existing "soul" "blown" in the head? Was it in the head of the common ancestor of the Homo sapiens, the bonobos and the chimpanzees? Or was it in one of the many hominids that existed? We still carry a small amount of the DNA of some hominid species in our genome!!! But let's settle the argument forever! Call Jesus back and let him perform all his so-called "miracles" in a lab under scientifically controled circumstances. That can't be too hard to do since he is resurrected so he is still alive and he probably lives somewhere on a planet in another Galaxy!
Alex, you're a gentleman, loved the way you treated Bishop Baron. This conversation is a clear demonstration of the fact that we are incredible beings endowed with the image of God, with intelligence, creativity and learning. We do great things because we have the opportunity to do them, it doesn't matter when we die. We are transcendent beings.
This is a wonderful and enriching conversation. Thank you Bishop Barron for articulating the faith, and thank you Alex for giving us the opportunity to speak about what we really believe as Catholics.
24:18 - Robert might as well be arguing that fishes' feeding behaviors could not have evolved because sometimes that behavior causes them to bite baited hooks and get themselves killed.
If you think that argument is analogous you've misunderstood his point (or maybe I have). He's not arguing that sacrifice couldn't possibly be behavior evolved through natural selection because one particular act of sacrifice has a negative effect on the propagation of that particular individual's genes. Rather, he seems to appeal to the intuition that such an act of sacrifice, while perhaps having its roots in evolutionary social adaptations, is more than just a direct mechanistic result of the evolutionary process. To add a bit more grounding for this intuition, I would argue that the act of sacrifice is in this case not at all aligned with base instincts. In fact it is in direct opposition to the very strong instinct for survival. My reading of the event is that it was neither an ingrained reflex nor a calculated strategy for maximizing some sort of genetic advantage. The main motivating factor in the decision to sacrifice himself was the belief that it was the "right" thing to do. It is an act towards a pure ideal rather than a pragmatic, adapted response. Not only is explaining it purely in terms of biological rules not doing the act justice, but it also misses part of the picture, it's not a full explanation. All that being said, I think that the evolutionary pressures at the base of all this may not be sufficient, but still necessary. If not for the need to live and cooperate in social groups, would we have evolved the ability to feel empathy? And without empathy, are we confident that we would have arrived at the same general moral scaffolding that we find ourselves with? Where sacrificing yourself for someone else is considered "good"?
I find it interesting that Bishop Barron so firmly stated that he thinks that Alex's thinking was biased by an underlying need to prove materialism while not recognizing the possibility the opposite could be true within himself. It really broke down for me when he dwelled so long on saying he couldn't believe that Alex actually held particular viewpoints. In the end the Bishop stated far too often that he "just can't believe" certain things and that he thinks certain connections between concepts are just too thin. It's essentially an admission that he was choosing to ignore actual arguments for wanting to believe in something he finds beautiful.
I think what Barron meant is that Alex's belief in materialism/reductionism is counter intuitive to his own personal experience, which he discounts to follow this stream of reductionist thinking.
>while not recognizing the possibility the opposite could be true within himself Yeah, dude literally dedicated his life to defend the indefensible. A massive effort that kind of debunks itself as it only further illustrates the inaction and impotence of his deity.
@@tripp8833Yet he still referred to Alex’s perspective as ‘reductionist’. Barron made it clear that Alex’s perspective just doesn’t satisfy him or his views on the arts. Ironically, it’s not reductionist to say “the basis for human actions ultimately derive from biological factors”. If it is, then Barton’s statement on God’s love is also reductionist as having only come from a creator.
Yes! I agree 100%. I actually didn’t find the conversation very compelling for that reason. Alex listed a variety of reasons folks can lean toward atheism and the bishop just says “Nope” and proceeds to give no reason other than “doesn’t work for me”. The conversation really didn’t offer anything new. I guess people just like the fact that Alex and the bishop are so polite to one another.
This is an excellent discussion and you, Alex, are a uniquely talented interviewer. You draw the deep from your guests and you avoid confrontation. This arises out of your talent for listening to your guest (or opponent). Please keep going forward...
Great conversation here. I'm not a Catholic but I'm a Christian and I enjoy Bishop Barron's insights. Alex is an excellent interviewer. He strikes an ideal balance between inviting elaboration - drawing out the details of the interviewee's position, on the one hand, and challenging positions/playing devil's advocate on the other. Some interviewers seem to only do one or the other.
HI Alex, thank you for sharing this podcast. Enjoyed it very much. It is interesting to watch you evolve over the years. Many Blessings to you and your loved ones. May you find your peace.
@@damonmeier3652 no, you can do a literature review all by yourself. The internet makes it real easy; you might have heard of google…go do your homework. Why do you think I owe you anything?!!?
Very nice discussion. Keep this up, please! In regards to the discussion about the foundation or the root of meaning and how the bishop couldn't buy an evolutionary root motivation for Shakespeares work. To me, I would have talked about how Shakespeare wasn't motivated by the evolutionary ROOT motivation. i would say he was motivated by the steps that build from that root motivation. The levels that are built upon the root have their own complexity and allow for new values/motivations to branch off of the higher levels of motivation. We need to find and have food to live, so now that i care about my food I can start to value different types of food and different expuriences with it. Now that i have all this value invested in food, then i use it to display care to others or as a setting for formally meeting someone and establishing good will. Then I have ideas about how to specifically do a meal for someone that will generate goodwill. I haven't developed SPECIFIC traditions/values about how prepare a meal for someone because i need food to survive (just give them whatever and they'll be happy because food is food right?) I am motivated to do things a specific way because of the values I have built apon "i need food to survive" He says its so reductionist to say i did art because I'm motivated to survive etc, and i think i agree! But i don't need to say "i did art because evolution" I think I would say "the values that motivated art can be rooted back to evolution etc" P.s. i found it kinda amusing that after alex discussed motivation coming from a desire for your work to last the Bishop spoke about the permanence of God and the spiritual which seems to perfectly fall into being motivated to do things you think will last. I spent my life in pursuit of the everlasting transendance of god? Whats more lasting than forever? I also found the way he dismissed the idea of we care about making things that last very black and white... you don't need a thing to last literally forever for it to be motivating. Alex said outlast themselves not last forever or anything, we still know it will decay some time in alexs framework Thanks for reading! 😅
Shakespeare is essentially a 'complexity needs a creator' argument. Art works of complex emotional depth cannot arise from thousands of years or oral and written storytelling that analyze the human condition with increasing insight. This claim for God seems suspect immediately when we consider the old 'an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite numbers of typewriters will eventually write the works of Shakespeare'. Dawkins would say that after Darwin we no longer need to look for creator whenever we find complexity, yet the Bishop still asks us to do that.
When "the world" got information transfer through DNA, we got incredible complexity. When "the world" got information transfer in brains we got another explosion in creativity diversity and behaviour, when we got information transfer through writing and art and physical records of thoughts from brains, again, a very *CREDIBLE* explosion and interative increase in the apparently unexplainable beauty that he describes. The person who mentioned the rainbow says his stance perfectly. His feelings are diminished though understanding, he is a hedonist of intellectual ignorance, delighting in the unknown, reveling in the rejection of something so mundane as a plausible explanation It's so dumb to think "I find something so beautiful it defies explanation" whilst ignoring this: the fact that he finds it so inspirational is motivation enough for a human to create it (to inspire awe and entertain) the feeling itself can have a mundane explanation, one that does not have to feel intuitively right or to compare in its grandness to the feeling of awe and wonder. like how taste and appetite increasing survivability (obvious) leading to Micheline star chefs (convoluted but not "stretching it").
@@FartPanther Beautifully written. I had a similar consideration when on my balcony looking up at the stars, imagining the universe's vastness. I felt a deep sense of awe. Then the thought came to consider that my sense of awe was not a reflection that the universe itself is in some way objectively awesome or beautiful. Rather, my sense of awe was a subjective reaction of my brain to something large, complex, and mysterious. The same would be true if I found the love of my life beautiful. She wouldn't be objectively beautiful. Instead my mind would create this recognition of beauty and feelings of attraction, later turning into love. At first, this seemed deeply troubling. If there is no such thing as objective beauty, awe, love, etc. then why should it matter? But indeed this is ALL that matters. It is in this SHARED world of subjective values that we humans share emotions, morals, and all meaning. This is what evolution has given us: Emotions that arise in different scenarios which fuel us to actions that, in turn, give us further, deeper emotions and experiences which we can share with others.
Bishop Barron is one of my absolute favorites! Blessed to get to witness conversations like these. Great content, Mr. O’Connor! Please do have the good Bishop on again!
I'm not so sure he was attempting to make a fully realized argument. I think he was just expressing that Alex's use of a long chain of biological reductionism for every aspect of life is counterintuitive to his personal experiences.
Perhaps it wasn't within the scope of this video, but I would have liked to how it is that certain aspects of the human experience are "reduced" when their biological foundation is acknowledged, and why they are necessarily "transcendent" instead. The whole "mockery" thing is obviously just his way of expressing his opinion about that conclusion, and it doesn't really tell us anything about why he thinks that way.
Up next: alex converts to Catholicism, jokes aside I really enjoyed you and bishop baron, you should do one with Matt frad from pints with Aquinas next.
I often feel like theologians kinda steal something precious from us - from humanity itself - when they claim that the most beautiful things we do somehow transcends us and has some divine and sublime source. I want to be kind, loving and supportive to others around me so that my ideals, my very being, might resonate and echo within my fellow humans after I'm gone. Leaving a mark, even if a small one, motivates me to get up in the morning. Sure, time will come when the last ever living being will die and one might look back and ask - what was the point? A few more laughs than there would have been. That is fine by me. Maybe we live in a superdeterministic block universe and all those moments are permanent, as real as the present is now.
Maybe the Bishop is talking about your romantization of your desires is a sign of your desire for transcendent goodness, but you cant cope with the idea of the goodness being self sacrifice so you romanticize your desires to fill that hole, but the romantization is a function of the very desires themselves. Maybe you are all twisted up in a circle of your desires. Maybe the Bishop is trying to break you from this twisted mess by helping you realize it's a twisted self contradictory circular mess, and show how your desire to romanticize your desires need not be an inward navel gazing, but instead in reference to something outside of your desires and infact precisely contrary to them.
@@pat1442The way that your comment is written makes it extremely hard to understand. I would like for you to step back from arguing your position for a second and reread the original comment. Notice that they were not making an argument, they were describing the way they feel about your kind of argumentation. Do you believe that by repeating that exact kind of argumentation they will be convinced?
In other words, we have natural desire to continue to live albeit in a different form of existence after our physical death. I have noticed that in attempting to hold off the idea of a transcendent reality for which we are naturally wired, atheists (materialists) end up presupposing same. Our innate wiring to naturally desire and live for the transcendent seems to me very obvious.
@@Lerian_V You’re full of it, dude. Atheism has nothing to say about materialism, so that’s completely wrong. As you’ve not defined transcendent nor demonstrated a transcendent, your comment is simply naked intuition with a garnish of distaste for others you don’t understand. It’s frankly masturbatory. Please go learn about what you’re determined to argue against before spewing bile.
If I may ask, why do you care about having your ideals and your being marked on the world, if ultimately there is no transcendent meaning or value? Chances are, you'll die and your name will be forgotten within a few generations, if that. Can you tell me the name of your great great great grandparents? Probably not - most people can't. For me personally, I could never be motivated by the concept of "leaving a mark" on the world. Of all of the billions of humans that have lived, how many are remembered?
I enjoy Bishop Barron even though we ultimately disagree he has some interesting things to think about. Some good questions from Alex and nice to see a discussion instead of a debate where one side is trying to win.
Bishop Barron has such a breezy and affable intellect. I don't necessarily side with his ultimate conclusions, but he's wonderful to listen to. And a lovely example of how to argue for a religion while fully respecting the person you're talking to. Thank you, gentlemen for an engaging, civilized discussion.
The bishop seems preoccupied with the idea that powerful emotions, and the acts that they motivate us to do, cannot possibly be explained without something supernatural. But why? He never gave a reason beyond it being unintuitive.
Other species, as part of evolutionary development, clearly experience emotion, dream, exhibit ritualistic behavior and even subjective experience and conscientiousness - we are just invincibly ignorant of much of it. Scientific methodology has slowly exposed and eroded the flawed Thomistic and "bible based" world view and argumentation that governs his bias. So in response, the bishop denigrates the scientific method, inclusion, "wokeness", and calls alternate human sexual orientation, demonstrably exhibited in other species, "sin". The bishop's real agenda is defending dogmatic doctrine and morality made up by his denomination and based on a world view derived from some level of "biblical inerrancy" - not on the basis of science or it's methodology. Appealing to "beauty" and "powerful emotions" are just hail marys in the effort to ultimately gain control over what you think.
Alex tried to say that there might some evolutionary reason to those, then Bishop countered with the sacrifice of the 20th century priest which directly opposes survival.
Been watching Alex since he blew up and always knew if he keeps this up he'll be one of the greatest minds of our generation. And he is keeping it up and I'm witnessing it unfold as it's happening, love it
What a fantastic interview. I love the respect and thoughtfulness of both Alex and Robert to discuss and work through tough questions together. We need more of this.
Alex as a practicing Catholic i just want to say you are a wonderful intelligent young man, making a genuine search for truth. Thank you for hearing out our wonderful Bishop even where you were in disagreement. The art of debate in an era of cancel culture and people shouting a each other, is for the good of human civilisation.
I think I would have prefered more of a conversation in a typical podcast style rather than just an interview with the guest simply expressing their thoughts and Alex as a facilitator of that. I think this is valuable in some aspects sure, but I was really looking forward seeing your perspective on many of the points that were made by the guest. To listen to Alex’s perspective is ultimately why I come to this channel and watch his videos. I hope future episodes bring out more of a conversation instead of question, answer, okay, next question.
@@HarryNicNicholas He's growing away from direct opposition and into deep immersion and understanding of religion, which greatly strengthens his own "divine hiddenness" argument, of being surrounded by religion yet not accepting it.
@@chamicels No way. I've watched nearly all of his content, and there would be no bridge that could (currently) connect the atheist-to-theist gap. Watching Alex, I think he's trying to live a life that allows him (as much as possible) to dismiss as many excuses as theists can throw at him as to why he currently is an "atheist" and not a theist (I put atheist in quotes because plenty have said they don't believe anyone can be an atheist).
In the Maksymilian Kolbe sacrifice discussion my thought went along the line of Yuval Harari's thought about human capacity to share inter-subjective stories and organize ourselves around them. This proclivity to invent, share and make sacrifices for the sake of these allowes us people to maintain cohesion with remote strangers, but it can backfire as the moth's navigation on moonlight makes it burn in candle flame.
Can you explain what you mean by a backfiring situation? Kolbe had a belief about God and his soul in relation to Him and clearly decided that he was called to replicate the act of sacrifice as Jesus did. The materialist claim that humans have a capacity for this self sacrifice says nothing about the validity of the underlying belief that drives the behaviour. At some point, one has to realise that certain experiences exist in the abstracted space that is truly transcendent where scientific materialism is the wrong map to navigate that space. A better map for that transcendental space will always be some form of religious framework. It is my experience that a scientific materialist outlook puts up mental barriers that prevents religious experiences and so, people who've never had religious experiences have no clue what the rest of us are talking about and dismiss us as crazy.
@@alisterrebelo9013 What I meant by backfire, is that it got him killed. It is no at all obvious he was imitating christ here, I think it's more plausible that a generally beneficial tribal instinct can explain such behaviour. "Me, not having children should defend, and in extreme situation make even the ultimate sacrifice for a tribe member who has children." Us-them line is pretty obvious in a concentration/extermination camp. The problem with accepting claims of a transcendent reality and a different way of navigating it forces me to lower my standards of acceptable claims so low, that eventually I am forced to believe contradicting claims. Reincarnation and christian damnation/salvation cannot be both true, and yet the proponents of both conclusions use exactly the same principles to reach them. These principles are therefore unreliable and to maintain intellectual honesty I need to reject them both (and hundreds of others). Calling a believing person crazy is often a rhetorical figure only 🙂. I like how you phrased your point 🙂.
The backfiring situation is referring Dawkins’ explanation of why a moth flies into a flame. The moth evolved to navigate by the moon and stars. The “recent” inventions of flame and artificial light causes this evolutionary trait to misfire causing the moth’s death by flying into the flame. It’s not a suicide though it looks like one. Evolutionary traits misfiring is delved into a lot in Dawkins’ The God Delusion. It is why we wish to have sex even when there is absolutely no chance of reproduction. The sex drive evolved to produce more of the species, but the trait lingers. Altruism could be explained by “misfiring” of evolutionary traits. No supernatural explanation necessary. But the learned bishop (he is very admirable, by the way) dismisses these explanations with “I just don’t buy it”. For him, it must be god there.
I love when Christian’s have to end on “well I just don’t buy that” or “I know you don’t believe that” All the cringey religious gaslighting that got me to leave the faith. Your identity encompasses more than just your physical body. You make sacrifices for yourself, and you see yourself in others and in society. So, yes, you can sacrifice yourself for another person but ultimately it is to preserve you own identity.
@@JD-wu5pf - the problem is this method of “argument and facts” is very modernist and comes with a bazillions outdated presuppositions of human rationality and belief-formation (the way the mind works and the way it ought to work). For instance, empercism, foundationalism, evidentialism, and epistemic access internalism are almost always assumed as true. This ignores non-propositional (procedural) knowledge and how the mind works in paradigms, not foundations. All evidence and counter evidence is interpreted through a paradigm, even for the atheist. Further, foundationalism tends to imply that people form beliefs by consciously looking at one syllogism. That’s false. You don’t have control over your beliefs. Our mind works by subconsciously weighing numerous pro- and con-syllogisms against each other. That is a non-rational process that largely has to do with presuppositions osmosed through one’s upbringing (tradition) and experience. Michael Oakeshott, Michael Polanyi, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor are good resources on this view of rationality.
@@JD-wu5pf Yes 👍. Being educated in the history of western philosophy is very useful for understanding the various notions of rationality that underly all major disagreements today.
Very Nice Alex! Keep up the good work. I particularly like episodes were the purpose isn’t to belittle or downplay people’s ideas, but rather to explore and enhance.
![[LIVE] : ONE ลุมพินี 87 วันนี้!! คู่เอก "ก้องชัย vs โชคปรีชา"](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YN6e7HVnekw/mqdefault.jpg)
![ร้อยพ่อพันแม่ - WanMai [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XY2pNYASEbg/mqdefault.jpg)
Get 30% off Blinkist premium and enjoy 2 memberships for the price of 1! Start your 7-day free trial by clicking here: blinkist.com/cosmicskeptic
Let me know what you think of the new podcast! Looking forward to posting these weekly. Don't forget to subscribe to and rate the podcast on Spotify/Apple Podcasts, if you feel inclined, which really helps me out. Thank you!
not until you stop funding gas chambers
Talk to Avi. He can discuss nutrition and ethics with you - and hopefully even help you with the problems you specified.
I miss the cosmic skeptic who was willing to have tough discussions with people he disagreed with. The skeptic who honestly searched for truth and tried his best to be a good person.
It seems like thats gone now, you refuse to discuss this gigantic issue further or ask for help or criticism of any kind. its so unlike you. Unsubbed
I don't enjoy these types of general conversations with fundamentalists because they are dishonest in nature. As a Catholic, this guy believes very specific things that are demonstrably wrong. I really don't care about his philosophy. He is a bishop in one of the most harmful organizations in human history. He is a leader in a cult, plain and simple. This man is celibate because he thinks that is important his 3,000 year old Canaanite god and he lives his life to promote that others make similar decisions. It's nice that he's read some philosophy books but it doesn't seem to have helped him not devote his life to promoting obvious delusions. I'd really like to hear more about how his philosophy interacts with his association with the Church and its many falsehoods.
Asking him large philosophical questions allows him to launder his insane beliefs through an hour long conversation. In reality asking a pointed questions like "Can a man come back from death", will reveal the only answer you will get is some version of because the bible tells me so. Because that's all there is to being a Christian. He doesn't get to tack on all this extra stuff because God's scared word isn't good enough to convince people.
I am happy you are opening up to other ideas. I really respect that.
I really like the spirit of this channel.
It seems to me it is most oriented toward truth rather than some aggressive bashing of someone's beliefs for the sake of it.
,
I’m a devout Catholic and I love listening to Alex, he’ll find the truth…
Alex has always been a class act. He’s the most epistemically humble atheist I’m aware of.
i think it’s inevitable when ur beliefs have real world implications
Or bashing the person he’s talking to.
I know that this is a deeply unpopular opinion, but as a lifelong skeptical seeker of God, I’ve found that poetry brings me infinitely closer to faith than purely rational argument, and in that sense there are few modern religious thinkers that I enjoy listening to more than Bishop Barron. Great content, Alex!
The good, the true, the BEAUTIFUL
Right, and that beauty, that deep feeling, is what God wants us to experience. These “objective values” that Bishop Robert Barron was describing.
Join the kingdom and family of God!
Except I find beauty in art and poetry and nature, among many other things, and at no point do any of those things drive me closer to a god. I understand your general sentiment, but I don't find it a particularly valuable approach in terms of drawing me toward a conclusion. And I'm not particularly fond of people who imply that just because I don't believe there's a God behind it I'm somehow unable to experienced depth, beauty, or awe. I know the original commenter didn't imply that, but the replies were certainly trending in that direction.
Luke - we are just beginning to understand the neurobiological reasons why what you’re saying here is 100% true. Iain McGilchrist’s “The Master and His Emissary” is a gem and it discussed this topic.
Devout Catholic here from Ireland 🇮🇪.
Subscribed .
I have listened to both sides of the arguments for past 6 years or so.
Eventually coming back to catholocism.
I love atheists that interrogate my faith as hard as possible.
I love it more when my faith can withstand it.
❤️❤️❤️
Beautifully said! ⚘️
Fair enough sentiment
Im an atheist who is profoundly in love with traditions of the west, including many of the fruits of judeo christian culture. Also been enjoying the two sides of this argument.
So do I. It only reinforces my belief because I always find that at their core, vast majority of them possess only a caricature understanding of Christianity. And it’s intellectually pathetic.
Bishop Barron is such an amazing communicator. I haven’t believed in God all my life and I’m still not quite sure what I believe, but his exposition is very compelling. Major props to you Alex for having this discussion honestly and respectfully.
He should have said what the argument for naturally selected values was missing when he called it reductive
I would say the same thing about Barron but religion was something I was born into, so to me it just sounds like words are being repeated… since I stepped away from religion I’ve talked to people that still had faith and it doesn’t help. Let’s just say they always tell me the answers are in their book but when there’s a tough question I have it’s either “nobody knows & only god knows, there’s a reason” (even though nobody knows the reason also), preaching or deflection, a request to just have faith or all of the above but not knowing something doesn’t help me because I’m getting back into something blindly & refuse to do that. All I can say is, if it helps you feel good? Go for it, just don’t be a butthole to those who are different because people being who they are isn’t all by choice
@@S3.14codm I understand that you’re frustrated when religious people give you non-answers to the hardest questions. But I think that honest, intelligent theists come closer to answering questions about meaning than anyone else. I tried extracting meaning from the Sam Harris/Richard Dawkins/Christopher Hitchens type of philosophy, and there’s just… nothing there. Materialism is philosophically absurd, and there is clearly a realm of meaning. Whether God is at the root of it, I’m not sure, but I’m starting to lean in that direction. It’s not blind faith in anything, any more so than you have “faith” that you’ll wake up in the morning when you go to sleep. Do you have evidence that you will wake up? No. Do you believe that you will? Yes. Thats the kind of faith that’s talked about.
@@nonchalanto the waking up part in your comment isn’t all that great, it just sounds like Feel Good words making it seem like it’s miraculous. Yes tomorrow isn’t promised but when it comes to this I could only see it as chance or a case of probability rather than a miracle. I know there’s a possibility of me waking up tomorrow based on observation of reality e.g. wars? diseases? cosmic catastrophic events? etc. also for me it’s evident that the activity or action of waking up has been done for about 10000 days already, so it’s very likely that I will wake up tomorrow but this differs to each person depending on what is going on with or around them unless there’s a cosmic event then yes we’re all dead. I know there’s a possibility of me not waking up tomorrow because of the acknowledgment of things that’s observed that can take life… Now the question is: have I ever observed a spiritual activity or a supernatural natural phenomenon? No, not once so I’m still going into it blindly being that there’s nothing of it that can be observed. When I say I never felt or experienced anything relating to religious belief people with faith will pin this on me “but did you try”, “you weren’t a real Christian”, “you probably ignored the experience or signs” or the ol “you’re going to hell” scare tactic… again if something makes people feel good, why not. I have a belief in a god (agnostic? If that’s the word) not to feel god though. one can say I sit with the atheist being that I don’t side with many words from many other theist especially those who are very religious
@@nonchalanto i feel like religion might be for you, it seems that these what I call feel good words bring you joy or whatever the case may be! I would suggest it… but I don’t have faith waking up tomorrow, anything can happen
I wish this was how all religious/atheist dialogue played out.
Atheism is the world's biggest dead end. A person who denies the existence of God contradicts himself. Because humans are naturally weak and in need of shelter. They cannot solve most of their problems. People also face many problems that they cannot solve. Sometimes illness, sometimes loneliness, etc. They experience problems. Most people believe in God and they are the only ones who respond to those who ask for help. Existence is Allah, He accepts prayers, there is great harmony in the universe, the sun, the moon and the stars. Could these happen by chance? The last religion, Islam, says that Allah is one and the same. Islam values brotherhood and cooperation.
Yes agreed! Wonderful discussion this!
what did you take from the conversation?
Quran says: “Allah:there is no deity worthy of worship except he”:The Neccessary life/consciousness,sustainer of life/consciousness.” Wire like neuronal structures that conduct electricity via ions/neurotransmitters in the CNS/PNS possess no attribute of thinking/life and yet that has “randomly” led to life. Consciousness/thinking is an innate idea(“Fitra”)that is distinct from carbon skeleton and yet the materialist scientist believes that chemistry turned into biology via “god of randomness”/”Emergent property”/”law of nature”. Consciousness can only stem from Necessary Consciousness (Allah-one/indivisible/loving/self-sufficient perfection).
@@bluesky45299a book says its true therefore it's true. Sounds like sound reasoning.
I'm a non theist and found this a very beautiful and honest discussion free of animosity. Very refreshing.
Arabic native?
@@hamzaharfaoui1411 يا ريت! مع الأسف لا. ا
It's actually all superficial.
@@veganevolution ok dad
What is he calling objective value. I have difficulty listening to these religious jorden petersonesq types. The Bible as literature is fine but without evidence of an actual god,…
As an atheist who was raised Catholic who returned the the Catholic Church as a 30 year old, I appreciate that you are giving Bishop Barron the time. While Jordan Peterson caught me while I was atheist, Bishop Barron secured my return home. Thank you for the podcast!
😬
The same here ❤
oh shut up@@liamhutfles4113
@@liamhutfles4113 reason you say? But reason is not what you do...
seriously I don't think you were atheist in the first place. It would be horrible to do that to yourself to go to one extreme to another.
Probably every Christian is a doubter at heart, but sees reinforcement through "The One that has risen". Alex is contemplative and humble, the Lord bless his soul. Blessings to Bishop Barron to continue proclaiming Lord's Glory.
The problem is doubt about God is actually a grave sin. As a christian I spent every waking day of my life fearing hell and wondering why God was absent in the world. Jesus seems loving but his teachings about hell (and all religions who preach eternal torture) are completely immoral and illogical.
@@gina-ge2qzare you really following god if your always afraid? It seems you have little trust in gods word who came and suffered as we do
@@gina-ge2qz 1. Having doubts is not grave sin.
2. How is hell immoral and illogical exactly?
@@gina-ge2qzwhere in the Bible does it state that doubting God is a grave sin? The entire book of Job would seem to contradict this claim
Most people in Alex's shoes would not have said they started eating some animal products again; they would just keep up a charade. Alex didn't. He communicated openly about his struggles even though he was strongly incentivized not to go through the personal attacks for that.
Precisely! Everyone bashing Alex for not being open should seriously take a moment to consider why Alex would even come out in the first place.
@@tyrannicclub4200yeah the toxicity of some of these reactions is quite akin to when someone becomes an apostate
@@asagoldsmith3328 This too. I wonder how many people presenting such a vitriolic reaction are themselves apostates; I think a nonzero number of people and I feel like that’s so hypocritical.
@@asagoldsmith3328 Same exact thought, Asa. I wonder too if there’re other ideologies - political parties and systems, for example - that inspire such deep hatred of the “apostate.” In philosophy, on the other hand, it’s hard to imagine a hard determinist working up a vicious attitude towards a free-willer, a Stoic spouting violence against an Epicurean! But who knows? Human nature can be endlessly confounding!🤷♂️
He was making excuses to murder animals. Alex is SMART enough to consult a doctor or a health expert BUT he spent all that time talking to a DIET FAD advocate. He never mentions about going to see a certified nutritionist because he knows it's better to lie by omission than it is to straight up say "No, I didn't did enough research to find a health expert because I rather simp to Mikayla Peterson."
Ipso facto: The fact itself 8:50
Summum bonum : The greatest good 15:10
Liturgy: the form of the worship
cordis homo : heart of man 49:45
enantiodromia: the tendency for things to change into their opposites 1:01:24
Agere contra: acting against 1:01:40
ipsum esse: "being" itself: as in existence itself 1:03:25
Can you do this for all BB videos? He does love his Latin.
@@Thesteadfast Nil carborundum illegitimo,..'don't let the bastards grind you down'....
@@timothywilliams4089 That grammar hurts...
@@VampireSquirrel My late brother, he had many such informative translations.
Love it, thanks. Jesus bless ❤❤❤
I really like how Bishop Barron speaks. When I first heard him talk I remember thinking: this man knows peace in a way that is foreign to me, and I want that peace. It’s so compelling. God bless him.
Why would he be restless? He has a 1600 year old business model that never failed to extract money from the stupid. :-)
@@lepidoptera9337 Calling me stupid is not going to solve whatever compelled you to do it. I really hope one day you realize that.
@@dctamayo If you were smart, then you would have noticed that all religions work exactly like the Nigerian Prince scam. You know... the one where a "lawyer" (prophet/priest/preacher) tells you that he is acting on behalf of a very important person called "the Nigerian Prince" (god) who wants to make you an offer of immense monetary value (eternal life) if you give him some money (an offering/tithe) in advance. If you pull this stunt with any other pretend VIP other than god, the DA will have you arrested for fraud. But if you use "god" as the name of the Nigerian Prince, then we give you a tax exemption. Cool, isn't it? :-)
@@dctamayo I don't want to call you stupid. Can you tell me what it is about the Bishop's words that you like? Is it what he says that pleases you or is it more the manner in which he speaks? Is it because he seems to be comfortable & at ease?
KUDOS to Alex’ mother for raising such a beautiful and emphatetic human being!
I’m catholic and all I see in Alex is beautiful loving soul and human being! 😇
I couldn't agree more. I followed both of these individuals before they crossed paths and I can't get enough of this style of discussion. Mutual understandement and compassion is what's the most missing in this world.
Yeah he's a looker
Such a lovely post. Thank you for sharing.
Seems Alex is searching for Truth. Praying he will get all the way there :)
I see a lost soul that should REPENT, humble himself and believe in Jesus.
I’m so so happy you’re back to making videos Alex! I loved this conversation as a Christian viewer with a lot of questions. I appreciate both you and Bishop Robert Baron for being willing to take on the tough questions and just have an open discussion about it. I really look forward to more discussions like these!
Alex, I'm very impressed with your intellect and your graceful open-mindedness. I'm an evangelical Christian and your insights are refreshing. Bless you 😊
I saw Jesus in a film, and she was the most beautiful and distracting person ever. She created a desire in me when I didn't need anything before. Alex, too, has a sort of theatrical Jesus-esque presence.
You know Jesus is a he gristly.@@gristly_knuckle
I'm impressed that after all this he can still be atheist.
You are listening to a conversation between a Catholic priest and an atheist. Are you sure you're an Evangelical Christian?
Alex. This interview is amazing. This new format is perfect. Keep going. Thanks for letting Barron speak openly about the Faith. Amazing questions and answers.
Alex leans towards an interview rather to an actual debate/discussion. Some views of the invited speaker are challenged, but only to a certain extent. This is interesting because we open space for people to express their thoughts in a more linear way. Of course, sometimes I'd like to see a few more rejoinders, but it's an interesting format anyways.
Excited for the next episode :D
@@Lamster66 It seems that it’s often one of the following: 1)obvious emotional desperation for a stable foundation of meaning; 2)some sort of revelatory experience like psychedelic use or a NDE; 3)rigid and often abusive indoctrination in childhood combined with limited capacity for critical self-reflection.
@baizhanghuaihai2298 the catholic church certainly relies on number three.
@@Lamster66 I realized LONG ago (I am almost 40, you seem maybe younger than I), that I am a nameless faceless peasant in history, and it was a deeply comforting thought, it relieved me of the burden of feeling like I needed to make the most of my life. It doesn’t bother me to just let my survival instinct keep me going til my time comes. Doesn’t bother me one bit. Depression happens when people have the expectation that they are important. When you realize you aren’t, it feels better, much lighter.
They have actually debated already on Unbelievable, I believe
@@Lamster66 Ha! My genuine apologies! I hear you, though. I always tell people, when I was 25, I never thought I’d be 40; now that I’m there, I realize I’m gonna be 70, like sometime next week!😅 I already feel my body aging, and imagine it will only get worse. My aunt died of cancer a couple years ago, in her mid 50s, and besides the fact that it was a horrible way to go, I almost envied her, that at least she didn’t end up like her mother, my grandma, who died the year after and spent the last decade of her life not knowing who she or anybody else was and being profoundly miserable. Now my 90 year old grandfather, sharp as a tack, is all alone. I kinda don’t plan to make it that long, whether nature or accident gets me, or whether I just decide to call it quits. Doesn’t bother me at all to think of it. Im so glad I had the good sense to be gay and never have wanted children. I feel sad for my sisters kids, what they’ll face in the human condition. Barbaric, really, for sentient creatures to keep the whole lot going.
Great interview Alex. You gave enough contrast (pushback) in order to go deeper while being transparent and letting your guest speak his mind. Congratulations!
Alex, that was extraordinary. I couldn’t stop listening. This Catholic thanks you for asking very good questions and masterfully hosting this conversation.
Man im enjoying this debate/conversation. Im glad us atheists have Alex to articulate our thoughts and doubts. I love that hes respectful and not aggressive. BB is a phenomenal person and a perfect person to have this conversation. Loved every bit of this.
As a Catholic, great questions! I love genuine questions from atheist/non-christians/Catholic. The harder the better! (As long as they are genuine)
The gentle and seemingly obvious deep respect shown toward each other is perhaps the most beautiful lesson that one receives regardless of the wide polarity of views. Thankyou both.
I agree with you. I try to be respectful and non confrontational in my comments with people of different beliefs ( such as Muslims ) and atheists too. One reason is because I don't know it all !
Absolutely. The evangelical fundamentalist sector has poisoned the well here for many nonbelievers (too busy packing for the rapture to read much?). We should not forget that there are many Christian humanists and responsible deep-thinking religious folk. They get overlooked frequently as they don't make as much noise.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 obviously you do "know" jesus was ressurrected from death on a cross,plus i would find it difficult to listen to a representative of a religion(the catholic church) rife with pedophiles and their protectors, as childrens lives mean much More to me than "civil discourse"...
Asif he even comes close to alex
@@hunter_liteas they should they dont add anything
Bishop Baron is one of the rare ones that does such a surgical extraction on the ideas/philosophies that intrigue me, but ultimately feel wrong in a way that's oft difficult to describe without thinking on it intently for a bit. Doing that on the fly mid-convo is really a kind of masterclass on that level of abstract thinking. Kudos.
I'd say he puts too much emphasis on feelings. It's all well and good that he feels Hamlet is some sort of transcendent work, but he has no real reason for it besides him wanting it to be true.
@@StuntpilootStef Perhaps one can consider that subjective feelings have the capacity to transcend our reasoning and calculation capabilities at the cost of precision and confidence in correctness. Feelings help us approximate answers that are currently too difficult to define and answer so we can take action in a reasonable time. For example, it is difficult to rationally calculate what food is most optimal for health but feelings can be very helpful for finding guidance.
There is a balance to be struck between feelings and reason as feelings help us act in helpful ways to achieve our goals with limited data while reason helps us improve the accuracy of feelings to take more optimal actions. For example, we may feel that Oreos are most helpful for our health but reason can correct that feeling. Similarly, reason may say that we don't need to eat carrots today but a feeling may provide insight that there is something in carrots our body is currently requiring.
Although if all reason is providing is a dismissal of feelings because they cannot be rationally validated or understood, then this is worse than the feelings themselves because it eliminates the capability of taking reasonable actions. For reason to properly correct a feeling, it must provide a better solution, in my opinion. For example, if all reason does is say Oreos are bad and doesn't provide an alternative food to eat, it's better to eat Oreos until we find a food that's more reasonable.
@@coryharasha "subjective feelings have the capacity to transcend our reasoning and calculation capabilities at the cost of precision and confidence in correctness"
This is just a very convoluted way of saying guessing exists. Like I said, he wants it to be true, that's why he believes it. He has no rational basis for it at any level. He's not just less accurate or in balance with rationality, he has literally no other reason.
@@StuntpilootStef I disagree that he has no rational basis as it can be rational to believe in one's feeling as containing more comprehensive data than can be analyzed consciously. For example, animals lack rationality but have the feelings necessary to survive in many environments that humans would struggle to survive with reason alone. They are "guessing" in a sense of the word, but their guesses seem to work really well.
Similarly, I'm not sure atheism is sustainable evolutionarily. The religious guess so to speak seems to be very powerful for leveraging feelings to motivate survival and cooperation especially in times of great suffering where the less connected to feelings may opt for solutions such as suicide or anti-natalism. Reason minus feeling has the end of death because feelings are the reason to live.
@@coryharasha He's not using a fight or flight response to guess his way to an answer, he's purely using what he wants the world to be. Maybe he's born with it, maybe it's make believe.
And you're right, make believe is very handy. If you think a tiger is going to eat you and run away you don't die for being wrong. False positives are not punished, while false negatives are.Luckily, we don't live in a world where we're constantly being attacked by tigers anymore, so your example isn't applicable. It's also fucking insulting to suggest atheists are unable to cooperate or will kill themselves in times of strife.
But please, don't use such convoluted words to say simple things, you're not fooling anybody. Just talk like a human being.
I'm not religious, and I don't think I agree with much of what the bishop was saying. But I really enjoyed this interview. It's made me think about things I haven't before and it was a good exploration of ideas. Keen to listen to more episodes of this "new" podcast.
Bishop Barron is a genius, absolutely adore him. He played a huge role in my conversion. Now that I'm Catholic I know this is what I was missing, the fullness of truth. The holy eucharist is everything ❤
Wow, that was a fantastic interview. Really enjoyed the insights and perspectives of Bishop Barron. Thank you.
Thanks Alex, I'm glad you are producing content, I knew from another video you've not had an easy ride of late! Much love and support.
I wonder if Alex (if you read this) you would consider talking to intellectuals from other faiths, I think you are a very honest person with a lot of integrity intellectually and I wonder if you are getting mellow in your old age or if you have a soft spot specifically for Christianity compared to other beliefs you find implausible. I was more than a bit put out by some of the repetitive unchallenged lack of substance to done of the conversation. Your gentle questioning was dismissed, sidestepped and gishgalloped at times, his personal bias and arrogance meant the priest could not even have the decency to credit people with other views and opinions as really being convinced of their own views. Shocking, self defeating and shallow. The intellectual fortetude of a toddler.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." ― Aristotle
@@FartPanther Excellent interview Alex. You are gentle enough to encourage Bishop Barron to express his beliefs to the point of unproven opinion, through to the contradictions of the nature of God. You have sufficient knowledge of the Bishops beliefs to coax out his arrogance and 'holier than thou ego'.
The christian faith story appears to be becoming more flexible over time to facilitate new scientific and phycological understanding. However the resurrection story will always doom it to fantasy, unless that too is one day explained as a metaphor.
@@isaac1572 Why do you think "the resurrection story will always doom it to fantasy " ? I assume you mean the resurrection of Jesus necessarily negates the truth of Christianity?
I see the opposite. I think the resurrection of Jesus, although rejected by most scientific evidence, is the foundational cornerstone of Christianity that supports the beliefs of Christian faith. So inflexibility in regards to the resurrection is actually something positive.
I do agree that the resurrection of Jesus may be interpreted as a metaphor but I think a rejection of the historical crucifixion and bodily resurrection of Jesus would nullify the basic beliefs of Christianity.
Respectfully...
@@FartPanther Bishop Baron and Catholicism are philosophically based on Aristotle and Aquinas. Bishop Baron addressed all points. Lots of us find mindless matter in meaningless motion, 18th century materialist worldviews as simply and manifestly absurd. And so they are. The existence of God , as Bishop Baron can show anyone, is easy to demonstrate from evidence and reason alone. Free willed rational beings are not the unintelligible cosmic accidents proclaimed in a frankly dehumanizing way by materialist atheists. Its an incoherent worldview and check out the Marxist atheism - based solutions for the worst world slaughter in all of history. Your animus towards Bishop Baron is obvious and unwarranted. But he actually studied Aristotle. And understood him as did Aquinas. They built the west and the modern.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 Magical thinking at its best...
As a Catholic myself I found this conversation to be excellent!!! I loved the questions and the responses. I myself feel like I learned A lot
As a believer, I really appreciate this open discussion. You are asking the right kind of questions with just the right amount of pushback allowing Barron to give a thoughtful opinion or explanation. I've learned a few things about Catholicism that I haven't even learned on Barron's channel. Cheers!
All you need to know is it is the one true church founded by Jesus on Saint Peter. Fact.
I'm not a christian, but bishop Barron is a great person. Also Alex did a great respectful interview keeping the right balance between too shy and too aggressive.
Alex, I am a huge fan of Bishop Barron. But I came away also a fan of you. Wonderful interview! Thank you for your honest inquiry and thoughtful, challenging questions.
Even as a devout Christian, I find Alex a very respectable man that articulates ideas in a very intelligible way. I wouldn’t change this man one bit!
Well, I see your point, but I desire the highest good for him, so I pray for his return to the Catholic faith.
I also see your point, as Christian I wish the same, but Christian or Atheist, he is still very intelligent and charming
Nah! My Religious trauma will never let me go back to your ideas
Alex is a fraud! Jesus believes in you even if you can see him in the moment 🙏. God bless u all.
@@michael-4k4000 "Jesus believes in you even if you can see him in the moment" - How do you know this? I mean how do know this specific piece of information? I don't think you do really know it. I think you have just made it up because you think that's how it should be.
So glad that Alex is back and it seems he found an interview format and style of questioning that enables him to absolutely shine, what a beautiful soul he is becoming.
Excellent conversation conducted by two intelligent individuals in a respectful and honest manner. Rare and much needed. Regardless of your beliefs this is worthy of respect.
As an artist who is also an atheist, the inescapable specter of death is indeed a motivating factor for my creation of art. My art explores and questions consciousness and meaning, which is definitely linked to my atheism. I do create art to leave a trace of my having existed in this world.
For about 99% of us, that trace will be undetectable in less than a century after we're gone. Most of us today know the work of maybe 30 to 50 people who lived 100 years ago. That number shrinks even more if you go back 500 years.
In that case you should bury something under the moon's surface, there with no tectonic activity it will be retrievable for a very long time.
But ultimately your works will cease to exist.
@@theboombody all the above are correct but that doesn't do a damn to stop the pursuit of remembrance. in my opinion this pursuit is noble even in the face of insurmountable odds. also I doubt OP doesn't already know this.
Why leave a trace that inevitable will die? Even Ceasar will be forgotten.
I really don’t care if one person converts the other to their way of thinking. What I like, is the respectful discourse that allows people to think, without fear of being belittled.
Bishop Barron gave Alex a shoutout at a recent Heritage Foundation Lecture speech.
Gross
Amen….people need to be challenged. People need to be tested and He certainly does that, allows, perhaps, actually is instrumental in our testing. Shalom😊
Ugh Heritage Foundation?
I love this conversation so much. Both people involved clearly like each other and want to build on top of each other, even where they disagree.
Bishop Barron for Pope. Deep ,deep thinker who arrives at answers.
@@JudeMalachi Why are elections held for the pope at all if it comes down to Gods will? Why not just roll dice, draw lots etc.?
AGREED, AMEN.
@@carpediem5232 cardinal can mean pivotal (note how also this word's base is pivot), important, but it's base origin in latin means hinge, a pivot. where something turns (cardinalis). The cardinals are the hinge/pivot with which the direction of the Church, guided by the Holy Spirit (which is God, not just a part of Him) turn towards to, by the election of the successor of St. Peter.
@@brycebensing Yeah seems convenient, that the way a pope is chosen again seems to be 100% explicable by human behavior and actions. How for example can people be petty sure that the next pope will be African? These assumptions are based on geopolitics not any insight into Gods mind. I am aware of church structure and know Latin (from school and university), but instead of a"sign" by God given plausible deniability the process of choosing a pope falls onto over the centuries often blatantly corrupt human actors. Are you suggesting that the holy spirit also was corrupt in the instances where clear corruption can be documented? Or do you have a cop out, like "the holy spirit was on vacation in summer 1492".
Heavens no! That would be a waste of his talent, tying him up in the politics and administration of the church, like what happened with Benedict XVI. He should be made a cardinal, like theologian Avery Dulles.
I can’t wait for Alex to turn into a devote catholic lmao
I have also called this 😅
He won’t.
Hmm
Why so sure about it? Alex is open to the possibility he stated more than once.
@@lllULTIMATEMASTERlll what if he did?
Fantastic dialogue. Alex asking the right questions and Bishop Barron offering poetic and learned answers.
Please have another back and forth in the future together
Outstanding. It's really a joy to see such a respectful conversation between two persons with vastly different backgrounds. Thank you for posting this
I listened to your original debate with Bishop Barron and appreciate your willingness to delve into these very deep questions. I was so touched by the fact that you revealed you were raised Catholic, rosary and all. This discussion was even better in particular around finding objective meaning and final causality. Loved it!
Good conversation. Bishop Barron is a good priest.
God bless you.
Coming up next in a community post from Alex: "I've been incorporating some religion in my life. Mostly but not exclusively, catholism"
hahaha 😂
😭😭
Yeah you got the ego portion right since you seem to imply that you know better about how he should care for his health
@@Noise_floorxx we are just thing stars are made of.
But to the point..he probably knows more than Alex about his health
In 3 years time Alex will be meat loving, patriotic, Bible thumping, gun toting Texan 😂
Bishop Barron is one of the best communicators I've seen.
This was honestly eye opening as an atheist. Mainly the crisis of meaning issue.
Meaning is inescapable. The more profound stuff many think of when the word is mentioned, especially in this context, revolves around existential issues and hangups. But not everyone experiences all such issues and hangups, nor do they do so in the same fashion or to the same degree.
Btw, an atheist wrote the best book on meaning one could ever hope to find.
@@wet-readwho.? Which book.?
@@panickysociety97
The man: late atheist philosopher Quentin Smith
The book: The Felt Meanings of the World: A Metaphysics of Feeling (1986)
Meaning is a human hang up not n objective part of the universe. There’s no requirement to have an answer for these questions; this is where Absurdism can be useful.
@@wet-read Thank you. It seems there is a debate between William Lane Craig and Quentin Smith on YT. I will check him out before reading the book.
Two smart guys going head to head respectfully, a pleasure. Barron is on fire here.
Looking at this again …. Honestly I could listen endlessly. Pretty please ….keep these magnificent discussions coming. Thanks to you both.
I'm not Catholic but I always enjoy listening to Bishop Barron
I agree 💯. However, I would like to hear a discussion between Bishop Barron & Pastor John Macarthur. The latter offers a comprehensive & convincing TH-cam video on the many unbiblical practices of the Catholic faith.
@@carolyncox7694 Pastor MacAuthur will not do that simply because you will get to see the weakness in his position
I don't know if this means much to you, Alex, but God bless you. If there is such an atheist who is truly, genuinely following his conscience, I think he would look like you. May we be united in Truth one day.
Very respectful attitude and comforting for me to read. So many of the comments call a belief in God as "nonsense" and other unrepeatable words.
I also try to respect Atheists and I wish they would show respect to believers.
God bless you too. I appreciate your comments.
@@johnbrzykcy3076 And may God bless you and grant you peace, John.
@@lyterman Thanks. Keep me in prayer sometimes as I struggle with doubts and lack of confidence. Peace from Florida.
@@johnbrzykcy3076
Doubts (about faith) are good. And I go after meaty things that could, for those with faith, fill in gaps left by a sudden absence of it. If you're interested 😊
@@johnbrzykcy3076 as people that believe in a god can't prove it exists in any way I'd say it is nonsense
Wow! So amazing to see The brilliant young mind and not so young wise mind in a sincere dialogue. This kind of dialogue and not discussion is needed where there is mutual respect for each others world view and belief. Thanks for giving this beautiful hour of my life. Looking forward to such conversations.
I am not an atheist or a Christian but I like these two talking to each other.
Do you follow one of the other theistic faiths?
@@theflyingspagetonly deism makes sense to me
Thank you Alex. You asked some really pertinent questions. As a practicing Catholic, the conversation really helped me to deepen my faith.
sneaky....
IF Jesus's message ever caused anyone to hate god for being a fat, drunken, self-absorbed ointment waster, then he deepened your faith, for your hate was love.
And I the absolute opposite.
That was an awesome discussion and proof that an atheist and a Christian can have a thoughtful and polite exchange of ideas. Kudos to you Alex and it seemed like a light bulb went off above your head at the end of the discussion when talking about the nature of God. Good luck to you in your search for TRUTH.
Alex created this TH-cam channel to have awesome discussions.
Very meaningful conversation. Bishop Barron expound it clearly and meaningfully. Love this discussion.
Both have been great in expressing their thoughts in a clear and polite way. Both being nice at listening each other and waiting their turn.
At 29:25 Barron calls Cosmic Skeptic out, saying he doesn't think he (CS) even believes his own assertions. And you can see a profound smile appear on CS's face which he then quickly tries to wrestle away and put his serious, analytical mask back on. And I think that plucked a certain chord with CS, whether he wanted it to or not. I don't mean it was a gotcha moment or that CS looked guilty. But it still felt like Barron had called out a behavior which even CS couldn't physically/biologically deny. Whether or not God exists isn't the point. That we all ultimately behave, at points, as if there is a God is.
>Whether or not God exists isn't the point.
Yes it is.
>That we all ultimately behave, at points, as if there is a God is.
That and the atrocious consequences of it are only being justified by the existence of that god. Keeping people from clinging on to delusions is central to keeping them from committing atrocities.
What immediately came to my mind from that assertion was the dozens of times I've heard believers arrogantly assert they know someone (who they've talked very little with) better than the person themself.
Now I don't know if that thought was what made Alex smile, but it would've been the reason I did.
@@sugartoothYTthere’s always a way out for you guys… until there’s not…
This is such a good listen. Despite BB and Alex coming from very different starting points, you get the feeling BB values his time speaking to Alex, almost like a father and son
yeah you can see it in Alex's eyes that he loves BB
Alex being a more than respectful father.
I studied western philosophy and the case for God at a good university and I believe , am convinced that Bishop Barron with his philosophical ground in western realism is exactly right in his understanding. It really is possible to show the existence of God from evidence, like change, and sound arguments. And I enjoy Alex's respectful engagement.
I anticipate that Alex will come to see that his concern for animal suffering which is a very real thing, will come to see that it is the essential goodness of reality that affirms that deep ground of being Who calls us to appreciate goodness, beauty and truth. This really does require the reasoned answer of monotheism.
I also found Catholicism to be solid as a rock as Christ founded His church and this despite any human failings of members which will of course always be there to some degree.
God is LOVE ❤️, and He LOVES both Animals and Humans. So when we go to Heaven, we will see our pets in Heaven.
Why can't it be a reasoned answer of polytheism?
@@BlacksmithTWD Hi. The unity of experience and existence mitigates against many 'gods' as they would all have to be united in existence by something like the God of monotheism. In like manner deism has a wrong outlook on causation or intelligibility.
Ed Feser does a very good job really answering the God question, and it really is something you can actually know for sure on the evidence alone. The argument for monotheism has never been refuted and it predates even Plato.
Its the most important question and the most important answer obviously to get right. Here's a link to Prof Feser giving a quick summary of the argument. Its solid.
But take your time and be sure you understand as you delve into it and be demanding. I sure was and I wasn't disappointed . The lights went on in the universe.
Cheers and good luck
th-cam.com/video/Z5PjiS1MJM8/w-d-xo.html
th-cam.com/video/4cLM0N002wI/w-d-xo.html
@@Darth_Vader258 Is darths son going
There is not a shred of evidence for the existence of ANY god or Allah or whatever name they gave to their non-existing celestial dictator! Since evolution is proven to be a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt we know that we are nothing but a species of apes nothing more nothing less so ALL religions and ALL their stupid and often cruel doctrines can ALL be thrown right in the trash! And what a stupid and cruel christian doctrine anyway! Here we have an of course non-existing God who after waiting more than two hundred thousand years since the Homo sapiens came into existence finally decided to reveal himself to all humanity of the whole world and to forgive all our imaginary "sins" by killing his son. Couldn't "he" just forgive our imaginary sins without having to kill his son? After all he is supposed to be "almighty" so that could not have been a hard problem for "him"! And why kill his son if he was already planning to resurrect him anyway? So Jesus just had a bad weekend! Can it be more stupid?
And at what time was the non-existing "soul" "blown" in the head? Was it in the head of the common ancestor of the Homo sapiens, the bonobos and the chimpanzees? Or was it in one of the many hominids that existed? We still carry a small amount of the DNA of some hominid species in our genome!!!
But let's settle the argument forever! Call Jesus back and let him perform all his so-called "miracles" in a lab under scientifically controled circumstances. That can't be too hard to do since he is resurrected so he is still alive and he probably lives somewhere on a planet in another Galaxy!
Alex, you're a gentleman, loved the way you treated Bishop Baron. This conversation is a clear demonstration of the fact that we are incredible beings endowed with the image of God, with intelligence, creativity and learning. We do great things because we have the opportunity to do them, it doesn't matter when we die. We are transcendent beings.
This is a wonderful and enriching conversation. Thank you Bishop Barron for articulating the faith, and thank you Alex for giving us the opportunity to speak about what we really believe as Catholics.
Alex has to be one of the only atheists who can, without arrogance, have a genuine conversation with a theist with an open mind.
24:18 - Robert might as well be arguing that fishes' feeding behaviors could not have evolved because sometimes that behavior causes them to bite baited hooks and get themselves killed.
Facts
that logic doesn't follow
@@ninjanarwhal4488 exactly, that's the point
That is not comparable.
If you think that argument is analogous you've misunderstood his point (or maybe I have).
He's not arguing that sacrifice couldn't possibly be behavior evolved through natural selection because one particular act of sacrifice has a negative effect on the propagation of that particular individual's genes.
Rather, he seems to appeal to the intuition that such an act of sacrifice, while perhaps having its roots in evolutionary social adaptations, is more than just a direct mechanistic result of the evolutionary process.
To add a bit more grounding for this intuition, I would argue that the act of sacrifice is in this case not at all aligned with base instincts. In fact it is in direct opposition to the very strong instinct for survival.
My reading of the event is that it was neither an ingrained reflex nor a calculated strategy for maximizing some sort of genetic advantage.
The main motivating factor in the decision to sacrifice himself was the belief that it was the "right" thing to do. It is an act towards a pure ideal rather than a pragmatic, adapted response.
Not only is explaining it purely in terms of biological rules not doing the act justice, but it also misses part of the picture, it's not a full explanation.
All that being said, I think that the evolutionary pressures at the base of all this may not be sufficient, but still necessary.
If not for the need to live and cooperate in social groups, would we have evolved the ability to feel empathy?
And without empathy, are we confident that we would have arrived at the same general moral scaffolding that we find ourselves with? Where sacrificing yourself for someone else is considered "good"?
The two of you are the finest communicators on these heavy subjects. I enjoyed this deeply.
I find it interesting that Bishop Barron so firmly stated that he thinks that Alex's thinking was biased by an underlying need to prove materialism while not recognizing the possibility the opposite could be true within himself. It really broke down for me when he dwelled so long on saying he couldn't believe that Alex actually held particular viewpoints. In the end the Bishop stated far too often that he "just can't believe" certain things and that he thinks certain connections between concepts are just too thin. It's essentially an admission that he was choosing to ignore actual arguments for wanting to believe in something he finds beautiful.
I think what Barron meant is that Alex's belief in materialism/reductionism is counter intuitive to his own personal experience, which he discounts to follow this stream of reductionist thinking.
>while not recognizing the possibility the opposite could be true within himself
Yeah, dude literally dedicated his life to defend the indefensible. A massive effort that kind of debunks itself as it only further illustrates the inaction and impotence of his deity.
@@tripp8833Great answer. I was baffled long time until now of what Bishop Barron was trying to explain there, this comment makes it clear, thanks
@@tripp8833Yet he still referred to Alex’s perspective as ‘reductionist’. Barron made it clear that Alex’s perspective just doesn’t satisfy him or his views on the arts.
Ironically, it’s not reductionist to say “the basis for human actions ultimately derive from biological factors”. If it is, then Barton’s statement on God’s love is also reductionist as having only come from a creator.
Yes! I agree 100%. I actually didn’t find the conversation very compelling for that reason. Alex listed a variety of reasons folks can lean toward atheism and the bishop just says “Nope” and proceeds to give no reason other than “doesn’t work for me”. The conversation really didn’t offer anything new. I guess people just like the fact that Alex and the bishop are so polite to one another.
Thoroughly enjoyed the soul food. Thank you both . I love these spirited talks, very interesting to see the two deep souls talking to one another.
This is an excellent discussion and you, Alex, are a uniquely talented interviewer. You draw the deep from your guests and you avoid confrontation. This arises out of your talent for listening to your guest (or opponent). Please keep going forward...
Great conversation here. I'm not a Catholic but I'm a Christian and I enjoy Bishop Barron's insights. Alex is an excellent interviewer. He strikes an ideal balance between inviting elaboration - drawing out the details of the interviewee's position, on the one hand, and challenging positions/playing devil's advocate on the other. Some interviewers seem to only do one or the other.
HI Alex, thank you for sharing this podcast. Enjoyed it very much. It is interesting to watch you evolve over the years. Many Blessings to you and your loved ones. May you find your peace.
The point about an evolved survival instinct is 100% correct, end of story. That doesn’t mean we can’t enjoy art, but that means we invented art.
So why would a man sacrifice himself for someone else who is of no relation to him if it’s all about survival? Your whole argument falls apart
@@damonmeier3652 the tired argument about altruism. It’s been proven completely consistent with evolution and fully expected in social animals.
@@chemquests please show proof
@@damonmeier3652 no, you can do a literature review all by yourself. The internet makes it real easy; you might have heard of google…go do your homework. Why do you think I owe you anything?!!?
Very nice discussion. Keep this up, please!
In regards to the discussion about the foundation or the root of meaning and how the bishop couldn't buy an evolutionary root motivation for Shakespeares work.
To me, I would have talked about how Shakespeare wasn't motivated by the evolutionary ROOT motivation. i would say he was motivated by the steps that build from that root motivation. The levels that are built upon the root have their own complexity and allow for new values/motivations to branch off of the higher levels of motivation.
We need to find and have food to live, so now that i care about my food I can start to value different types of food and different expuriences with it. Now that i have all this value invested in food, then i use it to display care to others or as a setting for formally meeting someone and establishing good will.
Then I have ideas about how to specifically do a meal for someone that will generate goodwill.
I haven't developed SPECIFIC traditions/values about how prepare a meal for someone because i need food to survive (just give them whatever and they'll be happy because food is food right?)
I am motivated to do things a specific way because of the values I have built apon "i need food to survive"
He says its so reductionist to say i did art because I'm motivated to survive etc, and i think i agree! But i don't need to say
"i did art because evolution"
I think I would say
"the values that motivated art can be rooted back to evolution etc"
P.s. i found it kinda amusing that after alex discussed motivation coming from a desire for your work to last the Bishop spoke about the permanence of God and the spiritual which seems to perfectly fall into being motivated to do things you think will last. I spent my life in pursuit of the everlasting transendance of god? Whats more lasting than forever?
I also found the way he dismissed the idea of we care about making things that last very black and white... you don't need a thing to last literally forever for it to be motivating. Alex said outlast themselves not last forever or anything, we still know it will decay some time in alexs framework
Thanks for reading! 😅
Shakespeare is essentially a 'complexity needs a creator' argument. Art works of complex emotional depth cannot arise from thousands of years or oral and written storytelling that analyze the human condition with increasing insight. This claim for God seems suspect immediately when we consider the old 'an infinite number of monkeys on an infinite numbers of typewriters will eventually write the works of Shakespeare'. Dawkins would say that after Darwin we no longer need to look for creator whenever we find complexity, yet the Bishop still asks us to do that.
When "the world" got information transfer through DNA, we got incredible complexity. When "the world" got information transfer in brains we got another explosion in creativity diversity and behaviour, when we got information transfer through writing and art and physical records of thoughts from brains, again, a very *CREDIBLE* explosion and interative increase in the apparently unexplainable beauty that he describes.
The person who mentioned the rainbow says his stance perfectly. His feelings are diminished though understanding, he is a hedonist of intellectual ignorance, delighting in the unknown, reveling in the rejection of something so mundane as a plausible explanation
It's so dumb to think "I find something so beautiful it defies explanation" whilst ignoring this: the fact that he finds it so inspirational is motivation enough for a human to create it (to inspire awe and entertain) the feeling itself can have a mundane explanation, one that does not have to feel intuitively right or to compare in its grandness to the feeling of awe and wonder. like how taste and appetite increasing survivability (obvious) leading to Micheline star chefs (convoluted but not "stretching it").
@@FartPanther Fantastic
@Matthew C well said, my friend. 😎👍
@@FartPanther Beautifully written. I had a similar consideration when on my balcony looking up at the stars, imagining the universe's vastness. I felt a deep sense of awe.
Then the thought came to consider that my sense of awe was not a reflection that the universe itself is in some way objectively awesome or beautiful. Rather, my sense of awe was a subjective reaction of my brain to something large, complex, and mysterious.
The same would be true if I found the love of my life beautiful. She wouldn't be objectively beautiful. Instead my mind would create this recognition of beauty and feelings of attraction, later turning into love.
At first, this seemed deeply troubling. If there is no such thing as objective beauty, awe, love, etc. then why should it matter?
But indeed this is ALL that matters. It is in this SHARED world of subjective values that we humans share emotions, morals, and all meaning. This is what evolution has given us: Emotions that arise in different scenarios which fuel us to actions that, in turn, give us further, deeper emotions and experiences which we can share with others.
Bishop Barron is one of my absolute favorites! Blessed to get to witness conversations like these. Great content, Mr. O’Connor! Please do have the good Bishop on again!
Fascinating use of incredulity as argument. Great conversation, Alex. Thank you.
I'm not so sure he was attempting to make a fully realized argument. I think he was just expressing that Alex's use of a long chain of biological reductionism for every aspect of life is counterintuitive to his personal experiences.
Perhaps it wasn't within the scope of this video, but I would have liked to how it is that certain aspects of the human experience are "reduced" when their biological foundation is acknowledged, and why they are necessarily "transcendent" instead. The whole "mockery" thing is obviously just his way of expressing his opinion about that conclusion, and it doesn't really tell us anything about why he thinks that way.
Thank you. Ultimately all he's saying is "idk, feels icky"
Up next: alex converts to Catholicism, jokes aside I really enjoyed you and bishop baron, you should do one with Matt frad from pints with Aquinas next.
My huge respect to both of you for such a deep and beautiful conversation!
I often feel like theologians kinda steal something precious from us - from humanity itself - when they claim that the most beautiful things we do somehow transcends us and has some divine and sublime source. I want to be kind, loving and supportive to others around me so that my ideals, my very being, might resonate and echo within my fellow humans after I'm gone. Leaving a mark, even if a small one, motivates me to get up in the morning. Sure, time will come when the last ever living being will die and one might look back and ask - what was the point? A few more laughs than there would have been. That is fine by me. Maybe we live in a superdeterministic block universe and all those moments are permanent, as real as the present is now.
Maybe the Bishop is talking about your romantization of your desires is a sign of your desire for transcendent goodness, but you cant cope with the idea of the goodness being self sacrifice so you romanticize your desires to fill that hole, but the romantization is a function of the very desires themselves. Maybe you are all twisted up in a circle of your desires. Maybe the Bishop is trying to break you from this twisted mess by helping you realize it's a twisted self contradictory circular mess, and show how your desire to romanticize your desires need not be an inward navel gazing, but instead in reference to something outside of your desires and infact precisely contrary to them.
@@pat1442The way that your comment is written makes it extremely hard to understand.
I would like for you to step back from arguing your position for a second and reread the original comment. Notice that they were not making an argument, they were describing the way they feel about your kind of argumentation.
Do you believe that by repeating that exact kind of argumentation they will be convinced?
In other words, we have natural desire to continue to live albeit in a different form of existence after our physical death. I have noticed that in attempting to hold off the idea of a transcendent reality for which we are naturally wired, atheists (materialists) end up presupposing same. Our innate wiring to naturally desire and live for the transcendent seems to me very obvious.
@@Lerian_V You’re full of it, dude. Atheism has nothing to say about materialism, so that’s completely wrong. As you’ve not defined transcendent nor demonstrated a transcendent, your comment is simply naked intuition with a garnish of distaste for others you don’t understand. It’s frankly masturbatory. Please go learn about what you’re determined to argue against before spewing bile.
If I may ask, why do you care about having your ideals and your being marked on the world, if ultimately there is no transcendent meaning or value? Chances are, you'll die and your name will be forgotten within a few generations, if that. Can you tell me the name of your great great great grandparents? Probably not - most people can't. For me personally, I could never be motivated by the concept of "leaving a mark" on the world. Of all of the billions of humans that have lived, how many are remembered?
I enjoy Bishop Barron even though we ultimately disagree he has some interesting things to think about. Some good questions from Alex and nice to see a discussion instead of a debate where one side is trying to win.
Alex is a bona-fide genius. Barron is even more impressive to me. Thanks guys.
Bishop Barron has such a breezy and affable intellect. I don't necessarily side with his ultimate conclusions, but he's wonderful to listen to. And a lovely example of how to argue for a religion while fully respecting the person you're talking to. Thank you, gentlemen for an engaging, civilized discussion.
I'm so happy your putting out content again! Hope to see much more from you, keep it up!
I could listen to Bishop Barren talk all day about his faith. Such a marvelous orator!
Why do I have to write my bachelors thesis right now? I'd rather watch this discussion, it must be gold.
Humblebrag.
lol, same except that I'm writing my postgrad thesis.
@@noname19816 brag.
@@kattihatt indeed
What's your topic, if you don't mind telling me?
I love when someone can find fault with an argument without faulting or condemning the person making it. There is a lot of empathy in that.
I hope both atheists and theists get to ask more questions about their beliefs. Thanks for sharing this, Alex! What a great upload
what a deep discussion! I admire the pace... I can follow and think through it but I need to watch it several times usually .... very nice video 🥰
The bishop seems preoccupied with the idea that powerful emotions, and the acts that they motivate us to do, cannot possibly be explained without something supernatural. But why? He never gave a reason beyond it being unintuitive.
24:06 that's his reason. Argument from incredulity
@@ТимурБ-й7б Yep
Other species, as part of evolutionary development, clearly experience emotion, dream, exhibit ritualistic behavior and even subjective experience and conscientiousness - we are just invincibly ignorant of much of it.
Scientific methodology has slowly exposed and eroded the flawed Thomistic and "bible based" world view and argumentation that governs his bias.
So in response, the bishop denigrates the scientific method, inclusion, "wokeness", and calls alternate human sexual orientation, demonstrably exhibited in other species, "sin".
The bishop's real agenda is defending dogmatic doctrine and morality made up by his denomination and based on a world view derived from some level of "biblical inerrancy" - not on the basis of science or it's methodology.
Appealing to "beauty" and "powerful emotions" are just hail marys in the effort to ultimately gain control over what you think.
@@ТимурБ-й7б No, he was saying that the sacrifice of the priest goes against the instincts to survive.
Alex tried to say that there might some evolutionary reason to those, then Bishop countered with the sacrifice of the 20th century priest which directly opposes survival.
Very inspirational! As someone who has decided to get baptized around 1 month later, thank you for deepening my understanding of faith.
Been watching Alex since he blew up and always knew if he keeps this up he'll be one of the greatest minds of our generation. And he is keeping it up and I'm witnessing it unfold as it's happening, love it
58:38 That is the best analogy of purgatory I have ever heard, beautifully put. Gonna use that :)
This is such a fantastic dialogue. Thanks Alex. And I also like the new brand.
Top conversation. The bishop gave good answers and you asked good questions 👌
What a fantastic interview. I love the respect and thoughtfulness of both Alex and Robert to discuss and work through tough questions together. We need more of this.
Yes more podcasts incoming! Something great to listen to on the commute, can't wait for more from this madlad
Alex as a practicing Catholic i just want to say you are a wonderful intelligent young man, making a genuine search for truth. Thank you for hearing out our wonderful Bishop even where you were in disagreement. The art of debate in an era of cancel culture and people shouting a each other, is for the good of human civilisation.
As a fellow Catholic, I totally agree with you. I hope we see more discussions like this between religions and secularists and all I'm between.
A refreshing DISCUSSION between two adults. Wow, imagine that! Well done fellas.
I think I would have prefered more of a conversation in a typical podcast style rather than just an interview with the guest simply expressing their thoughts and Alex as a facilitator of that. I think this is valuable in some aspects sure, but I was really looking forward seeing your perspective on many of the points that were made by the guest. To listen to Alex’s perspective is ultimately why I come to this channel and watch his videos. I hope future episodes bring out more of a conversation instead of question, answer, okay, next question.
Yeah, I agree. It's not exactly insightful to hear a person's response to a perfectly plausible theory as "I don't buy it"
i used to like alex but his wrist is getting limper by the minute.
@@HarryNicNicholas He's growing away from direct opposition and into deep immersion and understanding of religion, which greatly strengthens his own "divine hiddenness" argument, of being surrounded by religion yet not accepting it.
@@SpikeShroom he is going to flip... betcha five bucks...lol.
@@chamicels No way. I've watched nearly all of his content, and there would be no bridge that could (currently) connect the atheist-to-theist gap. Watching Alex, I think he's trying to live a life that allows him (as much as possible) to dismiss as many excuses as theists can throw at him as to why he currently is an "atheist" and not a theist (I put atheist in quotes because plenty have said they don't believe anyone can be an atheist).
In the Maksymilian Kolbe sacrifice discussion my thought went along the line of Yuval Harari's thought about human capacity to share inter-subjective stories and organize ourselves around them. This proclivity to invent, share and make sacrifices for the sake of these allowes us people to maintain cohesion with remote strangers, but it can backfire as the moth's navigation on moonlight makes it burn in candle flame.
Ahh yes, the legendary
Maksymilian "Opierdol mi" Kolbe.
Astonishing individual in his own right.
Very well put. Thank you.
Can you explain what you mean by a backfiring situation? Kolbe had a belief about God and his soul in relation to Him and clearly decided that he was called to replicate the act of sacrifice as Jesus did. The materialist claim that humans have a capacity for this self sacrifice says nothing about the validity of the underlying belief that drives the behaviour. At some point, one has to realise that certain experiences exist in the abstracted space that is truly transcendent where scientific materialism is the wrong map to navigate that space. A better map for that transcendental space will always be some form of religious framework. It is my experience that a scientific materialist outlook puts up mental barriers that prevents religious experiences and so, people who've never had religious experiences have no clue what the rest of us are talking about and dismiss us as crazy.
@@alisterrebelo9013 What I meant by backfire, is that it got him killed.
It is no at all obvious he was imitating christ here, I think it's more plausible that a generally beneficial tribal instinct can explain such behaviour. "Me, not having children should defend, and in extreme situation make even the ultimate sacrifice for a tribe member who has children." Us-them line is pretty obvious in a concentration/extermination camp.
The problem with accepting claims of a transcendent reality and a different way of navigating it forces me to lower my standards of acceptable claims so low, that eventually I am forced to believe contradicting claims. Reincarnation and christian damnation/salvation cannot be both true, and yet the proponents of both conclusions use exactly the same principles to reach them. These principles are therefore unreliable and to maintain intellectual honesty I need to reject them both (and hundreds of others).
Calling a believing person crazy is often a rhetorical figure only 🙂.
I like how you phrased your point 🙂.
The backfiring situation is referring Dawkins’ explanation of why a moth flies into a flame. The moth evolved to navigate by the moon and stars. The “recent” inventions of flame and artificial light causes this evolutionary trait to misfire causing the moth’s death by flying into the flame. It’s not a suicide though it looks like one. Evolutionary traits misfiring is delved into a lot in Dawkins’ The God Delusion. It is why we wish to have sex even when there is absolutely no chance of reproduction. The sex drive evolved to produce more of the species, but the trait lingers. Altruism could be explained by “misfiring” of evolutionary traits. No supernatural explanation necessary. But the learned bishop (he is very admirable, by the way) dismisses these explanations with “I just don’t buy it”. For him, it must be god there.
I love when Christian’s have to end on “well I just don’t buy that” or “I know you don’t believe that” All the cringey religious gaslighting that got me to leave the faith.
Your identity encompasses more than just your physical body. You make sacrifices for yourself, and you see yourself in others and in society. So, yes, you can sacrifice yourself for another person but ultimately it is to preserve you own identity.
I felt like throwing something at my screen. Is he missing the point on purpose then goes "whoops, no matter the fact, I don't buy it"
@@Joshua-dc4un If religion could win arguments with just facts and evidence, everyone would be religious, but they are seemingly unable to do so.
@@JD-wu5pf - the problem is this method of “argument and facts” is very modernist and comes with a bazillions outdated presuppositions of human rationality and belief-formation (the way the mind works and the way it ought to work). For instance, empercism, foundationalism, evidentialism, and epistemic access internalism are almost always assumed as true. This ignores non-propositional (procedural) knowledge and how the mind works in paradigms, not foundations. All evidence and counter evidence is interpreted through a paradigm, even for the atheist. Further, foundationalism tends to imply that people form beliefs by consciously looking at one syllogism. That’s false. You don’t have control over your beliefs. Our mind works by subconsciously weighing numerous pro- and con-syllogisms against each other. That is a non-rational process that largely has to do with presuppositions osmosed through one’s upbringing (tradition) and experience. Michael Oakeshott, Michael Polanyi, Alasdair MacIntyre, and Charles Taylor are good resources on this view of rationality.
@@JohnusSmittinis No. 👎
@@JD-wu5pf Yes 👍. Being educated in the history of western philosophy is very useful for understanding the various notions of rationality that underly all major disagreements today.
Very Nice Alex! Keep up the good work. I particularly like episodes were the purpose isn’t to belittle or downplay people’s ideas, but rather to explore and enhance.