Mind, Meaning, and the Materialists
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 тра 2024
- Friends, can everything in the world be reduced to atoms bumping against each other, and chemical reactions in our brains? Or is there something more to reality than its material elements?
That’s what Brandon Vogt and I discuss on today’s “Word on Fire Show” episode, with the help of a new book by Justin Brierley, titled The Surprising Rebirth of Belief In God: Why New Atheism Grew Old and Secular Thinkers Are Considering Christianity Again.
A listener asks, if feelings are not acts of the will, what is contrition? A feeling, an act of the will, both, or neither?
00:00 | Intro
00:58 | Word on Fire's New Ressourcement Conference
03:10 | The problem with Materialism
07:56 | The problem with Determinism
10:57 | Consciousness and the problem it poses to Materialism
16:34 | Rationality, C.S. Lewis, and atheism
19:44 | Beauty as a path to transcendence
23:25 | Materialism's inadequacy as a source of meaning
26:03 | The Meaning Crisis without the Highest Good
29:48 | Listener question
31:36 | New book-“Popcorn with the Pope”
---SHOW NOTES---
“The Surprising Rebirth of Belief In God” - amzn.to/46jpHRa
“Popcorn with the Pope” - wordonfire.org/popcorn
---WATCH---
Subscribe to this Channel: bit.ly/3nL6bMU
Word on Fire Institute Channel: bit.ly/43jgnga
Word on Fire en Español Channel: bit.ly/2uFowjl
---WORD ON FIRE---
Word on Fire: www.wordonfire.org/
Word on Fire Institute: wordonfire.institute/
FREE Daily Gospel Reflections (English or Español): dailycatholicgospel.com/
---SOCIAL MEDIA---
Bishop Barron Instagram: bit.ly/2Sn2XgD
Bishop Barron Facebook: bit.ly/2Sltef5
Bishop Barron Twitter: bit.ly/2Hkz6yQ
Word on Fire Instagram: bit.ly/39sGNyZ
Word on Fire Facebook: bit.ly/2HmpPpW
Word on Fire Twitter: bit.ly/2UKO49h
Word on Fire en Español Instagram: bit.ly/38mqofD
Word on Fire en Español Facebook: bit.ly/2SlthaL
Word on Fire en Español Twitter: bit.ly/38n3VPt
---SUPPORT WORD ON FIRE---
Donate: www.wordonfire.org/donate/
Word on Fire Store: store.wordonfire.org/
Pray: bit.ly/2vqU7Ft
Every parent, including me, who has children who have stepped away from the faith, or who have never been brought to the faith, should sit down and listen to this with them. It’s a great beginning to an open dialogue of coming to know the Lord.
Read my comments above.
My testimony is one of faith. No matter what we are facing God will give us strength. As a single mother I’m overwhelmed at times raising two children with autism. I started homeschooling them last year so my hours to work are limited. I keep faith in Jesus even as I struggle to pay rent and as I struggle to buy groceries for my children. Lord please take away my fears because I’m constantly in fear of homelessness. But I STILL TRUST IN YOU. Please guide me and protect me through this hard period of my life I am facing. Faith over fear! ❤
Are you in USA? If you are single, mother of minors, I think there is help, at least your grocery bills. Your area Social Service(SSA), can give you more information on how to qualify and apply for it.
Best wishes for you!❤
So happy that materialists, determinists and atheists are rediscovering Christianity! Welcome back!
Always good to be in class with Bishop Barron!
We need to teach more critical thinking, logic and philosophy to our next generation.
@@russellmiles2861
I have had few other exchanges with other commenters here. The result is that each one focused on different aspects of the video and not on its intention and conclusion. So I can't exactly agree with what you wrote to be valid to the current generation.
Besides, of the several philosophical/theological terms and concepts used, not everyone has shown a clear understanding of.
I've chosen to focus mostly on the transcendental experience described in the final part of the video, and considering a mixed audience (incl. non believers), their cognitive ability would inevitably tend to use the scientific method of verifiable evidence, for which a transcendental experience, however well it would be expressed in words, will remain a subjective experience.
Hence, what could be a more appropriate preface in order to avoid that different interpretations occur?
A hint: Reading both the title of the video AND the few lines below (that unfortunately no one reads), could be an important factor for how to put the entire content of the video in the right perspective. Kind of a synopsis of a movie.
What do you think?
I was a soldier. Bad times. I watched my wife of twenty plus years die at home of lung cancer. That was enough for me. Turned to the Catholic Church.
♥️
God bless you
Dear David! I'm sorry. After alllll that, you had hope to turn to the Catholic Church. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. Im Canadian. I worked closely with Veterans for 14 years. No words. Just my gut thinking of the experiences you most probably went through. Sometimes, when there's nothing ....when there is 'nothing' there's no where else to go. God Bless you.
When I am tired memories can surface and my antidote is to sat three hail Mary prayers.@@Elizabeth-mp6tr
Suffering doesn't mean god exists
A brilliant conversation, thank you and God bless you both.
I love this so much! I would love to hear Bishop Barron comment on the Eastern Orthodox Podcast "Lord of Spirits." They are talking about this also. I think there is a great desire amongst young people to talk about the realization that there is MORE than just this material world. I love being a Catholic and being part of these deep conversations. Thank you, Bishop Barron for everything you and Word on Fire, do.
Yet another brilliant conversation. I'm blown by the ability of the Bishop to lay out complex ideas in simple terms.
Wow Bishop Barron. I love the way you explain these things. Thank you so much!
The C. S. Lewis argument was reworked by the philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his work “Where the conflict really lies.” Worth reading!
Thanks for the tip
As usual , just loved this discussion. It was deep , in the very deep end of the pool ,but I kept swimming because I get it , feel it , live it , and know it ! Too bad BB has a hard time expressing himself … 😂 thanks gentlemen as always . Just turned sixty four and it has taken time and experiences to feel certain of God and His exquisite creation. I will say when I was younger , I far more self involved , small minded ect… vain . As life’s greatest gifts came my way , love, laughter, pain , wisdom, disappointment, heartache , children , grief , it is then that I felt that there must be something much bigger than me . I jumped back into mass , recieving Him and this armour wrapped itself around me with a peace I’ve never felt before. At this age now I’m looking back upon my life and it is a book. The chapter I’m in now is about the appreciation that in the utter darkness of grief that I’ve experienced, I have been given a grace of wisdom as I go along that my creator knows me and has me always . I know that life will never stop throwing curve balls at me because that is life , but bring it on I’m well equipped for the battle . Hope I’m making sense … love my BB.
My very good friend is an atheist and I truly don’t know how she lives like that. I don’t get it …. at all.
Did you really have to notice whether or not BB had a hard time expressing himself 🤣 I think many that commented here didn't have a clue of what he was talking about. Happy birthday, by the way.
Beautiful comment. At age 82 with the agonies and ecstasies of life's experiences, I appreciate your comments.
@@phylliscory2105 thank you . ♥️
Outstanding programme. Congratulations and thank you to you both for this great work.
You can't tell a determinist what to do. They're determined to do whatever they do.
Fantastic choice of topic, and wonderfully insightful conversation as always. 🙏🏻
"you don't have free will, but here's how we should freely act in a secular society"
"Anyone with a free will can choose to come [to discuss Chesterton's books]; determinists will come if they must."
- Poster I put up to advertise for a Chesterton Society Meeting
Two books of interest. Kevin Mitchell Free Agents: How Evolution Gave Us Free Will On the flip side Robert Sapolsy Determined: A science of Life Without Free Will. Have not had a chance to read yet.
Thank you Bishop Barron ❤
The bet between philosopher David Chalmers and neuroscientist Koch that was settled just this year suggests that you are on the right track. Chalmers bet Koch 25 years ago that neuroscience would not be able to explain consciousness, and it hasn’t.
This is very interesting discussion on moral judgment. Reminds me of Kohlberg’s and Gillian’s stages of moral judgment in children usually comes from interaction and experience. But what Father is saying that there is something beyond mind’s activity, which is true - our intuition for instance. Or any inspiration that comes to us that goes beyond our experience. Most of contemplatives at some level experience these.
Barron, been watching your material for many years. Thank you!
Congratulations Bishop Barron on 700k subscribers! That's like a second diocese, plus any titular see lol!
Been studying metaphysics this semester so I’m looking forward to this!
Thanks much for this video.
Thanks for this, very interesting. I also really like the idea of the film book!
Thank you father, amen.
As soon as I got on UA-cam,I was met with this video to my utmost excitement
Beautiful
I remember randomly stumbling upon a materialism/determinism forum a few years ago while doing some research and it was terrifying. They are genuinely advocating for a minority report/demolition man/gattaca type future and they see this as the good.
“The Soul “the immoral soul where God dwells within us! The ultimate link between us and the eternal God the last frontier of humanity destined for Eternal Glory!This is what our contemporary world is crying out for! This is what will bring us to completion and consumption ! Union with God and one another! Amen
Another fascinating discussion about so much, my stack of books to read grows everytime I watch one of these discussions and Bishop Barron'sexplanations. That book will be another for me topurchase, later. I justreceived my copy of "Popcorn with the Pope" am reading it along with Bishop Barron's "Seeds of the Word."
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🧠 *Introduction and Conference Overview*
- Bishop Baron introduces the New Ressourcement Conference and its significance.
- The conference aims to revisit the Ressourcement movement in a fresh way, addressing contemporary theological issues.
- Highlights the launch of a new journal, "New Ressourcement Journal," debuting in 2024.
03:22 📚 *Discussion on Justin Brierley's Book*
- Bishop Baron transitions to discussing Justin Brierley's book, "The Surprising Rebirth of Belief in God."
- Focus on the chapter titled "Mind, Meaning, and the Materialists."
- Introduces the dichotomy between materialism and Christianity in understanding reality.
04:16 🌐 *Materialism: Default View and Issues*
- Materialism as the default assumption inthe West, reducing everything to physical elements.
- Challenges of scientism, the belief that science exhaustively defines reality.
- Issues with materialism: dismissal of ethics, beauty, and justice based on scientific investigation.
08:12 ⛓️ *Determinism and Its Troubles*
- Exploration of determinism as a stepchild of materialism.
- Critique of determinism's scientific datedness and incongruence with quantum theory.
- Moral implications: strict determinism contradicts moral praise or blame, challenging common intuitions.
11:25 👁️ *Consciousness and Immateriality*
- Definition of consciousness as a reflexive self-awareness beyond mere physical states.
- Exploration of consciousness as an indicator of the immaterial dimension of the mind.
- Reference to Aquinas's view on consciousness and immateriality.
17:03 🤔 *Rationality and Challenges for Materialists*
- CS Lewis's argument on the challenge materialism faces in explaining rationality.
- Discussion on rationality as a complex process beyond mere physical or chemical arrangements.
- Debate around the compatibility of higher forms of rationality with materialistic views.
20:25 🎨 *Beauty and Transcendence*
- Robbie's experience with beauty challenging his atheism.
- Exploration of beauty triggering awareness of a higher reality beyond the physical.
- Reference to Von Hildebrand and Plato on the transcendental nature of beauty.
22:54 🌌 *Beauty, Form, and Contemplation*
- Intellection involved in appreciating beauty, going beyond sensory perceptions.
- Recognition of consonancia and claritas in beauty as high-level moves of the mind.
- Beauty leading to contemplation of a higher reality, echoing Platonic ideas.
23:09 🌅 *Materialism and Consciousness*
- Materialism's challenge in explaining moments of transcendent meaning.
- Atheist Jennifer Folweiler's shift after the birth of her child challenges materialistic views.
- The inadequacy of chemical reactions in the brain to explain deep experiences like love and meaning.
26:12 🤔 *Meaning Crisis Among Atheists*
- Psychologist John Veri's concept of a "meaning crisis" and its symptoms.
- Brandon Le's argument linking the meaning crisis to prevailing materialistic views.
- The range of symptoms, including suicide, depression, anxiety, addiction, and the opioid crisis.
27:09 🌐 *Metaphysical Arguments Against Materialism*
- Constructing metaphysical arguments against the materialist view.
- Exploring questions of teleology and purpose in a materialistic worldview.
- Human instinct and aspiration towards a "highest good" or the summum bonum.
29:57 🙏 *Contrition: Feeling vs. Act of Will*
- Contrition defined as both a feeling and an act of the will.
- The effective and cognitive dimensions of contrition.
- Emphasizing the weight on the cognitive dimension in the act of contrition.
31:40 📚 *New Book: "Popcorn with the Pope"*
- Introduction to the book "Popcorn with the Pope."
- Background on the Vatican film list and its significance.
- The aim of the list to guide people in their appreciation of cinema as an artistic and moral language.
Excellent
It's probably worth digging into what's happening in AI with large language models as they related to some of these symbolic-philosophical ideas. It's startling how well LLMs are able to make impressive abstractions that have always seemed the domain on human agency. Your example of the letter "M" comes to mind here. God bless.
Just because AI can replicate pattern matching doesn't mean we understand the minds capacity for pure intellection though
A conversation between Barron and Mcgilchrist would be lovely
Years ago Jordan Peterson had a debate in Canada about advertising atheism. There he made the warning that "rational thinking go can a number of direction." The debate overall was your standard atheism vs theism debate but that little bit and what followed was very telling.
You should still be able to find it on UA-cam.
Great rational discussion. However, the new young people that I've experienced just do not think about God very much and are focused on have fun experiences or planning for the next one. Tolerance is the top virtue and never ever ever suggesting someone else in wrong except with killing another person after birth. Someone said "I believe in god, and the really cool thing is that he thinks just like me every time."
I'm hoping that as young people realize fun becomes meaningless after a time, and then they're ready to listen to something deeper.
❤
The words “once more”
Consider all the hard rock mining, do wildflowers pan for gold? Who whistles for the flies and bees when they are clearly out of bounds? Their righteousness and works are among the smooth stones of the ravines. On and on they go, tossing up mire and mud; they have neither repented nor re-fertilized the soil. Like a scarecrow in a Son-flower field, they must be carried because they cannot walk. The righteous for the unrighteous “once more”.
This was a very interesting discussion. As regards consciousness , I have often wondered why an individual looking at a sunrise or sunset or nature in general consider the colors beautiful. Why do the colors in a landscape stop us in our tracks, just to take in the magnificent colors and patterns. We are not taught that. No animals seem to appreciate beautiful colors, they don’t sit down and just take in the colors😂😂. This to me is proof of God… when God is telling Adam, I created all this for you to enjoy! Beautiful colors and landscapes are the gifts of God. (No art appreciation classes necessary).❤ I think that is why the animals are here to…who doesn’t love looking at all God’s creatures. All for us to enjoy and love. ❤️(except for snakes!).
You guys should talk with Bernardo Kastrup. He is a dutch philosopher who is leading the renaissance of metaphysical Idealism.
Kastrup is only good at exposing materialism as false. His own ideas of idealism are...not well founded and mostly speculation.
The "pure, intelligible pattern" spoken about by Bishop Barron around minute 15:00 is what classical philosophers called "the real" or reality. We identify the idea of "human" (they would say "man") and this thing is the substance which is real. It signifies a real thing which each man participates in. Materialists posit that the particular man is the real thing, and there is nothing real beyond that.
I am studying with the @classicalliberalarts and just last evening we were starting Nicomachus' intro to Arithmetic, which starts with these very concepts.
It's "intelligible" by the way.
@@therealong Doh!
Corrected, thanks.
@@CatholicHaze
You're welcome. 🙂
Hello, how does one get access to this upcoming journal? Can I get it mailed to my house?
I’m just a layman, but I’m looking to learn. I’d prefer physical media if possible.
I wonder if the best strategy (long term) for moral arguments would be to argue for Aristotelian-Thomistic Natural Law taking God out of the equation (or so it seems). Then smuggling him back in when people need to dive deeper into all the hidden assumptions in an A-T argument for natural law.
I had a long love affair with science, but one day, she no longer satisfied. She was always by my side as we walked down the road. But when I wanted to fly, she pulled me aside and whispered privately that she had no wings.
Absolutely.
Yes. And that is when I decided to study philosophy along with biology. I ironically, biology was lifeless.
Lovely sharing of your conversion experience.
This was a problem for me when I was 13. I realized a version of Tolstoy’s without gods everything is allowed. It was a problem, as I said, for about 5 seconds. I asked myself “do I want to rape, pillage and steal?” The answer was an incredulous, “of course not!” Problem solved. What the good bishop overlooks is there are differences in parts of the material world just as there are differences in our attitudes that are simply a by product of the material world. Hitler was wrong because inflicting pain on others gratuitously causes us great pain as well. True, there are people who don’t feel empathy but most of them are intelligent enough to fake it, not because a god will get them, the rest of us will.
There is no need to postulate that unless an invisible man tells us mass murder is wrong, we wouldn’t have a clue. We have a clue because different actions are different. It is really that simple.
It’s simple to you because you still believe people have intrinsic worth. Throughout most of human history, and increasingly even now, people just don’t think that way. Outside of religion as a backstop, can you articulate why we should care what happens to anyone outside our "tribe"?
I would recommend any book by Dr. Wolfgang Smith. They debunk materialism/ scientism and their offspring, evolution (theistic or otherwise).
That various materialists and so on are changing their tune is actually no argument for an opposite position. To argue that some life experiences are impossible to contain \ explain in a materialist framework is not an argument for there being more. It could be seen as an underlining of the human tragedy. For here we are with all these 'gifts' - and when as looks likely we make ourselves extinct - nuclear war - environmental degradation - climate change - we will amount only to a blind alley of evolution. And if intelligence emerges again, perhaps next time it will be in harmony with the planet, and not chimaeric metaphysical entities.
Xplanation in " de corazón a corazón" from las Comunicadoras Eucarísticas del Padre Celestial
Just a correction: Iain McGilchrist has alluded to his Christian beliefs many times in various interviews.
You might look for Iain McGilchrist as a guest??
I have a question about Saul/Paul. In Acts, it reads ““But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel.”
Acts 9:15 NIV
Did Paul have a choice? It sounds like he didn’t. Do some have free will to choose and some are chosen? I’d appreciate your comments.
He did have a choice. Our Lord gives each one an opportunity, you decide by your free choice.
Paul could have refused to support what he was chosen for.
God in His infinite knowledge knows but will not affect what we choose which is our free will. Sin in itself is not freedom but in fact binds you in cuffs.
It is difficult for me to explain this other than to say God will never take away our free will. The opposition, evil, will say God is a tyrant because we are not allowed to do what we will...
Trying to explain this in layman's terms. Watch some UA-cam videos of near death experiences and how these people turned their lives around knowing what they saw and felt from the after life. That would give you an idea of why sin is not freedom but imprisonment.
On the second part of your question God does allow some to have more graces than others.
All of us are called to be saints but not all are chosen to endure certain graces. Mystics, stigmatists and healers.
A modern day living example is Sr Briege Mckenna. Tammy Peterson. God does pick certain individuals over others.
@@abiecader thanks for responding. I’m a believer, I was just interested in thoughts considered Paul because it seems more like Jesus picked Paul more than Paul picked Christ. More like Paul accepted Christ because Jesus made it a really easy decision. Thanks again!
He definitely had a choice. But disobeying God is not without consequences. The story of Jonah is in point. Jonah initially disobeyed God. He was made to pay the price. Swallowed by a great fish, he repented and pled with the Lord to release him from the 'womb of Sheol'. He was given a second chance to complete his commission.
In other words, the mind is an ever evolving sponge of information while the spine functions as a regulatory balance between the external and internal world. The capacity to replicate or magnify such a structure to various levels without compromising the natural elements would be considered God. Thank you.
In my experience, materialism usually increases birthday party debt, bankruptcy, shrinking savings, economic crises, and lower levels of life satisfaction and well-being. Secondly, people are more scientism when they feel insecure and threatened because of their lack of belief in God and lack of spirituality which leads to desperate paths that interfere with their relationships with family and friends and can contribute to the root of psychiatric disturbance or distraction (gift). It is time to heal your attachment. Start building healthy loving relationships (none are left) and you'll become more secure!!!
I appreciate you both.
Cecilia Dreger and family (Bishop Thomas Daly and Father Raj).
@ceciliadreger6319
But you have to distinguish that the term "materialism" is used differently in daily speech than in philosophy.
Otherwise one would certainly not understand a discussion of this genre.
Pope Francis e.g. uses the term "consumerism".
But all of these "isms" at the end are an intelligible product of the human mind to better illustrate the living conditions of man on earth in relations to each one's experience of existing at all.
Easy and complex at the same time, wouldn't you say?
You should buy your groceries and see a psychiatrist @therealong.
Determinism and God's Providence and free will are not necessarily mutually exclusive... Just because the timeline is irrevocably established/determined, this doesn't mean that it's not our 100% free will choices that cause this timeline to be inevitable!
According to Pope Francis, the present climatic crisis is anthropic (man-provoked), so "free will choices" in this context affect this timeline inevitably.
❤️
Talk to John Vervaeke on this one. ❤
Dear Bishop Barron
10:18 - MIT, Sapolsky lectures on UA-cam.
Yep... godel's incompleteness theorem writ large.
"in any reasonable mathematical system there will always be true statements that cannot be proved."
Where does it come from? Faith, trust, possibly intuition/special revelation.
Yes. We can't will our will.
Just had a thought that you may appreciate. So stay with me on this one.
I am getting the impression that black holes do not work the way described.
There is a subtle nuance that I believe we may have wrong.
That nuance is in the concept of the singularity, which goes against the nature of physics.
Firstly it demands that something can become smaller than the planck length and requires infinite compression.
Secondly it demands that something must be destroyed instead of change state.
Thirdly it demands that time stands still at the center of a black hole rather than at the Schwarzschild radius or event horizon.
So, avoiding these problems necessitates that time actually stands still at the event horizon, and that beyond this time must go negative.
This also implies that wormholes are/can not be created randomly in space, but are the gateways that enter and exit a volume of space that has stationary time....to us.
So what you may ask ?
Well firstly this is the area of a photon sphere that is packed with light.
Secondly, this area is then becomes nexus between yesterday and tommorrow.
Thirdly this region of creation exists outside of our spacetime, while bridging across all time.
Fourthly, this may be the birthplace/root of quantum entanglement.
Do you see any resemblance in a religious context ?
Also in case you dont understand the relationship;
Entanglement is essentially harmonic resonance.
It is the basis of a 2nd tuning fork emitting the same sound, when the 1st is hit.
The word of creaton was that uttered by the Seraphim of the four elements, to bring things into being.
In the ancient greek sense, solid, liquid, gas, plasma......plus the aether or what we would now call vaccuum energy as the very fabric of spacetime.
You are correct about the singularity not existing... Black holes obviously have finite mass!
Nothing is moving faster than the speed of light or even approaching f going faster than it (except light itself), therefore nothing is going back in time.
Light within a black hole is likely converted into other forms of energy (namely heat and then possibly matter).
It is interesting to consider the light trapped exactly on the border of the event horizon... Does it continue to accumulate and spin around the centre of the black holes mass forever? I suppose the mass within the bh continues to increase until light is eventually bent inwards to the centre
@@RuneRelic
For physics' doubts and questions you should try prof. Walter Lewin's channel, as long as you don't mix in theological reasoning.
If you prepare and formulate your question(s) well and respectfully, avoiding vague or mythological concepts, imprecisions of terms, erroneous recognized principles and so on, I'm quite sure he will sincerely address it, or direct you to where you can look at. He is retired and past his 85's, but still a lucid and passionate physicist. Just an advice from me. Your move now.
@@growtocycle6992
Scenario 1.
Compare and contrast observer A in a localised region of high denstity spacetime, with that of obsever B in a localised region of low density spacetime (hence gravitational lensing).
Scenario 2.
Compare and constrast observer A moving at general speed through spacetime, with that of observer B moving at relativistic speed through spacetime.
Scenario 3.
Compare and contrast observer A moving at general speed in a low density spacteime, with that of obsever A as they move into a region of high density spacetime at relativistic speed, to maintain the same velocity, using a reference tick, that is independant from the localised spacetime density ticks.
These are three different scenarios.
Being 'similar' scenarios does not make them 'the same' scenario.
Note here the need to use s1 vs s2 with m/s^2...and why it is necessary/essential/fundamental/required to separate a universal reference tick from that of a localised tick related to the local variable regional spacetime density, that creates gravitational lensing.
For this reason, confounding moving faster than the speed of light, with two different spacetime densities where time slows to zero, is confounding two very different scenarios. Also, even if you do equate the whole volume of the blackhole as being zero time, that means the concept of a wormhole anywhere within it is an oxymoron.
Also, the time vector pointing outward from the black hole, moving toward a time vector adjacent to it at the point of zero time (aka literally a wormhole), also implies moving inside of a spherical shell will point the vector of time toward the center of that black hole (flipping the time vector).
@@therealong I could indeed ask someone else to explain a broken theoretical model better. But that would not fix the broken theoretical model being explained.
Your move.
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
If reality is reducible to just matter or just spirit, then free will is reducible to just reason or just choice.
If free will is reduced to just reason or just choice, then nobody believes it is really free.
Therefore, reality is both matter and spirit.
Something kinda cool about Bishop Barron doing the program while enjoying a lozenge.
lol , maybe needs a cigar too . Just love him .
It's rude and his arrogance excludes him from any conversation.
Alas determinism also puts religion in a catch 22 situation.
If you deny determinism, you must also deny prophecy.
Unless you accept prophecy as simply nothign more than one possibility out of many.
Viva Cristo Rey
Consciousness is not the only problem of materialism. Another one is information - cybernetics as dematerialization of science. Information is neither matter nor energy. I regret this argument is not used in the discussion.
….divine majesty….made him think.
Brandon mentioned in passing Philip Pullman abandoning materialism, which if true is like the Pope abandoning Catholicism. That would be big news
May i add...Newton in the 17th Century must have witnessed while at Family's Woolsthorpe Manor, the phenomenon of someone or other plucking a not-that-low hanging fruit that needed a little jumping up to reach it: in every such instance, the very same force of Gravity brought that person's feet back to the ground; yet, it was only on 1 Apple (i.e., not all apples on that tree) dislodging itself and falling to the ground that inspired Sir Issac Newton to formulate the Gravitational Theory: CLEARLY, there WERE other FORCES at play that led to that particular Apple being dislodged from the Tree. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity threw light on the self-same phenomenon that made just 1 Apple fall down. Moving now to the era of QuantuMech, new vistas open that complement and NOT negate earlier stated Principles: Science therefore is seen as keeping step with the thirst of Mankind to know the How and Why of THE CREATED we all are part of, and using the very intellect GOD Has Given✝️
✨🙏🏼✨
I was an atheist and materialist for much of my adult life though more of a historical materialist ala Marx than the sort described in this conversation. In the years immediately prior to my conversion, I did dabble with mechanistic materialism and that did lead straight to nihilism Then, by the Grace of God, I converted and stopped being an atheist. But, I'm still a materialist because, well, God's really real and, to paraphrase Jules from Pulp Fiction, he gets involved. God--The Father, Son and Holy Spirit--is a material presence in my life be it through the Church or the Tradition or the Eucharist and other Sacraments etc. While I don't worry much about the metaphysics, I haven't felt any operational contradiction or much need to question my materialist commitments. They seem perfectly consistent with my Catholicism.
you misunderstand both materialism and the supernatural. god is immaterial and incompatible with materialism
Sumum bonum, the highest good, peace and satisfaction all the time at everywhere, this is nothing approachable in this world, so it has to be something transcending, and longing for this is natural. I agree.
But because it’s universal and natural, it’s something which has to be justified regarding its existence ?
It’s great dream worthy of dreaming, but dream is dream.
Is depression something to be negated and cancelled ? Why can’t one embrace it as a meaningful part in one’s life ? Of course it’s couteractive against happiness, but why the life has to be always happy ?
Is it natural to want that ? Yes.
Is it right to do that ? No.
In a good condition, the autopilots may be landing an airplane to the runway, but in the real conditions, human pilots usually have to make adjustments to touch down the airplane on the runways. I mean the consciousness still is vitally important for us in the real life.
I never hate freedom but it doesn’t mean keeping freedom doesn’t bring you in the wrong direction.. you need a base in life a moral ground , meaning .. if your mother said what you did is wrong , you sit there you argue about freedom but the big wrong is still there .. if you don’t have the base , you can praise god all you want but it is meaningless.. you can’t praise god at the same time living meaningless life while looking forward to find grace .. you can have grace anytime but once it enters it is meaningful.
A person doesn’t have to carry a 100 stones just to have grace or accept Jesus in his life.. but once he finds grace , it is meaningful, it should otherwise society can go on living praise God highly but picking apples every where , apples is from apples tree, rock is from the ground , water is water.. not everything is everything and everywhere .
It is a common sense , when you hurt, you have to find a reason why you hurt, otherwise you will only go in circles..
😇
Perhaps popular forms of "Materialism" or Naturalism may fail, but just as many of the New Atheists failed to engage with the best thinkers of the Christian tradition, it seems to me that many Christians don't engage with the best of the Atheistic, Materialist, or Naturalist tradition such as Graham Oppy, Jordan Howard Sobel, W.V. Quine, David Armstrong, Michael Tooley, Paul Draper, J.L. Schellenberg, Erik Wielenberg, Michael Martin, Nicholas Everitt, Gregory Dawes, Jack Smart, and many many others.
How do these thinkers get past the failures of popular Materialism?
@@pilarjohnson6329 By developing very sophisticated and nuanced views of their metaphysical positions that aren't simply reduced to some of the assertions that Bishop Barron makes about other thinkers. For example, here is how Graham Oppy responds to C.S. Lewis's argument from Reason:
"It is simply inaccurate to say that mental processes are “determined wholly by the motions of atoms in my brain.” At least roughly, mental states and processes are neural states and processes: states of, and processes in, networks of neurons. While “motions of atoms” have some role to play in the constitution of the states and processes in question, it is simply not true that those states and processes are “determined wholly” by those “motions of atoms”. More carefully-and more accurately-mental states and processes are neural states and processes that have been appropriately shaped by local, social and evolutionary history and that are appropriately causally related to those environments. While “motions of atoms” have some role to play, not only in the constitution of the states and processes, but also in the constitution of the local, social, and evolutionary history, and in the constitution of the causal relation of the states and processes to the current environment, it is simply not true that all of this is “determined wholly” by the “motions of atoms”.
Grant that objects in the universe exist at different scales (or, equivalently, energy levels). There are different kinds of causal interactions that occur within these different scales and across these different scales. But there is no reduction of these different kinds of causal interactions to a single scale, and there is no emergence of these different kinds of causal interactions from a single scale. Objects that exist at higher scales (or lower energy levels) are constituted, without remainder, by objects that exist at lower scales (or higher energy levels). But it simply does not follow, from this fact about the constitution of objects, that there is determination of events (states, processes) at higher scales by events (states, processes) at lower scales.
That I suppose that my brain is constituted by cells (molecules, atoms, etc.), and that I suppose further that my mental states and processes are neural states and processes that have been appropriately shaped by local, social and evolutionary history and that are appropriately causally related to those environments, is no barrier at all to my further supposing that some of my beliefs and believings are true. Or, at any rate, there is nothing in the argument that we are attributing to Haldane that says otherwise."
ANTI-NATURALISTIC ARGUMENTS FROM REASON (2022) pg. 17-18
The core problem with materialism is that it is intrinsically limited to the inanimate. The living, not only humans, but all the living take decisions not inheritably deterministic. When look at how human language is structured, there is a fundamental distinction on the living and the inanimate, and only living act. Acting is not possible in the inanimate realm. There is no acting being in the inanimate realm. Science is limited top only model what is inanimate and has to exclude all that is central to life, acting beings. Most of the words in our dictionaries refer to realities totally outside the possible realm of science, the inanimate realm. Consciousness is central to Life in all its form and its central self-creating aspect and it is precisely why it is totally outside the realm of science which study what stably exist while consciousness is the creating of the stably existing.
You can praise and condemn... it may not be free, but its destined. A very scary idea.
As Rémi Brague says [ in his book “Modérément moderne”]: “Those who present themselves today as 'rationalists' are not really. For them, reason is something secondary. Reason is born from unreason [ dead matter ] ..." And actually, that doesn't make much sense to me. You can imagine a world without men and even without stars, but you cannot think of a world in which, for example, Euclid's theorem of prime numbers or the fundamental theorem of algebra - or any logical statement - does not apply. So which is primary: dead matter or the eternal Logos?
As a mathematician, I am thinking here of Leibniz's argument on the existence of God, a variant of the argument of "eternal truths" already put forward by Augustine and ultimately going back to Plato: "If we admit that there exist eternal and necessary truths about mathematical facts, even if no human mind had ever thought of them, one must conclude that there is something, another higher mind, which establishes their reality by eternally thinking these things and their relations..." Leibniz concludes that this spirit is the Spirit of God. God eternally thinks all potential entities, and this is what ultimately establishes the reality of those entities. Leibniz in his Monadology: “…In God is the source not only of existences, but also of entities insofar as they are real, or of what is real in them. For the understanding of God is the domain of eternal truths and the ideas on which they depend, and because without Him there would be nothing real in the possibilities - not only nothing existing, but nothing possible...
The infinite mind of God therefore includes the ideas of all potential beings, that is, all real beings and things, as well as everything that can be thought without contradiction. "
But you would first have to show there is a god before you start making claims about the mind of this god.
God is to heaven as humanity is to Earth, God is pure energy and humanity is energy, the holy spirit is pure love
I'm a materialist. We have observed nothing but.
Atheists are not necessarily materialists. Many admit that there is much that lies outsided the material realm. In any case, few would make the claim to know the origin of "all that exists." Athiests take issue with the claim that the transcendent is encapsulated in the bureaucratic rigidity of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Theologians, rather than atheists, are more likely to make grandiose assertions about comprehending the complete fabric and workings of the universe.
Ooooo! Cogito ergo deus!
A very good discussion. Thank you. One thing I do have a problem with is your enthusiastic support of science. It is my understanding that the inception of science in the modern period was motivated by a desire to dominate and control nature, to be master over it (e.g., Bacon and Descartes). This desire has continued, and is operational in all of the sciences. We are seeing the fruits of that intention, for example, nuclear bombs, the transgender movement, transhumanism, eugenics, etc. Scientists seem to be willing to do anything, no matter how immoral, in their pursuit of “knowledge” and control.
@marilynmelzian7370
As in everything else there always are two sides, the good and the bad, aka pro and cons. A simple example could be a sharp knife, useful in the kitchen as useful to kill someone. Similar with explosives, dynamite etc. But behind every use and action there always is a human and a mind.
Well, similar is with science in general, but according to the few examples you provided, it doesn't necessarily follow that science is bad and all scientists are bad too, it's always what it's finally used for and for what purpose that can be criticized.
A simple search of the origin of science will show that it goes back millennia BC. We barely know that "Scientia" comes from Latin Scire, "know", and Techne, "art" from Greek. Much of our heritage comes from ancient philosophical Greek thoughts, and Latin literature, and has always had with knowledge to do, curiosity to investigate and explain phenomena in all their variations. Neither the origins of modern science can be exactly dated, but it's disputed to span from the 1200's to the 1500's, Renaissance (revival) and especially with Galileo. But modern science was derived from, the Natural Philosophy, which as its name implies had Nature as its study first, later developing in other different subjects.
So your idea of control and domination doesn't properly do justice to it.
Who better can be a modern corrective to immoral power and profit in the world if not the insistent appeals of the Church, especially in biogenetic experiments within its ethical limits?
@@therealong Thank you for your reply. That is the attitude I have taken in the past, but I am beginning to think that modern science in particular started off wrong. Historically it seems to coincide with an overall cultural and philosophical turn away from God. Looking back on my own education, God was left out of every field of endeavor, even biblical studies (in my graduate program). I am not dogmatic about this, just wondering if sciences and scholarship lost their way. I am curious if you have examples where science is not about mastery of nature.
Bishop Barron, your sermons are wonderful. They help me a lot. But, I realize you seldom or never speak of Our Lady. Why? All graces come thru her and there’s no way of being a christian out of _hiperdulia_. Besides, without Mary we lose Jesus. He turns into a kind of fantasy. Thanks!
Try Bishop Barron and The Greatest Woman Ever
it seems odd that the laity had to pull the church back into line when it had strayed too far..amen
12:00 wtf is this all about..amen
Consciousness should be something more than being able to represent patterns and forms in the mind, or making decisions. Large language models and computers in general can represent high level abstractions and make decisions based on them. But they are deterministic. Their decision is based on algorithms (random number generation is also an algorithm) and initial states. We know computers, as smart as they are now (e.g., ChatGPT, Gemini, Deep learning, reinforcement learning, Q*) are not alive. In the end they are just a bunch of transistors flipping ones and zeros. At least computers can tell us what we are not. We are alive unlike computers. We do control our choices. We are still alive, even when we don't take a decision, even when we are not thinking. Being alive is more than thinking and taking decisions.
Did you read the text in the description?
Of course human consciousness IS something more than what AI and computers can do. Are you inferring that machines have consciousness too, except for not being alive?
What do you mean by saying "at least computers can tell us what we are not"?
@@therealong You could have said something like: "What you said is not consistent with the title of this video." That sounds better than "Did you read the text in the description? ". The latter sounds arrogant and offensive. I did read the title of the video, which is what brought me to see it. It seems to me orthogonal to the point I wanted to make. Everything depends on what semantic we give to mind and consciousness. That is up to humans to decide. If with the word consciousness we want to distinguish us from what the machines can do, then we might be careful of including reasoning, abstraction, pattern recognition, decision making, etc. Because those things are not what make humans special. Machines can do them and often better. This is what I meant that machine tells us what we are not. Our innermost being, what we are, is more than just intelligence, because that machine can do and better.
@@IvanGarcia-cx5jm
Sorry if you felt offended, it was not my intention. Only coming from other comments that do not even read the title, nor watch the video and still they comment. The mood gets a little tense.
However I meant this text :
"Friends, can everything in the world be reduced to atoms bumping against each other, and chemical reactions in our brains? Or is there something more to reality than its material elements?"
@@therealong Its ok, I understand. I agree with Bishop Barron on that we can't be reduced to the material. What made me feel a little uncomfortable in the video is that it seems that Bishop Barron was referring to the intellect as something that shows that we go beyond the material. But this was brief (and maybe I misinterpreted him). He also mentions other reasons. Our innermost being does interact with the intellect, but I don't think that our intellect is what makes our essence, the immortal part of us. The main two reasons I have for this is that machines have intelligence, and that even when I don't think, I am still there, alive. When I was a child and had no intelligence developed, I was there and alive.
You know, from other exchanges I have had, everyone has focused on different aspects.
This makes it even more difficult, 'cause right now I couldn't be sure if BB is discussing each part separately, or, if he is building up an argumentation out of all, into a final conclusion.
To be sure of that, it would require time to listen to the video over and over again, which I'm not finding lately.
If you would only indicate which part you had in mind, you should be precise and give the timestamp.
To include some terms used in the video, from what you wrote, it seemed obvious to me, that he is describing rationally (thus with intellect and mind) a "transcendental experience", which is so real and intelligible, to even merit to be called material and empirical, thus tangible. The only problem, for those thinking only with the scientific method, would be that the experience cannot be documented as reliable evidence.
"Determinism" vs "free will" seem to be used dialectically, since the external/internal source of the experience does not belong to the senses. I hope I gave you some food for thoughts you might expand further, as to also include, if you will, machines, AI and computers.
17
Jesus spoke a lot plainer than this but he was only God after all 😊
Did Bishop Barron say "my husband" (when talking about good feelings)? Did I hear that right?
Timestamp
At 25:20 Bishop was paraphrasing the statements of Jennifer Fulwiler on her experience of transcendent with giving birth to a baby, so was speaking as to what Ms Fulwiler would have said. A normal relationship. No scandal.
@@JoeF-nr6jq I was preoccupied at the time and not giving the discussion my full attention, I thought the comment was part of a larger context and wanted to clarify, thank you for helping me.
All who's part of his Holy Sacred body
Nobody can “determine” what another person has to say, esp in determinism… lol
Here’s my problem, and I say this as a Christian, you talk about “beauty”.
A sunrise, a beautiful baby, etc.
My wife and I recently watched as our young daughter die horribly of cancer.
You can’t merely talk about beauty without addressing horror.
If God was the architect of beauty you can’t ignore unimaginable evil.
You’re ignoring the downside.
Where was he when she was clinging desperately to life with zero help from the Father?
How could he allow her to die so painfully and without reason ?
There’s something terribly, terribly, amiss…
Brad, I’m so sorry for your loss and what your precious daughter went through - the suffering, the sleepless night, the tears. I can’t say I haven’t any way to explain it to understand why something so horrible would happen. All I can say is that I love you. Life on Earth can be so messed up, yet God is Good and Love. The fact that you are watching videos like this from Bishop Barron, gives me hope that you have not given up and are still seeking answers. Perhaps, some of those answers though will only be obtained when we meet our Maker one day. Lord Jesus, please bless Brad and his family in their grieving and suffering. Give them your grace and mercy to live and love another day.
@@bang8419
This video addresses only the themes specified in the description. Cannot respond to other questions posed afterwards.
Why is it crap and ridiculous, while saying you know that faith helps death?
"God is Love" is a New Testament's true statement based on the entire Jesus Christ's revelation of God the Father as love. The Old Testament can only be comprehended through the lens of the New.
@@bang8419
Oh, that's how you would define it? And whom do you represent, may I ask?
I'd guess you don't even believe Jesus existed, tight? That's what would really be sad!
Unfortunately you can't provide any background sources in support of what you wrote, so your "b/s" claims remain unsubstantiated and point back only at you.
No man can see God's face and live (Exodus 33:20)
Why did God send Jesus and not himself? It is because God wants to save the lives of man, not to destroy them (Luke 9:56). Nothing of sin can stand in the presence of God, else it would be destroyed. God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son (John 3:16) with His power and spirit to do everything asked of him because they are one in agreement in all things (1 John 5:7-8, John 10:30). In Daniel 7:9, Daniel only saw God's hair and garment. In Exodus 33:20, Moses only saw God's back, as God said “thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.” No man has seen God enough to describe Him. Knowing this, it seems impossible that so many people continue to say Jesus is God and blaspheme against the Father. They are choosing to reject God's words and believe what they want to their own destruction (Mark 7:9). God sent Jesus for one reason: simply because he loves us.
This is basically presuppositionalism, right?
2:16 to keep the voice healthy, you need to drink water every 10 to 15 minutes of talk
Love is order ?aasking with mom's and is whatt ? Is not understanding in between boths ? Is rightof whome ? Child's or mom's Papa's ? Or cooperation among ? Or commercials about every one as mom child Papa ? It is modern or ancient that hase safe ours unaffected DNA Trans ?
The Atheist is the Joker v Bishop Barron The Batman 😊 🙏 ❤
It's a wonder that materialists can think at all. For materials are incapable of understanding whatever. They just are moved. So they, the materialists, must feel the environment above all. But they don't nescesarily do. So they are a sort of black holes struggling with the light, if anything. But they must be enlightened holes nevertheless. They must be champions of contradiction. So they are surely my contemporarians. So that's why we are democratic, the higher light of reason can't guide us, so we choose, and we chose materialism. We chose because we don't understand. I don't think materialism is good. I don't think democracy is good. They are noways to paradise. The only thing they can do is slow down the way to hell on earth? That's what they claim. I don't see it. I'm not a materialist.
Have you observed anything other than the material.
@@rick984 i never feel happier than when i observe that the material isn't bothering my consciousness. But can you 《feel》 space, yet you know it exists, though immaterial.
@@michaelbergfeld8751space is material
@@michaelbergfeld8751space is material.
What is this word you keep saying…”new resource…..”? You speak French with a strong American accent! If indeed this a French word! Could someone please write it here?
He’s calling for a new “ressourcement”. French for return to the sources. See also “nouvelle theologie” French for new theology (a movement of mid 20th century)
@@andrewmcdonald8479
Useful comment, thank you.