Reminds me of something I read not to long ago. Scientist: Philosophy isn't important. Philosopher: So why is Science important. Scientist: Well because- Philosopher: Now you're doing Philosophy.
Many of very average intellect and knowledge like to associate themselves with science (or rather scientism), because they believe that by simple association, it makes them more intelligent and respectable than they actually are. Talking about science does not make one a scientist. Being a scientist requires one to do the necessary research and discover a little more about the universe we live in. It is not enough to just express an opinion, comment or promote someone else's work. I do not see true respectable scientists going on youtube, social media or talking tours belittling philosophy and theology. Only pseudo scientists, like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins, who hardly, if ever, publish any papers of original research in reputable journals spend time commenting on philosophy and theology. Perhaps because they really have nothing new or original to say about science.
What a conclusion! I read Plato in high school and didn't get it. I never would have thought to apply that his cave to our modern scientific tendencies. Thank you, Bishop Barron! I appreciate the new perspective, giving me a renewed motivation to keep my love for humanities burning, long after college, and not let the concrete physicalities before me become my whole world.
Dear Bishop. I am really really really pleased about your UA-cam account. I am a little German blogger about theology, liturgy, church musics, organ etc with 4 Mio subscribers. But with this 4 millions I reach nearly so much as ALL German dioceces together on UA-cam. So I am really really happy to see that it is possible. Having thousands of followers as a bishop or diocece :) Please continue!
I was a philosophy major in college. I feel that it is essential in understanding/comprehending "science". Bishop Barron, if you would also rebute Lawrence Krauss, it would be well appreciated.
philosophers that appeal to the supernatural to explain real world phenomena are no different from their 15th century counterparts that appealed to witches and curses to explain unfortunate events
@@pazuzil the spiritual or supernatural is real, and immaterial. Therefore it is outside the ability of scientists to study. Many learned people, including scientists, find arguments for God compelling. If all you meant is that there are possible natural explanations for miracles, well we agree, but then, timing is everything isn’t it? Usually a natural phenomenon doesn’t materialize on cue, but when it does we call it a miracle.
I would be so interested in hearing Bishop Barron comment on Mr Berlinski's work. I was a confident atheist but a year ago, and these two insightful minds, among others, have severely shaken that confidence, surprisingly through the encouragement of reason and sophisticated thought. The Bishop's ideas do not necessarily correspond to Mr Berlinski's, nevertheless I think they would be riveting consideration for this fertile mind. That said, Bishop Barron probably knows all about this, given his wealth of knowledge, but I would be very gracious to hear. Thank you again for your insightful and highly useful work Bishop Barron.
I hope/assume you mean David Berlinski. He has a doctorate so your use of mr. gives my assumption pause. If it is Dr. Berlinski I am glad to find another fan of his. I find his wit and prose rarely equaled in anything else i've read, and absolutely unparalleled in modern writing. Frankly, the complete confidence usually held in both sides of the atheism vs. theism debates frustrates me. Dr. David Berlinksi is a truly independent mind and doesn't fall into the over-committal traps others do. If i was granted a chance to discuss topics with anyone in the world living today, it would be him.
Yeah Bill Nye's statements about philosophy is pretty embarrassing. I'm noticing a disturbing trend of scientism growing and an intolerance for any philosophy that deviates from this.
Blind Science being a Sicentist is not the same as "using the scientific method" The latter is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be considered a scientist
At the core of any scientific inquiry there is a philosophical question. If we didn't wonder why we exist, we wouldn't care about the big bang. The sciences couldn't exist without philosophy.
+L Venga Door Good point. Scientism is quite disingenuous. Along with those in the cave, and that includes the vast majority of us to some extent, there are those in whose interest it is that peoples minds remain in the ghetto of the cave. In other words if there is a cave or a matrix, there are its builders and maintainers as well. This is the era of the greatest intellectual fraud existing simultaneously alongside great intellectual achievement.
Great video, Bishop Barron! Wish I could have seen you when you were commencement speaker at Providence College a few years back. I just graduated this spring.
Go watch the Bill Nye video, and read the comments. What's interesting is that the comments are really harsh about Bill Nye. So maybe there is hope that people aren't so dumb that they see science as the be-all and end-all. (Fingers crossed).
Science can only answer questions about the physical world. It can't tell us a thing ab out aesthetics, ethics, math/logic, metaphysical truths such as consciousness, being or modality or examine science itself. And to back it up, here is a logical formula that proves science can't answer any of the topics above: (∀A)(∀p)(∀q)(((pϵA)>In(p))&Si(q))>~(A⊢q)
Avero Diamond When it comes to the special creation, "science" is wrong about us developing from a non-human being. There are some areas where science and religion don't have to conflict, but the scientific community and religion will, because of science overstepping. Christianity contributed a giant amount to science and has corrected the scifientific community about fetal stem cell research, because it involves moral theology on murder, but, yet, has so often, in the last 60 years, given up its voice in deference to this opposing priesthood of the ego.
mmmail1969 “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Einstein
My OpenMind “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (Albert Einstein) (1) “I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." (Albert Einstein). (2) “Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein). (3) References: (1) Einstein, in a conversation with Prinz Hubertus zu Löwenstein, in Löwenstein's book Towards the Further Shore (London: Victor Gollancz, 1968), p.156, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.97 (2) G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (New York: Macauley, 1930), quoted in Jammer, p.48 (3) Albert Einstein, Letter to an unidentified addressee, 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p.97
For most theists the word “God” is synonymous with the word “Love”. Einstein was clearly controversial and ambiguous and his quotes can easily be cherry picked out of context. However, he was clearly referring to fanaticism and literalism in his criticisms of both atheists and religious believers. The fact is you can’t measure love, altruism, meaning and purpose using “scientism”. Equally, most theists would agree with Einstein that our attempts to define “God” are pretty feeble and primitive. Nevertheless, it’s important to recognise that you can’t just explain away love and altruism demonstrated by heroes, such as the nurses and doctors who sacrificed their lives caring for Corona virus victims during this pandemic, using “Scientism”. Not to mention the love of their bereaved families. Love is inexplicable and can not be explained away by sociobiological reductionism with out reaching an absurdity. “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” (Albert Einstein). Similarly, the truth of your assumption that “something does not exist unless it can be measured by the natural sciences” or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically. All the best to you and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis. “I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately.” (Noam Chomsky).
My OpenMind “I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene…. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.” (Albert Einstein). Take care and all the best to you.
Meaning was the word that came 6 minutes into the expose. It is all that matters and all I need to know. God will reveal what is necessary to cherish and endure all or any tribulations or celebrations so as to have meaning be the victor, regardless of the outcome. Deuteronomy 29:29 comes to mind. Thank you Bishop.
Your Excellency, I was born on the Solemnity of the Assumption/Dormition, the 15th of August in the Year of our Lord 1,988. I could be construed as a millenial, and I assure you Bishop, I do NOT look to Bill Nye for ANYTHING. I look to figures such as yourself, my own spiritual director Father Eric T. Delisle, my own Pastor Father Jason Yvon Jalbert, my own Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, my own Metropolitan Sean Cardinal O'Malley, and our Holy Father Pope Francis.... these are the men I look to for guidance, wisdom, knowledge. I accept the modern sciences and authorities on them, but only insofar as my spiritual authorities listed above do. So please your Excellency, contine your great work, continue shepherding the flock of Christ, continue reaching out to those outside the fold, continue the Work of God of being an apologist, a Prophet, a Priest, a King, of being a teacher, of being a servant, please continue these works Bishop Barron, and know that I and millions of others born in the 1980s, 1990s, and 21st century, are listening to you, praying for you, following you and helping to encourage you, supporting you and spreading your message. God bless you Bishop Robert Barron and please bless me and pray for me and my Wife and family, Amen
A minor comment about the statements on the end about the cutting of a lot of humanities departments in higher education: I think that a considerable part of that might be justifiable considering the manner in which humanities are now taught. In a large number of schools (and certainly in mine), the humanities were no longer about finding the great truths, the human condition, or of higher concepts, but rather had classes built around a far more selfish and base purpose. Namely, the idea that through the humanities it would be possible to teach people in a way that would alter their perspective of society, life, and traditional concepts in order to effect social and, even more frighteningly, political change. I mourned for my wasted time when I heard my professor feel the need to talk about how one of Shakespeare's plays was representative of extremely modern movements and causes that would not have historically existed at the time.
+hyenalord Perhaps you missed the point, which is that Shakespeare was so ahead of his time that he changed literature. I'd love to know which play was so disappointing and what bothered you so about what your professor said.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), there is teaching on the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance and the four theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love. The Church has taught such metaphysical realities for centuries. Beauty is a related concept. Atheists know what injustice is. Atheists may even know something of the what love and beauty are. Scientism is concerned with physical and measurable phenomenon but there is more to reality than that. Realism include acknowledgement of virtues like justice and love and the reality of beauty.
I love science. I love electromagnetic theory, optics, among others (my degree is in electrical engineering so stuff related to that interests me). I really dislike scientism. Science is not our only aid to understanding our lives, our purpose, and our intrinsic moral worth.
In fairness to Bill Nye, he responded to the criticism of his comments by exploring philosophy, and later apologized for his comments. In fact, he not only developed a respect for philosophy, but spoke f it with some enthusiasm. I have to respect his willingness to listen to criticism, and admit when he is wrong.
Bishop Robert Barron If you are interested, here is a link to the story of his change of heart... www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/amp/
May I be so bold as to remind viewers of the great lines from the movie Contact when the spiritual leader and love interest (Matthew McConaughey) asks the scientist (Jodie Foster) “Do you love your Father?” She replies “yes, of course”. He responds “Prove it.” Science has no footing herein.
Two thoughts: 1. One of the great appeals of science is that it speaks to our materialist culture. It gives us more and better technology which we can collect and play with. 2. A big takeaway for me from this video is that embracing metaphysics does not mean rejecting reason. In other words it can be perfectly rational to 'go beyond physics', i.e. science.
+Jeffry C. Larson Embracing metaphysics is irrational. Just because you choose to embrace a god or gods rather than unicorns doesn't make it less irrational.
It seems to me that we can't have a discussion about whether or not something is rational without asking the question, "What does it mean for something to be rational?" My answer to this question is very strait forward: it is based on objective reality and/or mathematical logic/reason. This isn't to say that if you base your ideas on objective reality they will be correct, after all, you may have only seen a few pieces of evidence and got the wrong idea or maybe there were other possible explanations you didn't have the imagination to conceive of. If by mathematical logic maybe you got your logic wrong. Logical doesn't mean correct in all cases, but logical has provided us with the best answers so far. If by "Going beyond physics" you mean believing in a religion without evidence, then you are being irrational. Especially when you consider that religions such as christianity and islam command you that you are to believe NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS and that if you don't then you are evil for not believing.
qhsperson - you don't understand what metaphysics is. TrakeM118 - "logical" doesn't mean "whatever makes sense to me." There is a rule of logic -- it's an actual system of study. Regarding your assertion of Christianity and Islam, you're simply misinformed -- you really shouldn't believe things ignorant people say about religion no matter what the evidence shows...and then the ignorant say you're evil if you don't believe their mischaracterizations.
Bill Nye is a great scientist and an excellent entertainer. I greatly value the fact that he used his time and energy to promote scientific education. That being said, Nye's condescension and patronizing tone when it comes to--as Bishop Barron explains--a topic he clearly knows nothing about, is one of the most irritating and insufferable things I have heard in a while
+fluffynoses Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's an actor playing one on tv. He neve went to college to major in science. He did get an engineering degree, which is great, bu still the man has a limited amount of knowledge on biology and science past a fifth grade level.
FAMVIDS just curious, how are they outdated? Is it because he's citing Plato, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and someone widely considered to still be influential in today's society?
That video is a complete fallacy Hank Greene was awful in that video he literally forgot that there are objections to his objections but he never mentioned them -_-'
"Why there is something rather than nothing?" is different from "How there is something rather than nothing?" only in that "why" assumes intent, which assumes a mind. It doesn't make sense to say "Why did the boulder fall down the hill?", because that's more of a "how" question. But if someone pushed the boulder, then we can ask "Why did you push it?". So to ask "why" is assuming there is a mind behind it, and if there is no mind behind it, then there is no "why" question, but merely a "how", so science could in theory answer it. As for philosophy, would any of you agree that philosophy has to be based in reason and what is real for it to be good philosophy? I could start off with the knowledge that the speed of light is 5 miles per hour, and go from there with completely logical arguments, but end up incorrect because my starting point was incorrect. I think this applies for all philosophical thinking. Basically, I would say philosophy is simply applying logic, but perhaps in a slightly different way than science. Is that a fair enough definition or does anyone have criticism for this?
Heiddeger wrote in German so it doesn't make sense pointing out these things, however if I ask someone "why every time I go out an it rains my hair become wet?" The sentence seems correctly formed. For the philosophy quuestion, logic is a branch of philosophy, as it is mathematics and physics, but nowadays some parts of it became so big and specialized that they need their own field.
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls Max Planck
@@johnbrown6189 So what about Bishop Barron's take on morality? He is certainly very qualified to talk about morality, since it is subset of philosophy, as well as a primary area of concern for religion.
My dearly beloved daughter, humility is a lesson, which all those who wish to enter My Kingdom must learn. Humility declares your littleness in My Eyes where you revere Me, your Saviour, the Son of God made man. Without it pride gets in the way. That is of no use if you want to declare yourself fit for My Kingdom. Your loving Saviour Jesus Christ. as535
I remember watching _Bill Nye the Science Guy_ as a younger kid, good show. But I too am worried about the rapid emergence of 'Scientism'' and it's popularity among aggressive secularists and atheists.
In the video that Robert Barron refers to, Bill Nye starts by saying what philosophy does not do - "It doesn't always give an answer that is surprising; it doesn't always lead you someplace that is inconsistent with common sense." - implying that philosophy ought to do so. Historically, philosophy has presented solutions by methodically demonstrating through arguments that the thinking that formulates a problem is the same thinking that arrives at the solution. Instead, expanding Nye's implication, philosophy should present both problems and solutions in such a way that the thinking that formulates a question is different from the thinking that formulates the answer, hence producing an effect of surprise and inconsistency with common sense. This kind of philosophy solves problems by leaving behind the previous ones, creating more and better questions in the process, putting forward a truth that is provisional and a method that is inventive and fun - all reasons that at the dawn of Western philosophy were sufficiently "inconsistent with common sense" for Athens to get rid of Socrates. With all the clerics and philosophers in the room calling Bill Nye "not just kinda wrong, but deeply, ludicrously wrong" one would almost think that history is turning full circle. As Martin Heidegger, speaking about The End Of Philosophy And The Task Of Thinking in 1964, puts it more philosophically, "This thinking is much simpler than philosophy (i.e. metaphysics) yet more difficult to accomplish. And it demands a new care brought to language and not the invention of new terms, as I once thought, but a return to the primordial content which in our language is prey to constant deterioration."
Bill Nye is a certainly no philosopher and quite frankly I don't thing he's much of a scientist either. If I have a scientific question or interest, he's the last guy I would reference.
Bishop Barron, nice video yet again you've helped me a lot as a new Roman Catholic but I must ask. How are we to test which metaphysical philosophy/religion is to be the most accurate? Almost all religions have metaphysical worlds, we have Heaven, Purgatory, Hell. The Hindus have Reincarnation and Brahman. The Buddhist have the Samara and so on. How are we to test which of these ideas is to be true from a metaphysical standpoint? I of course have faith in the Roman Catholic doctrine but it's hard to talk to other religious folk and to claim that your ideas of the metaphysical are the most accurate.
qhsperson I was asking if there is a way to test them that I was unaware of. And blind faith is hard thing because how are we to persuade other religious people that our faith system is more accurate than there's. For example if I speak to a Hindu how am I suppose to convince them that Roman Catholicism is more accurate than Hinduism.
+Marcus Aurelius Make them read the Bible. Explain Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection. You lack confidence in your own religion if you think its content is not good enough to convince...
What higher realm is he referring to? Has he measured it? Is it demonstrable? If so, did this priest use a scientific method or did he receive signals directly from gawd or the mothership?
"the humanities are suffering in post secondary education" Do you think that is because of political interference in universities/college mixed with the lack of diversity in thought ? The overtaking of universities by particular ideologies perhaps?
+drfye It's due to the economic downturn. Students are encouraged to major in fields which have high rates of job growth in order to pay back their increasing student loan debt. Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough positions available in the humanities as there are in the STEM fields (and I write this as a psychology major). If you attend university, major in something which offers high rates of employment. You can always minor in philosophy or take several humanities courses beyond your core as electives.
Excellent. Unless we try to understand transcendence to the non-contingent realm it is impossible to truly be concerned for our fellow human beings. Yes, we can have certain ethics, moral concerns, express in words and actions to alleviate certain sufferings --- but heroic virtue is unattainable; especially if someone is an atheist. There is a similar problem with Deism also. Because, if we do not accept natural law or even accepting natural law, but that we are the arbiters & deciders of moral law progressing toward a consensus - without a close look at history - we in and of ourselves change our view of the natural law for this human cause or this human problem & situation; *always* resulting in hurting someone else. The preponderance of the evidence shows there *must* be objective truth. With atheism, quite naturally near the core of one's being is a veil of hopelessness - that will never truly achieve empathy because everyone goes into non-existence. I can't go into the various forms of Deism; but much of it involves, as I wrote above, humankind decides morality. Does this ever produce the heroic virtue of a Fr. Richard Ho Lung (Missionaries of The Poor) or Mother Teresa (Missionaries of Charity) or Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (always reaching out the poor) or Sisters of Life (always reaching out to mothers & families akin to the film Juno) and so on? I do believe, that by the Grace of God that their are individuals or even groups by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God - do receive the Grace of empathy and poor out for others. But the philosophy/metaphysics of Deism doesn't offer a 'progressing' consensus of truth. The only thing left is that there is a natural law that points to a Divine Revelation. And Divine Revelation must come from the non-contingent Benevolent Creator. If one is able to see past the heart breaking human foibles in regard to our failings though out history in being conduits of God's Revelation through Christ - human history only has one Person who Revealed Who God Is to God's Fullest. Instead of Speaking using a Burning Bush or any other way; God stayed All Powerful, All Knowing, Present (sometimes by reflection in created matter) Everywhere --- but also, Fully God & Fully Human in Jesus Christ. The Oracle of Oracles. God Himself in The Form of a Man. God-Man. Jesus Christ with Mercy, pronounced judgement on humankind offering Salvation. And thank God for The Catholic Church, that recognizes that there are those without knowledge of Christ --- or by extremely heartbreaking examples of Christians --- that The Merits of Christ is able to reach those, who by The Grace of God, do have within themselves godly goodwill and love their neighbors. As opposed to those proverbial brandishing a sword of 'we look at you, we know that if you don't accept Jesus Christ the way we understand & express --- the you are damned.' That type of attitude hurt Evangelization. Only God knows the heart. They take the Scriptures that require full knowledge of Christ, His Witness to reject Christ and apply it to everyone's lifetime experience and circumstance in Providence. By the same idea, though, I haven't been assertive enough with the Name of Jesus Christ in witness. And it hurt my own walk with rationalizations. I pray for true courage from The Holy Spirit to have good prudence. Peace.
one problem is the triage of the hypothesis that get to be tested and those that dont. Another problem is people who think that the product of science is truths when in fact it's just models that fit observations.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter. Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view. Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself... We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts. Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve. Max Planck I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God. James Clerk Maxwell Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance. Isaac Newton God would not have made the universe as it is unless He intended us to understand it. Robert Boyle
"The problem is, the scientific form of knowledge has been massively successful, as we all know, thank God." ??? The Scientific Method (presumably what he meant) has it's place in expanding human understanding, as does philosophy. To assert that one exists to the detriment of the other is to miss the point of both.
I would like to take this time to say something in defense of Bill Nye. It is a well know fact that Bill Nye is a leader in the field of....no that was someone else. Bill Nye is one of the excerpt on.....no that is someone else. Bill Nye has nice Bow ties! There I knew I could find something.
I know Bill Nye to be famous for the same reason Barron has pointed out: basic science education videos for middle school and/or high school students. I would disagree with him being an expert on anything. Whoever beings him onto programming for any other reason than to point out his lack of expertise is bringing their own expertise into question. Giving Bill an audience is akin to giving TV show and movie stars and an audience. It seems silly to me.
I saw very few scientists are debating on philosophy. For science, we have moved beyond this argument. For instance, Hawkins said it's dead in the context of science. No doubt, philosophy is useful in other areas. But as far as science is concerned argument on philosophy is over.
Wonderful to meet a priest who sounds ( seems ) so ordinary but is an actual heavyweight who can go toe to toe with ‘the best’ that the atheists can bring to the table. In the atheist’s world snarky comments win the points and they debate straw-men. Father Barron is no straw man.
I was taught at my Catholic high school that we need Fides et Ratio, faith and reason. They said you need both of them, you can't have one without the other. I knew right off the bat I needed ratio with my fide, because we'd see idiots doing stupid things with their religion, but I always wondered how I needed faith to be reasonable? It often made me look like an idiot when people asked me that question. But it wasn't until last year that I was given an answer that was in front of me the whole time, a question that I often asked myself as a child: it takes a leap of faith to say your thoughts have ANYTHING to do with reality. Boom.
Crusade Prayer (54) “Prayer to the Father To dilute impact of World War 3” “O Heavenly Father, in the Name of Your Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, Who suffered greatly for the sins of mankind, please help us in these difficult times we face. Help us to survive the persecution being planned by greedy rulers and those who want to destroy Your Churches and Your children. We implore You, dear Father, to help feed our families and save the lives of those who will be forced into a war against their will. We love You, dear Father. We beg You to help us in our time of need. Save us from the grip of the antichrist. Help us to survive his mark, the mark of the beast, by refusing to accept it. Help those who love You to remain true to Your Holy Word, at all times, so that You can bestow on us the Graces to survive in Body and Soul. Amen.” ;t'rt';
Scientific thinking describes the world we live in, reality. Poetry, the humanities, Moby Dick, etc are all studies of nonmaterial objects. You say that physics cannot explain the things that these nonmaterial observations that are analyzed via philosophy and literature, yet anything that can be explained can be explained via logic. What's rational to believe is what logically makes sense. And if you work your way up a sufficient amount of levels you can, in fact, logically build your way up from the bedrock of physics to the higher, nonphysical, reaches of literature and the like.
Ken Ham is the last person the bishop would hang out with. Ham subscribes to Intelligent Design, which is not the position of the church. Most serious religious scholars have no problem with evolution
How come Bishop Barron has videos calling out Bill Nye but he doesn't have any that directly call out Ken Ham and the idiocy of the Creation Museum?.... why do you think that is?
my major was philosophy...when I hear people like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins other scientists talk about philosophy I cringe...first of all they really seem to not know much about philosophy or theology. there are matters of the heart of the spirit,there is compassion ,there is virtue.things that science don't cover, religions Can. .... philosophy can also be important and questioning,in terms of logic,propositions in hypotheticals.before there was philosophy which got science going,lot of scientists don't seem to appreciate that.
Bill Nye found his wallet and lost his mind...its sad because he can be such a center of influence for discerning truth in the physical reality regardless of him not actually being a scientist as such as he is presented. I've watched that video over and over again and I still get chills and cringe. I only have a masters in philosophy, and I barely scraped by because my undergrad wasn't philosophy and I missed a lot of the fundamentals but oooooweeee I think I could've called the malarky Nye is claiming. Bishop Barron is correct saying "we will have a generation stuck in Plato's cave." At what point do we stop giving people what they want instead of what they need? Bread and circuses...
you had me right up until Plato's cave which there is better reason to believe Plato would have considered the lens of science as the way to know the outside world and maybe even to get there (while being still alive); this opposes your perversion of that where you say science is just part of seeing the shadows. Plato's metaphor is an attempt to simply help us understand that, no matter what we can perceive, there is potentially, and even very likely, much more to know about what we are perceiving and that our powers of perception, our senses, are very limited. Science is a way to discover what has been outside our powers of perception, to understand what is casting the shadows, to expand upon what we can perceive and add real information to that which then lets us understand more deeply what it is that has been casting the shadow(s), and what else there might be out there. This view does not oppose the a realm of reason, as you seem to present, but works hand in hand with reason. Logical mechanics, argument, and strict rationality are already included in science and indeed could be, and have historically, been considered as the earliest forms of science. In fact all science used to be called "philosophy" but now have become very refined and specific branches of it. Reason is what informs us of what to do with the what the power of science had revealed and even where to look using science. What i find dangerous, and potentially even darkening, of what you are saying is the idea that we need to abandon science to understand the world outside the cave or even that we have the ability to see it plainly as the escapee was able to. The metaphor of the cave is so important but secondly because it reinforces the understanding that we will always be the prisoners while on this earth; we will only ever be in positions where all that can be seen is shadows. That is why it is so important to do the best we can with that limited information, using the highest advances in both reasoning and science, instead of hoping to be freed from that inherently limited perspective which can only be reduced to a hope, and even longing, for death (and afterlife). So while we are in this world, let's act like this may be our only chance to figure out what is outside the cave, which we can only do via science (which harnesses reason already)...because this is extremely likely the only chance we'll have AND, even if it wasn't, we should act like it anyway. If you are espousing any other view, then you abandon any claim to having a rational support for your position.
Scientific form of knowledge? Cool, now we get to differentiate the difference between knowledge and truth. Knowledge is a misleading word, because it's impossible to know something for certain. Science aims to continue the exploration of our universe with hopes of finding answers. This does not claim to have the answers, but merely to seek them. Science gains us knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge.
Science means KNOWLEDGE. It comes from the word Scire (Latin), which means "to know". Science is not labs and test tubes and white lab coats. And are you absolutely CERTAIN that it's impossible to know something for CERTAIN? Don't most people know that 2+2 equals 4? And that the world is not flat? Yawn...
Sol Mon You can be pretty sure your whole life until you die, but no, you cannot know anything for certain. For all we know, we aren't even alive. For all we know, our universe is the representation of a projection of a hologram. You can't be certain of anything. Math is likely the only thing in this universe that we can probably say for certain is true everywhere, and yet it's not really even a thing. It's an observation and a method of thinking. I'm glad you know the etymology of the words, but that won't help you understand them more. Only time can do that for you, and even then it's likely not going to be enough. For any of us.
+Neceros You can't be certain of anything. . . except for the fact that you can't be certain of anything, apparently. That statement is logically inconsistent.
+Christopher Moell When most people cross the road they are pretty "certain" that it's safe to do so. I am "certain" that the sun will rise in an easterly direction tomorrow, - I can't prove it, but I have very good reasons to be certain about it.
+Sol Mon *And are you absolutely CERTAIN that it's impossible to know something for CERTAIN?* I claim that there are things I know with certainty, but none of them are synthetic (real world) propositions. At best I can only be very confident that a synthetic proposition is true, but I cannot be sure. *Don't most people know that 2+2 equals 4?* This is a different class of knowledge. Mathematics deals in the purely analytical, and we can purely reason to "truth". In the same way, I can also be sure that all bachelors are unmarried men, triangles have three sides, and 2 + 2 = 4. These are all things I can actually prove, and will if you require it. *And that the world is not flat?* Well, there are lots of things I can show have been falsified, and be pretty certain about them, but absolute certainty about reality itself doesn't seem to be possible. If you have a way to get absolute certainty about reality, I'd love to hear it.
And now Science theorizes that 95% of the Universe is composed of "Dark" Energy and Matter. So in essence they are saying that our physical realm (5%) is surrounded and embedded in a larger realm of Unseen energy and matter. Hmmmm, where I have I heard this configuration hypothesized before?
Philosophers that appeal to the supernatural to explain real world phenomena are no different from their 15th century counterparts that appealed to witches and curses to explain why certain people got sick or died
Doesn't PhD stand for Doctor of Philosophy? He has a half dozen honorary doctorates, yet it seems Mr Nye neglects, or doesn't even know, what that means.
Bishop Barron please read this and then please answer the person who originally asked really needs to know There user name is Syner Genetics P.S all the questions where copied and pasted. I would ask Barron to explain the phenomenon of religious belief as in many cultures across the globe and through out history has had beliefs in gods and god like creatures. These other religious traditions whether they are practiced or not are just as valid as Catholicism is today. Of course I would rather had a scholar who studied world cultures present and historical because they would have more context than I would and would be able to defend against Barron's arguments of a product of Western centric viewpoints. How much has the supernatural has played in the development of the Catholic Church rather than the Catholic church a product of of the Roman Empire and acceptance of authority solely based on tradition? Does the Roman Catholic church base its authority on supernatural authority (actual proof from outside sources) or is the Church like any other Christian denomination whose real authority is from man, not god? And lastly would Bishop Robert Barron protect my rights not to be Catholic? Would he protect me from forced conversion? Would he uphold secular laws rather than the bible in his example? Does a person have a right not to be a Catholic? If so what is the point of god / Jesus in the first when 2000 years later a person has a fundamental right to have a religion or not? When you have Catholics / Christians / Muslims can argue no one should be forced, it undermines gods involvement on earth in the first place.
Although scientism is part of the reason for a decline in humanities, I don't think it's the only culprit. Sadly, it is harder for a humanities student to find employment in their field when compared to a science student. Naturally, this would cause a gravitation towards science programs. i think this is a problem that should be fixed.
Yeah I'd rather pay people to find the cure to a disease than talk about Plato's cave though, so that's probably why more people go into science - more money, more breakthroughs; win-win.
@@xserpentine3424 I think you're being a little uncharitable to the humanities and arts (Plato's cave thought? come on). Health care practitioners were/are obviously very instrumental in the combat of the pandemic, but during the earliest phases of the pandemic when most people were at home, people turned to entertainment, without which social distancing very possibly could've been unbearable. I regret making the "arts/humanities vs sciences" dichotomy but it's also worth noting I'm not trying to "defend my camp" here (biology student). A society that undervalues humanities and the arts is a sterile society that I wouldn't want to live in.
@@lucasc5461 I'm just specifying why scientists have easier employment than the humanities - although, to be fair, the humanities is easier. Question: What's the easiest science in your opinion. For me its physics - chemistry confuses me, and I hate biology since the UK specifications is just remembering definitions.
@@xserpentine3424 I think it depends on the level. High school physics/early university physics was relatively straightforward, although I am of the idea that if I had studied it any further it would reach a level of complexity at which my comprehension would drop off steeply. Chemistry sort of like that but at upper levels I think it relies a bit more on your ability to construct good experiments and execute them well. Biology is a lot of memorization but as you accumulate enough knowledge there’s an increasing demand to use that knowledge and think critically.
I love bill Nye, I joined the Planetary society because of his love of moving our species further and further into the wonders of gods universe. I also believe in the scientific method. Like Neil Tyson, I believe Bill Nye is more forcefully put into these religious debates largely against his wishes. May be not, but still I can't blame him for what he is, but I can rejoice in what he has done for humanity and science. May god bless bill Nye for his contributions to me as a kid and to all who he has helped and educated. Amen
More than anything the scientific method is the concept that you should test claims and only believe claims if they can be tested and evidence suggests that they are true. Religion is the exact opposite, religion says believe NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS or else you're evil for not believing.
The difference between philosophy and science: Science used inductive reasoning (from the bottom up) which results in probable conclusions. Philosophy uses deductive reasoning (from the top down) and the conclusion has "certainty" IF all of the argument is true. However, every logical syllogism and argument for an interventionist deity has at least one unsupported assertion (these are some examples). This summarizes the problem with philosophy: there is no consensus. Philosophy and logic are important foundations for the methods of determining reality we call science. However, they do not substitute for evidence. If there is poor or no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe it is real, no matter what philosophy or logic say on the matter. The booster rockets of philosophy and logic have launched science for best determining reality. "Formal logic alone doesn’t prove anything. It often leads to false conclusions about the real universe. If we relied on formal logic we would not have science. We need to let the universe tell us how it behaves." ~Lawrence Krauss understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html
@Qwerty, how so? Reason and logic are necessary to understand reality but not sufficient. For that, we need to use science to best understand reality. understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html
@Qwerty, goodness, love, empathy, hate, envy, et al are real but not material. You continue to make a category error: only science can test claims against objective reality. Philosophy and theology have NO consensus because there is no way to test their claims. Read the link I gave you in detail then we can talk intelligently.
Thank you Bishop Barron, but I think as humans, we are all stuck in Plato's Cave, no? Even the Enlightenment thinkers like Descartes were stuck in it, cogito notwithstanding.
Why don't you have a discussion with Bill Nye rather talking about him. I am sure it would bring in more viewers of you debating someone rather than just talking about that person. Its like your having an argument with yourself and of course you are going to win, where is there growth in that?
Reminds me of something I read not to long ago.
Scientist: Philosophy isn't important.
Philosopher: So why is Science important.
Scientist: Well because-
Philosopher: Now you're doing Philosophy.
😂
Many of very average intellect and knowledge like to associate themselves with science (or rather scientism), because they believe that by simple association, it makes them more intelligent and respectable than they actually are. Talking about science does not make one a scientist. Being a scientist requires one to do the necessary research and discover a little more about the universe we live in. It is not enough to just express an opinion, comment or promote someone else's work. I do not see true respectable scientists going on youtube, social media or talking tours belittling philosophy and theology. Only pseudo scientists, like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins, who hardly, if ever, publish any papers of original research in reputable journals spend time commenting on philosophy and theology. Perhaps because they really have nothing new or original to say about science.
Then, the scientist got a massive paycheck, and the philosopher went online to the job board lol.
What a conclusion! I read Plato in high school and didn't get it. I never would have thought to apply that his cave to our modern scientific tendencies. Thank you, Bishop Barron! I appreciate the new perspective, giving me a renewed motivation to keep my love for humanities burning, long after college, and not let the concrete physicalities before me become my whole world.
Dang, this man is a contemporary version of Lewis or Chesterton in his cultural and philosophical discernment. Such a blessing he is.
Dear Bishop. I am really really really pleased about your UA-cam account. I am a little German blogger about theology, liturgy, church musics, organ etc with 4 Mio subscribers. But with this 4 millions I reach nearly so much as ALL German dioceces together on UA-cam.
So I am really really happy to see that it is possible. Having thousands of followers as a bishop or diocece :)
Please continue!
@@sammcphail136 I am.
I was a philosophy major in college. I feel that it is essential in understanding/comprehending "science". Bishop Barron, if you would also rebute Lawrence Krauss, it would be well appreciated.
philosophers that appeal to the supernatural to explain real world phenomena are no different from their 15th century counterparts that appealed to witches and curses to explain unfortunate events
@@pazuzil the spiritual or supernatural is real, and immaterial. Therefore it is outside the ability of scientists to study. Many learned people, including scientists, find arguments for God compelling.
If all you meant is that there are possible natural explanations for miracles, well we agree, but then, timing is everything isn’t it? Usually a natural phenomenon doesn’t materialize on cue, but when it does we call it a miracle.
I would be so interested in hearing Bishop Barron comment on Mr Berlinski's work. I was a confident atheist but a year ago, and these two insightful minds, among others, have severely shaken that confidence, surprisingly through the encouragement of reason and sophisticated thought. The Bishop's ideas do not necessarily correspond to Mr Berlinski's, nevertheless I think they would be riveting consideration for this fertile mind. That said, Bishop Barron probably knows all about this, given his wealth of knowledge, but I would be very gracious to hear. Thank you again for your insightful and highly useful work Bishop Barron.
I hope/assume you mean David Berlinski. He has a doctorate so your use of mr. gives my assumption pause. If it is Dr. Berlinski I am glad to find another fan of his. I find his wit and prose rarely equaled in anything else i've read, and absolutely unparalleled in modern writing. Frankly, the complete confidence usually held in both sides of the atheism vs. theism debates frustrates me. Dr. David Berlinksi is a truly independent mind and doesn't fall into the over-committal traps others do. If i was granted a chance to discuss topics with anyone in the world living today, it would be him.
You're right that science is a methodology. But scientism is an ideology, and that's what Bishop Barron addresses here.
Yeah Bill Nye's statements about philosophy is pretty embarrassing. I'm noticing a disturbing trend of scientism growing and an intolerance for any philosophy that deviates from this.
some sort of intellectual imperialism
Nye is an engineer, not a scientist.
How did he become the face of science in america??
Bill Nye the Science Guy.
+JeTc by being a tv entertainer
+JeTc Try looking up the definition of scientist. It isn't an exclusive club.
Blind Science
being a Sicentist is not the same as "using the scientific method"
The latter is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be considered a scientist
+JeTc. That kinda reminds me of Dr. Phil, "Dr." Phil wasn't even a real doctor for most of the time he was on _The Dr. Phil Show_.
Excellent Bishop Barron!
Go Father Barron!
Bishop now. I keep saying Fr. all the time too
At the core of any scientific inquiry there is a philosophical question.
If we didn't wonder why we exist, we wouldn't care about the big bang.
The sciences couldn't exist without philosophy.
+L Venga Door Good point. Scientism is quite disingenuous. Along with those in the cave, and that includes the vast majority of us to some extent, there are those in whose interest it is that peoples minds remain in the ghetto of the cave. In other words if there is a cave or a matrix, there are its builders and maintainers as well. This is the era of the greatest intellectual fraud existing simultaneously alongside great intellectual achievement.
+ichthus1890 And supernaturalism is therefore evidence-based? Really?
+L Venga Door Yes we would because the big bang has everything to do with evolution, genes, etc.
Thinking Human are you actually asking if things outside of science are provable by science?
Hint.... you are.
You hit the nail on the head here, Bishop Barron! Thanks for the great video!
Thank you Bishop Barron, that was an well put, clear and concise. I particularly liked your explanation on Plato's cave!
Great video, Bishop Barron! Wish I could have seen you when you were commencement speaker at Providence College a few years back. I just graduated this spring.
Go watch the Bill Nye video, and read the comments. What's interesting is that the comments are really harsh about Bill Nye. So maybe there is hope that people aren't so dumb that they see science as the be-all and end-all. (Fingers crossed).
+Jason McDonald Just a bunch of butthurt philosophers.
(sarcastic clapping sound) so eloquently put, Husky.
Science can only answer questions about the physical world. It can't tell us a thing ab out aesthetics, ethics, math/logic, metaphysical truths such as consciousness, being or modality or examine science itself. And to back it up, here is a logical formula that proves science can't answer any of the topics above:
(∀A)(∀p)(∀q)(((pϵA)>In(p))&Si(q))>~(A⊢q)
All those things are about the physical world. Science can answer questions about them.
Avero Diamond When it comes to the special creation, "science" is wrong about us developing from a non-human being. There are some areas where science and religion don't have to conflict, but the scientific community and religion will, because of science overstepping. Christianity contributed a giant amount to science and has corrected the scifientific community about fetal stem cell research, because it involves moral theology on murder, but, yet, has so often, in the last 60 years, given up its voice in deference to this opposing priesthood of the ego.
Thank you so much your words are wonderful.
"a generation permanently stuck in Plato's cave" ---yes unless we read Peter Kreeft
Yep. Thanks, Bishop. Keep up the good work.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." Albert Einstein
mmmail1969 “The word 'God' is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish.” - Einstein
My OpenMind
“In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognise, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for support of such views. (Albert Einstein) (1)
“I am not an atheist, and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist." (Albert Einstein). (2)
“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source.” (Albert Einstein).
(3)
References:
(1) Einstein, in a conversation with Prinz Hubertus zu Löwenstein, in Löwenstein's book Towards the Further Shore (London: Victor Gollancz, 1968), p.156, quoted in Max Jammer, Einstein and Religion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1999), p.97
(2) G.S. Viereck, Glimpses of the Great (New York: Macauley, 1930), quoted in Jammer, p.48
(3) Albert Einstein, Letter to an unidentified addressee, 7th August 1941. Einstein archive reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p.97
For most theists the word “God” is synonymous with the word “Love”. Einstein was clearly controversial and ambiguous and his quotes can easily be cherry picked out of context. However, he was clearly referring to fanaticism and literalism in his criticisms of both atheists and religious believers. The fact is you can’t measure love, altruism, meaning and purpose using “scientism”. Equally, most theists would agree with Einstein that our attempts to define “God” are pretty feeble and primitive. Nevertheless, it’s important to recognise that you can’t just explain away love and altruism demonstrated by heroes, such as the nurses and doctors who sacrificed their lives caring for Corona virus victims during this pandemic, using “Scientism”. Not to mention the love of their bereaved families. Love is inexplicable and can not be explained away by sociobiological reductionism with out reaching an absurdity. “It would be possible to describe everything scientifically, but it would make no sense; it would be without meaning, as if you described a Beethoven symphony as a variation of wave pressure.” (Albert Einstein).
Similarly, the truth of your assumption that “something does not exist unless it can be measured by the natural sciences” or "no statements are true unless they can be shown empirically to be true" cannot themselves be proven scientifically, logically, or empirically. All the best to you and keep safe during this Corona virus crisis.
“I don't join the New Atheists. So, for example, I wouldn't have the arrogance to lecture some mother who hopes to see her dying child in Heaven - that's none of my business, ultimately.” (Noam Chomsky).
My OpenMind
“I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene…. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus.”
(Albert Einstein).
Take care and all the best to you.
And any of them without philosophy is completely paralyzed.
God bless all! Thank You to God! Thank You Mommy Mary! Happy Holy wednesday! 😇😇😇
Excellent treatise Bishop Barron 🙂🙌👌👍
Love your videos. Thank you.
Meaning was the word that came 6 minutes into the expose. It is all that matters and all I need to know. God will reveal what is necessary to cherish and endure all or any tribulations or celebrations so as to have meaning be the victor, regardless of the outcome. Deuteronomy 29:29 comes to mind. Thank you Bishop.
Just found your channel--wonderful, wonderful stuff. UA-cam could use a lot more videos like this.
Really appreciate this video.
I love Bishop Barron. Profound.
UA-cam comments seem to attract teenaged mentalities who throw insults Res Ipsa Loquitor
Your Excellency,
I was born on the Solemnity of the Assumption/Dormition, the 15th of August in the Year of our Lord 1,988.
I could be construed as a millenial, and I assure you Bishop, I do NOT look to Bill Nye for ANYTHING. I look to figures such as yourself, my own spiritual director Father Eric T. Delisle, my own Pastor Father Jason Yvon Jalbert, my own Bishop Peter Anthony Libasci, my own Metropolitan Sean Cardinal O'Malley, and our Holy Father Pope Francis....
these are the men I look to for guidance, wisdom, knowledge.
I accept the modern sciences and authorities on them, but only insofar as my spiritual authorities listed above do.
So please your Excellency, contine your great work, continue shepherding the flock of Christ, continue reaching out to those outside the fold, continue the Work of God of being an apologist, a Prophet, a Priest, a King, of being a teacher, of being a servant, please continue these works Bishop Barron,
and know that I and millions of others born in the 1980s, 1990s, and 21st century, are listening to you, praying for you, following you and helping to encourage you, supporting you and spreading your message.
God bless you Bishop Robert Barron and please bless me and pray for me and my Wife and family,
Amen
What a wonderful message! Thanks. I promise to pray for you.
A minor comment about the statements on the end about the cutting of a lot of humanities departments in higher education: I think that a considerable part of that might be justifiable considering the manner in which humanities are now taught. In a large number of schools (and certainly in mine), the humanities were no longer about finding the great truths, the human condition, or of higher concepts, but rather had classes built around a far more selfish and base purpose. Namely, the idea that through the humanities it would be possible to teach people in a way that would alter their perspective of society, life, and traditional concepts in order to effect social and, even more frighteningly, political change. I mourned for my wasted time when I heard my professor feel the need to talk about how one of Shakespeare's plays was representative of extremely modern movements and causes that would not have historically existed at the time.
+hyenalord
Perhaps you missed the point, which is that Shakespeare was so ahead of his time that he changed literature.
I'd love to know which play was so disappointing and what bothered you so about what your professor said.
qhsperson -- Shakespeare wasn't "ahead of his time." He was Catholic, presenting Catholic truths, which are timeless.
Thanks! Very helpful.
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992), there is teaching on the four cardinal virtues: Prudence, Justice, Fortitude, Temperance and the four theological virtues: Faith, Hope and Love. The Church has taught such metaphysical realities for centuries. Beauty is a related concept.
Atheists know what injustice is. Atheists may even know something of the what love and beauty are. Scientism is concerned with physical and measurable phenomenon but there is more to reality than that. Realism include acknowledgement of virtues like justice and love and the reality of beauty.
Chilling assessment because it so accurately shines a light on the behaviorism of the younger generations.
I love science. I love electromagnetic theory, optics, among others (my degree is in electrical engineering so stuff related to that interests me). I really dislike scientism. Science is not our only aid to understanding our lives, our purpose, and our intrinsic moral worth.
Thank You. Science is wonderful yet it cannot tell us everything. Philosophy can explain much more.
excellent video Father
In fairness to Bill Nye, he responded to the criticism of his comments by exploring philosophy, and later apologized for his comments. In fact, he not only developed a respect for philosophy, but spoke f it with some enthusiasm.
I have to respect his willingness to listen to criticism, and admit when he is wrong.
I didn't know that. Good for him.
Bishop Robert Barron If you are interested, here is a link to the story of his change of heart... www.google.com/amp/s/qz.com/960303/bill-nye-on-philosophy-the-science-guy-says-he-has-changed-his-mind/amp/
May I be so bold as to remind viewers of the great lines from the movie Contact when the spiritual leader and love interest (Matthew McConaughey) asks the scientist (Jodie Foster) “Do you love your Father?” She replies “yes, of course”. He responds “Prove it.” Science has no footing herein.
Nobody does politely savage like Bishop Barron.
Fantastic!
Excellent response!
Two thoughts:
1. One of the great appeals of science is that it speaks to our materialist culture. It gives us more and better technology which we can collect and play with.
2. A big takeaway for me from this video is that embracing metaphysics does not mean rejecting reason. In other words it can be perfectly rational to 'go beyond physics', i.e. science.
+Jeffry C. Larson
Embracing metaphysics is irrational. Just because you choose to embrace a god or gods rather than unicorns doesn't make it less irrational.
+qhsperson My comment was not so much about god(s) as it was about philosophy.
It seems to me that we can't have a discussion about whether or not something is rational without asking the question, "What does it mean for something to be rational?" My answer to this question is very strait forward: it is based on objective reality and/or mathematical logic/reason. This isn't to say that if you base your ideas on objective reality they will be correct, after all, you may have only seen a few pieces of evidence and got the wrong idea or maybe there were other possible explanations you didn't have the imagination to conceive of. If by mathematical logic maybe you got your logic wrong. Logical doesn't mean correct in all cases, but logical has provided us with the best answers so far.
If by "Going beyond physics" you mean believing in a religion without evidence, then you are being irrational. Especially when you consider that religions such as christianity and islam command you that you are to believe NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS and that if you don't then you are evil for not believing.
qhsperson - you don't understand what metaphysics is. TrakeM118 - "logical" doesn't mean "whatever makes sense to me." There is a rule of logic -- it's an actual system of study. Regarding your assertion of Christianity and Islam, you're simply misinformed -- you really shouldn't believe things ignorant people say about religion no matter what the evidence shows...and then the ignorant say you're evil if you don't believe their mischaracterizations.
I love your videos Bishop Barron. May God bless you and Word on Fire
Bill Nye is a great scientist and an excellent entertainer. I greatly value the fact that he used his time and energy to promote scientific education. That being said, Nye's condescension and patronizing tone when it comes to--as Bishop Barron explains--a topic he clearly knows nothing about, is one of the most irritating and insufferable things I have heard in a while
reading your comment in zoidebergs voice gave me a good laugh. Also i agree with you whole-heartedly
+fluffynoses Bill Nye is not a scientist. He's an actor playing one on tv. He neve went to college to major in science. He did get an engineering degree, which is great, bu still the man has a limited amount of knowledge on biology and science past a fifth grade level.
FAMVIDS just curious, how are they outdated? Is it because he's citing Plato, one of the greatest thinkers of our time, and someone widely considered to still be influential in today's society?
FAMVIDS Just b/c you're dead doesn't mean your ideas are "outdated." Just ask Einstein or Newton
That video is a complete fallacy Hank Greene was awful in that video he literally forgot that there are objections to his objections but he never mentioned them -_-'
"Why there is something rather than nothing?" is different from "How there is something rather than nothing?" only in that "why" assumes intent, which assumes a mind. It doesn't make sense to say "Why did the boulder fall down the hill?", because that's more of a "how" question. But if someone pushed the boulder, then we can ask "Why did you push it?". So to ask "why" is assuming there is a mind behind it, and if there is no mind behind it, then there is no "why" question, but merely a "how", so science could in theory answer it.
As for philosophy, would any of you agree that philosophy has to be based in reason and what is real for it to be good philosophy? I could start off with the knowledge that the speed of light is 5 miles per hour, and go from there with completely logical arguments, but end up incorrect because my starting point was incorrect. I think this applies for all philosophical thinking.
Basically, I would say philosophy is simply applying logic, but perhaps in a slightly different way than science. Is that a fair enough definition or does anyone have criticism for this?
Heiddeger wrote in German so it doesn't make sense pointing out these things, however if I ask someone "why every time I go out an it rains my hair become wet?" The sentence seems correctly formed. For the philosophy quuestion, logic is a branch of philosophy, as it is mathematics and physics, but nowadays some parts of it became so big and specialized that they need their own field.
There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other. Every serious and reflective person realizes, I think, that the religious element in his nature must be recognized and cultivated if all the powers of the human soul are to act together in perfect balance and harmony. And indeed it was not by accident that the greatest thinkers of all ages were deeply religious souls
Max Planck
Godspeed. Well said.
Your Excellency, would you please do a video on the current "bathroom" controversy?
0:44 “Bill Nye might be the science guys but he sure isn’t the philosophy guy.” What a great quote lol
Biship Barron was being too kind. Bill Nye isn't even a science guy. He is just the guy who talks about science.
@@PassingBy1118 the same way the Barron talks about morality.
@@johnbrown6189 So what about Bishop Barron's take on morality? He is certainly very qualified to talk about morality, since it is subset of philosophy, as well as a primary area of concern for religion.
Recommended: by Heidegger's mentor, Edmund Husserl, "The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology".
My dearly beloved daughter, humility is a lesson, which all those who wish to enter My Kingdom must learn.
Humility declares your littleness in My Eyes where you revere Me, your Saviour, the Son of God made man.
Without it pride gets in the way.
That is of no use if you want to declare yourself fit for My Kingdom.
Your loving Saviour
Jesus Christ.
as535
I remember watching _Bill Nye the Science Guy_ as a younger kid, good show. But I too am worried about the rapid emergence of 'Scientism'' and it's popularity among aggressive secularists and atheists.
Science answers the how.
Religion answers the why.
In the video that Robert Barron refers to, Bill Nye starts by saying what philosophy does not do - "It doesn't always give an answer that is surprising; it doesn't always lead you someplace that is inconsistent with common sense." - implying that philosophy ought to do so. Historically, philosophy has presented solutions by methodically demonstrating through arguments that the thinking that formulates a problem is the same thinking that arrives at the solution. Instead, expanding Nye's implication, philosophy should present both problems and solutions in such a way that the thinking that formulates a question is different from the thinking that formulates the answer, hence producing an effect of surprise and inconsistency with common sense. This kind of philosophy solves problems by leaving behind the previous ones, creating more and better questions in the process, putting forward a truth that is provisional and a method that is inventive and fun - all reasons that at the dawn of Western philosophy were sufficiently "inconsistent with common sense" for Athens to get rid of Socrates. With all the clerics and philosophers in the room calling Bill Nye "not just kinda wrong, but deeply, ludicrously wrong" one would almost think that history is turning full circle. As Martin Heidegger, speaking about The End Of Philosophy And The Task Of Thinking in 1964, puts it more philosophically, "This thinking is much simpler than philosophy (i.e. metaphysics) yet more difficult to accomplish. And it demands a new care brought to language and not the invention of new terms, as I once thought, but a return to the primordial content which in our language is prey to constant deterioration."
Well done
Bill Nye is a certainly no philosopher and quite frankly I don't thing he's much of a scientist either. If I have a scientific question or interest, he's the last guy I would reference.
When he said LSD trip I died😂
Bishop Barron, nice video yet again you've helped me a lot as a new Roman Catholic but I must ask. How are we to test which metaphysical philosophy/religion is to be the most accurate? Almost all religions have metaphysical worlds, we have Heaven, Purgatory, Hell. The Hindus have Reincarnation and Brahman. The Buddhist have the Samara and so on. How are we to test which of these ideas is to be true from a metaphysical standpoint? I of course have faith in the Roman Catholic doctrine but it's hard to talk to other religious folk and to claim that your ideas of the metaphysical are the most accurate.
+Marcus Aurelius I would say: the phylosophy that answers the best the question: "Who is God".
I guess miracles
+Marcus Aurelius
You can't "test" anything about religious beliefs. That's why blind faith is required. How did you miss that part?
qhsperson I was asking if there is a way to test them that I was unaware of. And blind faith is hard thing because how are we to persuade other religious people that our faith system is more accurate than there's. For example if I speak to a Hindu how am I suppose to convince them that Roman Catholicism is more accurate than Hinduism.
+Marcus Aurelius Make them read the Bible. Explain Jesus Christ's life, death and resurrection. You lack confidence in your own religion if you think its content is not good enough to convince...
Savage Barron does again!!!!
What higher realm is he referring to? Has he measured it? Is it demonstrable? If so, did this priest use a scientific method or did he receive signals directly from gawd or the mothership?
Yamaha Japan guess who missed the entire point?
"the humanities are suffering in post secondary education"
Do you think that is because of political interference in universities/college mixed with the lack of diversity in thought ?
The overtaking of universities by particular ideologies perhaps?
+drfye It's due to the economic downturn. Students are encouraged to major in fields which have high rates of job growth in order to pay back their increasing student loan debt. Unfortunately, there simply aren't enough positions available in the humanities as there are in the STEM fields (and I write this as a psychology major).
If you attend university, major in something which offers high rates of employment. You can always minor in philosophy or take several humanities courses beyond your core as electives.
In the end, I bet we all are going to be wrong😂🤣😀
Excellent.
Unless we try to understand transcendence to the non-contingent realm it is impossible to truly be concerned for our fellow human beings.
Yes, we can have certain ethics, moral concerns, express in words and actions to alleviate certain sufferings --- but heroic virtue is unattainable; especially if someone is an atheist.
There is a similar problem with Deism also. Because, if we do not accept natural law or even accepting natural law, but that we are the arbiters & deciders of moral law progressing toward a consensus - without a close look at history - we in and of ourselves change our view of the natural law for this human cause or this human problem & situation; *always* resulting in hurting someone else.
The preponderance of the evidence shows there *must* be objective truth. With atheism, quite naturally near the core of one's being is a veil of hopelessness - that will never truly achieve empathy because everyone goes into non-existence.
I can't go into the various forms of Deism; but much of it involves, as I wrote above, humankind decides morality. Does this ever produce the heroic virtue of a Fr. Richard Ho Lung (Missionaries of The Poor) or Mother Teresa (Missionaries of Charity) or Franciscan Friars of the Renewal (always reaching out the poor) or Sisters of Life (always reaching out to mothers & families akin to the film Juno) and so on? I do believe, that by the Grace of God that their are individuals or even groups by virtue of being created in the image and likeness of God - do receive the Grace of empathy and poor out for others. But the philosophy/metaphysics of Deism doesn't offer a 'progressing' consensus of truth.
The only thing left is that there is a natural law that points to a Divine Revelation. And Divine Revelation must come from the non-contingent Benevolent Creator. If one is able to see past the heart breaking human foibles in regard to our failings though out history in being conduits of God's Revelation through Christ - human history only has one Person who Revealed Who God Is to God's Fullest. Instead of Speaking using a Burning Bush or any other way; God stayed All Powerful, All Knowing, Present (sometimes by reflection in created matter) Everywhere --- but also, Fully God & Fully Human in Jesus Christ. The Oracle of Oracles. God Himself in The Form of a Man. God-Man. Jesus Christ with Mercy, pronounced judgement on humankind offering Salvation.
And thank God for The Catholic Church, that recognizes that there are those without knowledge of Christ --- or by extremely heartbreaking examples of Christians --- that The Merits of Christ is able to reach those, who by The Grace of God, do have within themselves godly goodwill and love their neighbors. As opposed to those proverbial brandishing a sword of 'we look at you, we know that if you don't accept Jesus Christ the way we understand & express --- the you are damned.' That type of attitude hurt Evangelization. Only God knows the heart. They take the Scriptures that require full knowledge of Christ, His Witness to reject Christ and apply it to everyone's lifetime experience and circumstance in Providence.
By the same idea, though, I haven't been assertive enough with the Name of Jesus Christ in witness. And it hurt my own walk with rationalizations. I pray for true courage from The Holy Spirit to have good prudence.
Peace.
'What's fire? You can tell me about oxidation, but that doesn't tell me a thing" Joseph Campbell.
one problem is the triage of the hypothesis that get to be tested and those that dont. Another problem is people who think that the product of science is truths when in fact it's just models that fit observations.
If the current generation of young people can be enticed to pursue the liberal arts, the chains of materialism will begin to loosen.
Why does the water boil? Heat excites the molecules in the water and so on, right? No, I simply want to make cup of tea.
As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.
Both religion and natural science require a belief in God for their activities, to the former He is the starting point, and to the latter the goal of every thought process. To the former He is the foundation, to the latter, the crown of the edifice of every generalized world view.
Modern physics has taught us that the nature of any system cannot be discovered by dividing it into its component parts and studying each part by itself... We must keep our attention fixed on the whole and on the interconnection between the parts. The same is true of our intellectual life. It is impossible to make a clear cut between science, religion, and art. The whole is never equal simply to the sum of its various parts.
Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve.
Max Planck
I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen that none will work without God.
James Clerk Maxwell
Atheism is so senseless. When I look at the solar system, I see the earth at the right distance from the sun to receive the proper amounts of heat and light. This did not happen by chance.
Isaac Newton
God would not have made the universe as it is unless He intended us to understand it.
Robert Boyle
Yes. Cobbler keep to your lass.
"The problem is, the scientific form of knowledge has been massively successful, as we all know, thank God." ???
The Scientific Method (presumably what he meant) has it's place in expanding human understanding, as does philosophy. To assert that one exists to the detriment of the other is to miss the point of both.
Yes, Nye is an Engineer and BIGTIME Nerd.
Thanks.
I would like to take this time to say something in defense of Bill Nye. It is a well know fact that Bill Nye is a leader in the field of....no that was someone else. Bill Nye is one of the excerpt on.....no that is someone else. Bill Nye has nice Bow ties! There I knew I could find something.
I know Bill Nye to be famous for the same reason Barron has pointed out: basic science education videos for middle school and/or high school students. I would disagree with him being an expert on anything. Whoever beings him onto programming for any other reason than to point out his lack of expertise is bringing their own expertise into question. Giving Bill an audience is akin to giving TV show and movie stars and an audience. It seems silly to me.
I saw very few scientists are debating on philosophy. For science, we have moved beyond this argument. For instance, Hawkins said it's dead in the context of science. No doubt, philosophy is useful in other areas. But as far as science is concerned argument on philosophy is over.
Wonderful to meet a priest who sounds ( seems ) so ordinary but is an actual heavyweight who can go toe to toe with ‘the best’ that the atheists can bring to the table. In the atheist’s world snarky comments win the points and they debate straw-men. Father Barron is no straw man.
Science is great but science is limited
I was taught at my Catholic high school that we need Fides et Ratio, faith and reason. They said you need both of them, you can't have one without the other. I knew right off the bat I needed ratio with my fide, because we'd see idiots doing stupid things with their religion, but I always wondered how I needed faith to be reasonable? It often made me look like an idiot when people asked me that question. But it wasn't until last year that I was given an answer that was in front of me the whole time, a question that I often asked myself as a child: it takes a leap of faith to say your thoughts have ANYTHING to do with reality. Boom.
Bishop, have you heard/watched video of song “My Church” by Maren Morris? How do you reach out to that enormous group of disenchanted millennials?
Crusade Prayer (54)
“Prayer to the Father To dilute impact of World War 3”
“O Heavenly Father, in the Name of Your Beloved Son, Jesus Christ, Who suffered
greatly for the sins of mankind, please help us in these difficult times we
face.
Help us to survive the persecution being planned by greedy rulers and those who want
to destroy Your Churches and Your children.
We implore You, dear Father, to help feed our families and save the lives of those
who will be forced into a war against their will.
We love You, dear Father. We beg You to help us in our time of need. Save us from
the grip of the antichrist. Help us to survive his mark, the mark of the
beast, by refusing to accept it.
Help those who love You to remain true to Your Holy Word, at all times, so that You
can bestow on us the Graces to survive in Body and Soul. Amen.”
;t'rt';
Scientific thinking describes the world we live in, reality. Poetry, the humanities, Moby Dick, etc are all studies of nonmaterial objects. You say that physics cannot explain the things that these nonmaterial observations that are analyzed via philosophy and literature, yet anything that can be explained can be explained via logic. What's rational to believe is what logically makes sense. And if you work your way up a sufficient amount of levels you can, in fact, logically build your way up from the bedrock of physics to the higher, nonphysical, reaches of literature and the like.
Sure put Bill Nye down, but I'll hang out with Bill anyday... you can hang out with Ken Ham ....have fun.
"Cause my sex junk is so oh oh oh"
Ken Ham is the last person the bishop would hang out with. Ham subscribes to Intelligent Design, which is not the position of the church. Most serious religious scholars have no problem with evolution
How come Bishop Barron has videos calling out Bill Nye but he doesn't have any that directly call out Ken Ham and the idiocy of the Creation Museum?.... why do you think that is?
Ted Talk!!! Great!!! Yay you're in LA now!!! :)
Anyone else bothered by the audio? I love these talks, but the audio quality could be improved substantially.
Idealism, DOA.
my major was philosophy...when I hear people like Bill Nye or Richard Dawkins other scientists talk about philosophy I cringe...first of all they really seem to not know much about philosophy or theology. there are matters of the heart of the spirit,there is compassion ,there is virtue.things that science don't cover, religions Can. .... philosophy can also be important and questioning,in terms of logic,propositions in hypotheticals.before there was philosophy which got science going,lot of scientists don't seem to appreciate that.
Yes
Remember, Bill Nye is THE SCIENCE GUY not the philosophy guy
Bill Nye found his wallet and lost his mind...its sad because he can be such a center of influence for discerning truth in the physical reality regardless of him not actually being a scientist as such as he is presented. I've watched that video over and over again and I still get chills and cringe. I only have a masters in philosophy, and I barely scraped by because my undergrad wasn't philosophy and I missed a lot of the fundamentals but oooooweeee I think I could've called the malarky Nye is claiming. Bishop Barron is correct saying "we will have a generation stuck in Plato's cave." At what point do we stop giving people what they want instead of what they need? Bread and circuses...
This is why I like beakman better yeah he is somewhat political but for the most part he keeps to himself and I liked his how better
you had me right up until Plato's cave which there is better reason to believe Plato would have considered the lens of science as the way to know the outside world and maybe even to get there (while being still alive); this opposes your perversion of that where you say science is just part of seeing the shadows. Plato's metaphor is an attempt to simply help us understand that, no matter what we can perceive, there is potentially, and even very likely, much more to know about what we are perceiving and that our powers of perception, our senses, are very limited. Science is a way to discover what has been outside our powers of perception, to understand what is casting the shadows, to expand upon what we can perceive and add real information to that which then lets us understand more deeply what it is that has been casting the shadow(s), and what else there might be out there. This view does not oppose the a realm of reason, as you seem to present, but works hand in hand with reason. Logical mechanics, argument, and strict rationality are already included in science and indeed could be, and have historically, been considered as the earliest forms of science. In fact all science used to be called "philosophy" but now have become very refined and specific branches of it. Reason is what informs us of what to do with the what the power of science had revealed and even where to look using science. What i find dangerous, and potentially even darkening, of what you are saying is the idea that we need to abandon science to understand the world outside the cave or even that we have the ability to see it plainly as the escapee was able to. The metaphor of the cave is so important but secondly because it reinforces the understanding that we will always be the prisoners while on this earth; we will only ever be in positions where all that can be seen is shadows. That is why it is so important to do the best we can with that limited information, using the highest advances in both reasoning and science, instead of hoping to be freed from that inherently limited perspective which can only be reduced to a hope, and even longing, for death (and afterlife). So while we are in this world, let's act like this may be our only chance to figure out what is outside the cave, which we can only do via science (which harnesses reason already)...because this is extremely likely the only chance we'll have AND, even if it wasn't, we should act like it anyway. If you are espousing any other view, then you abandon any claim to having a rational support for your position.
Scientific form of knowledge? Cool, now we get to differentiate the difference between knowledge and truth. Knowledge is a misleading word, because it's impossible to know something for certain.
Science aims to continue the exploration of our universe with hopes of finding answers. This does not claim to have the answers, but merely to seek them.
Science gains us knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge.
Science means KNOWLEDGE. It comes from the word Scire (Latin), which means "to know". Science is not labs and test tubes and white lab coats.
And are you absolutely CERTAIN that it's impossible to know something for CERTAIN? Don't most people know that 2+2 equals 4? And that the world is not flat?
Yawn...
Sol Mon You can be pretty sure your whole life until you die, but no, you cannot know anything for certain.
For all we know, we aren't even alive. For all we know, our universe is the representation of a projection of a hologram.
You can't be certain of anything. Math is likely the only thing in this universe that we can probably say for certain is true everywhere, and yet it's not really even a thing. It's an observation and a method of thinking.
I'm glad you know the etymology of the words, but that won't help you understand them more. Only time can do that for you, and even then it's likely not going to be enough. For any of us.
+Neceros You can't be certain of anything. . . except for the fact that you can't be certain of anything, apparently. That statement is logically inconsistent.
+Christopher Moell
When most people cross the road they are pretty "certain" that it's safe to do so. I am "certain" that the sun will rise in an easterly direction tomorrow, - I can't prove it, but I have very good reasons to be certain about it.
+Sol Mon
*And are you absolutely CERTAIN that it's impossible to know something for CERTAIN?*
I claim that there are things I know with certainty, but none of them are synthetic (real world) propositions. At best I can only be very confident that a synthetic proposition is true, but I cannot be sure.
*Don't most people know that 2+2 equals 4?*
This is a different class of knowledge. Mathematics deals in the purely analytical, and we can purely reason to "truth". In the same way, I can also be sure that all bachelors are unmarried men, triangles have three sides, and 2 + 2 = 4. These are all things I can actually prove, and will if you require it.
*And that the world is not flat?*
Well, there are lots of things I can show have been falsified, and be pretty certain about them, but absolute certainty about reality itself doesn't seem to be possible. If you have a way to get absolute certainty about reality, I'd love to hear it.
And now Science theorizes that 95% of the Universe is composed of "Dark" Energy and Matter. So in essence they are saying that our physical realm (5%) is surrounded and embedded in a larger realm of Unseen energy and matter. Hmmmm, where I have I heard this configuration hypothesized before?
Philosophers that appeal to the supernatural to explain real world phenomena are no different from their 15th century counterparts that appealed to witches and curses to explain why certain people got sick or died
Doesn't PhD stand for Doctor of Philosophy? He has a half dozen honorary doctorates, yet it seems Mr Nye neglects, or doesn't even know, what that means.
he only has a bachelors
+sithersproductions Correct. The operative word being "honorary."
Bishop Barron please read this and then please answer the person who originally asked really needs to know There user name is Syner Genetics P.S all the questions where copied and pasted. I would ask Barron to explain the phenomenon of religious belief as in many cultures across the globe and through out history has had beliefs in gods and god like creatures. These other religious traditions whether they are practiced or not are just as valid as Catholicism is today. Of course I would rather had a scholar who studied world cultures present and historical because they would have more context than I would and would be able to defend against Barron's arguments of a product of Western centric viewpoints.
How much has the supernatural has played in the development of the Catholic Church rather than the Catholic church a product of of the Roman Empire and acceptance of authority solely based on tradition?
Does the Roman Catholic church base its authority on supernatural authority (actual proof from outside sources) or is the Church like any other Christian denomination whose real authority is from man, not god?
And lastly would Bishop Robert Barron protect my rights not to be Catholic? Would he protect me from forced conversion? Would he uphold secular laws rather than the bible in his example? Does a person have a right not to be a Catholic? If so what is the point of god / Jesus in the first when 2000 years later a person has a fundamental right to have a religion or not? When you have Catholics / Christians / Muslims can argue no one should be forced, it undermines gods involvement on earth in the first place.
Bishop Barron roasting people left and right
+De Cogan When they have their backs turned.
That is because it is all a part of the same tree.
Although scientism is part of the reason for a decline in humanities, I don't think it's the only culprit. Sadly, it is harder for a humanities student to find employment in their field when compared to a science student. Naturally, this would cause a gravitation towards science programs. i think this is a problem that should be fixed.
Yeah I'd rather pay people to find the cure to a disease than talk about Plato's cave though, so that's probably why more people go into science - more money, more breakthroughs; win-win.
@@xserpentine3424 I think you're being a little uncharitable to the humanities and arts (Plato's cave thought? come on). Health care practitioners were/are obviously very instrumental in the combat of the pandemic, but during the earliest phases of the pandemic when most people were at home, people turned to entertainment, without which social distancing very possibly could've been unbearable. I regret making the "arts/humanities vs sciences" dichotomy but it's also worth noting I'm not trying to "defend my camp" here (biology student). A society that undervalues humanities and the arts is a sterile society that I wouldn't want to live in.
@@lucasc5461 I'm just specifying why scientists have easier employment than the humanities - although, to be fair, the humanities is easier.
Question: What's the easiest science in your opinion. For me its physics - chemistry confuses me, and I hate biology since the UK specifications is just remembering definitions.
@@xserpentine3424 I think it depends on the level. High school physics/early university physics was relatively straightforward, although I am of the idea that if I had studied it any further it would reach a level of complexity at which my comprehension would drop off steeply. Chemistry sort of like that but at upper levels I think it relies a bit more on your ability to construct good experiments and execute them well. Biology is a lot of memorization but as you accumulate enough knowledge there’s an increasing demand to use that knowledge and think critically.
Where is the Crucifix? Is the Catholic Church becoming secular?
I love bill Nye, I joined the Planetary society because of his love of moving our species further and further into the wonders of gods universe. I also believe in the scientific method. Like Neil Tyson, I believe Bill Nye is more forcefully put into these religious debates largely against his wishes. May be not, but still I can't blame him for what he is, but I can rejoice in what he has done for humanity and science. May god bless bill Nye for his contributions to me as a kid and to all who he has helped and educated. Amen
More than anything the scientific method is the concept that you should test claims and only believe claims if they can be tested and evidence suggests that they are true. Religion is the exact opposite, religion says believe NO MATTER WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS or else you're evil for not believing.
TrakeM118 no, not true but I value your opinion take care
The difference between philosophy and science: Science used inductive reasoning (from the bottom up) which results in probable conclusions. Philosophy uses deductive reasoning (from the top down) and the conclusion has "certainty" IF all of the argument is true. However, every logical syllogism and argument for an interventionist deity has at least one unsupported assertion (these are some examples). This summarizes the problem with philosophy: there is no consensus.
Philosophy and logic are important foundations for the methods of determining reality we call science. However, they do not substitute for evidence. If there is poor or no evidence for something, there is no reason to believe it is real, no matter what philosophy or logic say on the matter. The booster rockets of philosophy and logic have launched science for best determining reality.
"Formal logic alone doesn’t prove anything. It often leads to false conclusions about the real universe. If we relied on formal logic we would not have science. We need to let the universe tell us how it behaves." ~Lawrence Krauss
understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html
@Qwerty, how so? Reason and logic are necessary to understand reality but not sufficient. For that, we need to use science to best understand reality.
understandrealitythroughscience.blogspot.com/2019/07/a-letter-to-christian-apologists_18.html
@Qwerty, NOT playing that philosophical mumbo-jumbo game. Now, lets deal in reality: what is better than science to objectively understand reality?
@Qwerty, goodness, love, empathy, hate, envy, et al are real but not material. You continue to make a category error: only science can test claims against objective reality. Philosophy and theology have NO consensus because there is no way to test their claims. Read the link I gave you in detail then we can talk intelligently.
Qwerty, we are done. I don’t deal with ignorant, deluded people.
Thank you Bishop Barron, but I think as humans, we are all stuck in Plato's Cave, no? Even the Enlightenment thinkers like Descartes were stuck in it, cogito notwithstanding.
Why don't you have a discussion with Bill Nye rather talking about him. I am sure it would bring in more viewers of you debating someone rather than just talking about that person.
Its like your having an argument with yourself and of course you are going to win, where is there growth in that?