I'm subscribed to all three channels and when I saw all these Pope and Space videos pop out at once I thought "what's going on!?" :)

Are you trying to get people to unsubscribe?

I really enjoyed this episode. It’d be really cool if you could interview others like Francis Collins who are outspoken men of faith but are also involved in science

Thumbs downed because f the Vatican and their goons.

What about the Foodskey channel? Care to make a statement that you abandoned it in favour of more profitable channels like this one?

30:19 ...

All metaphors break down when you remove the context. I'm not relgious in the least but I love that answer.

He gets about aswell

The pope's journalist prepared the questions for him.

@@xtrakewlguy666 do you believe that?

I always got the Impression Brady was religious, but not getting that vibe from this video.

He's being quite angelic, letting so much BS pass unchallenged.

Mind, he had a few sharp points directed his way in return.

As well as he should be but also I think he let the answers be answers and didn't bog down on every bit of detail

there all devils. in the same satanic club. do you think the people do not know.

I teared up a little at not having to write grant proposals

Tis entirely too true

@@evilotto9200 Me too.

A massive religious figure is hardly who you want as a patron!

well, thats true for basically all research...

Well said.

Sorry for dropping the ball on that.

@@adm0iii I'm more concerned at the amount of people saying they've never heard this point of view, I think it is quite common and had been called out in debates numerous times.

You're making very hard to come up with uncivil replies if you keep being so civil. Sigh.

I’m reading through the comments before I decide on how dark to get and I think I’ll leave the low hanging fruit alone

Always remember that the world is full of assholes; everyone has one. But that doesn't guarantee they'll all show up en-masse in the KZfaq comments section, for the totally predictable cliché effluence.

I got chills. I've always seen that passage as poetry anyways

Luis Vela Yep, me too. Poetry is one of humans’ only means of time-travel!

It could still be poetic without being blatantly wrong about various things, such as the order in which things were created.

@@gcewing Which, according to you, is the correct order in which things got created, If I may ask?

Brilliant!

I think we should hear the points of views of all prisoners, all so-called "convicted criminals", & their opinions on ALL matters, anything. THEIR points of view are rarely heard & would be original & different.

@@theultimatereductionist7592 you can find that on the internet thier views are more prominent than most peoples

Really? You have an odd taste.

Really? You have an odd taste.

The last two comments confuse me

Its in his last name, great consoler.

Archaeological evidence suggests that pottery is more timeless than poetry.

​@@RFC3514 An interesting theory.

Made me well up. The best description of the Genesis account I have heard.

@@jacobphyman5115 I couldn't agree more.

@@RFC3514 can you dig out creation out of the ground?

No way!?

Good spot - they are good friends.

Brother Guy shares some of Cliff's mannerisms! 15:20 & 30:13

@@Nilguiri omg, I hadn't noticed that but you're totally right!

@@Nilguiri I totally missed that but you're absolutely right. Even the way his voice changes when he's excited is very similar to Cliff.

I agree. I must say that he's an excellent model of how to conduct a religious debate: understand and appreciate the salient sides of an argument (even if it loathes you), and then demonstrate why you hold your position or would compromise.

In my experience, he's like most of the Catholic religious people I know. Specially Jesuits.

Yup, like others have mentioned, he's a Jesuit. They're pretty much the "intellectual" arm of the catholic church, and pretty much a force of their own. Not all parties within the church are fans because of that, but honestly think the catholic church would be in a much worse state if they didn't have the SJ.

@@jttcosmos the current pope is a Jesuitst. The first one. I think that's the start of a change.

I know Guy personally, and I've never seen him ever speak ill of anyone, or not respect any person. He's a great human being above all else.

I'm also a soldier and I know what you feel.

Anyone who doesn't have impostor syndrome is probably in the worst part of the Dunning-Kruger curve. I am honored to know a bunch of people who are SO much smarter than I am, and I think every one of them is waiting for "them" to find out that they don't really know what they're doing.

@@John_Ridley It wasn't so much about the smarts, though of course I was very junior compared to the others, barely a year after my PhD. It was just that I was a nobody sitting on a panel with these big names that everyone obviously were there to listen to. But I did manage to relax eventually, and even got some laughs from the audience and my fellow panelists. It was by far the most fun public appearance I've ever made.

World class, to be sure.

Or clean. You can't strip all the oil from your hair, especially your eyebrow hair.

I'm here to tell you my bushy brows are constantly greasing up the inside of my specs. It's a never ending frustration!

@@bradley3549 I stand corrected. ;-)

Can't be him, though; he's perfectly still. I know it's a photo, but Cliff Stoll would still somehow be moving like a madman.

It's extremely possible, they both got PhD's from the University of Arizona: Guy in 1978 Cliff in 1980

I noticed that too! In another video with Consolmagno (I believe I telescope video), a paper shown on the screen cites Stoll from SUNY Buffalo. The small world of academia.

Sympathic, a word that exists in most european languages, doesn't exist in english.

Well, he _is_ a second-generation P.R. guy...

Non-inertial Observer, "Sympathetic" is the English word.

@Ilia Korvigo - "Sympathetic", in English, generally means someone expressing sympathy (empahty, affinity, understanding, etc.). The word used in romance languages (ex., sympathique, in French) means "likeable" or "pleasant". They share a common root, but mean different things.

@@RFC3514 I am very well aware of that meaning, just as I am aware of another one: "(of a person) attracting the liking of others" - this is taken from the Oxford Dictionary of British English.

His voice is similar.

16:16

Plot twist: it was Cliff trolling us with Jesuit BS all along.

oh boy!

Nope, Biblical faith is assurance: “Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.” Heb. 11:1

Seine O'More People of faith come in all levels of education. Education means nothing without wisdom. Example; Educated Atheists are usually foolish. They believe there are around 100 genders. They’re Atheists,, yet they believe in an immaterial part of a person? That’s weird. Haha!!!

@Seine O'More You almost certainly have met such people. It would be foolish to assume that you know the faith of everyone you've met. I'm sure many of the intelligent people you know exercise some form of faith. Those who do exercise faith and also claim certainty in it lack the insight that Brother Guy is sharing with that statement. He contends with doubt every day, and sees it as an integral part of his faith. To him faith and doubt are two sides of the same coin, and one cannot exist without the other. To rest one's beliefs firmly in their faith or doubt at the expense of the other is to exercise certainty. Thus, certainty is the opposite of faith, because in order to have faith one must contend with their doubt. If one is certain in their beliefs then they have no doubt, and thereby also have no faith. If faith is light then doubt is darkness,. One who experiences only light or only darkness can see nothing, and thus certainty is blindness. One can be blinded by doubt just as they can be blinded by faith. To truly see one must have both.

@Seine O'More Normally i would be on your side, but to my own surprise, not this time.

This is exactly my view.

That's the fantastic thing, we can completely disagree with people and still have an interest in what they are saying, especially _why_ they are saying it

@@LordQueezle And yet many atheist can sound as ignorant as those who they claim to oppose. I only hears about him because of others who said he would sound like a "Charlatan" when faced with "Real" scientist.... Until I did my own research and found he had a Carl Segan metal to his name for advocating science to the public. Shows you have much ignorance can persist on those who call themselves "freethinkers".

Pretty much... I'm atheist and I STILL can't read Dawkins without throwing the book across the room...

Doesn't that make it harder to read?

I don’t think it is surprising when white males are certainly a majority in science, most outspoken atheists tend to be white males, and most people he would come across are white males. This feels very strongly like poisoning the well

Elderly white males also constitute the vast majority of the Catholic Church establishment. And the totality of Guy Consolmagno. Again, as with his fallacies about science, we're left wondering if he's just supremely confident in his oratory skills to slip that description in unnoticed, or if he really has such huge a blind spot.

It is true that elderly white males make up most of the higher-up hierarchy of the catholic church, but he mentions he doesn't see them all that much. The team he works with as shown in the pictures looks a lot more mixed, (and looking it up) he's spent 2 years teaching in Kenya, which is hardly going to be full of old white people. I dunno whether he himself is 'white' or not, by his complexion he could feasibly be another ethnicity.

LeMaitre was not a member of any religious order; he was a diocesan priest and physics professor at Univ. Louvain. He did attend a Jesuit high school.

@@johnboyd782 Thank you

@@johnboyd782 if he was a priest he had to be a member of an order doesn't he ?

No. A priest does not have to belong to a religious order.Those not in an order are ordained for a particular diocese. My brother-in-law John is a priest of the Archdiocese of Dubuque,Iowa. This runs a college in Dubuque. Like LeMaitre, John was sent to get a grad degree to qualify to teach at His archdiocese’s college.

I can see why the pope chose this guy

Indeed, he even has a Carl Segan medal for promoting science to boot.

Agreed, great intervju. Happy this is out there.

I think he was speaking of truths as the way the term is used in this context and not necessarily what he believes personally.

Very much a priest. With a high score in diplomacy (and eyebrows), but still very much a priest.

Now that's we've seem the pope's astronomer, can we interview the pope's Game Master?

MiracleGro.

Guy put into words many of the things that I think, but have a hard time expressing.

Why would it stop being relevant because you started your studies?

This is misleading (or very naïf) apologist nonsense. People aren't put on trial for "incorrect" or "incomplete" astronomical observations. The fact that he was _on trial_ to begin with makes it pretty clear that *his "crime" was challenging the infallibility of the church.* And for that, it's _irrelevant_ whether he was right or wrong. Any "scientific evidence" against him was basically a propaganda move, to try to discredit him, because the church *had* to be right. Its power (the power to put random people on trial simply for disagreeing with them!) depended on maintaining that lie. *If any "papal astronomers" had taken Galileo's side, they would have been tried and convicted along with him.* The fundamental point (and historical lesson) of Galileo's trail is not one about astronomy. It's about how the Catholic Church (and religions in general) deal with dissent. Also, there is absolutely no need for "stellar parallax" to "prove the theory correct". The sky could be completely dark except for the objects in the solar system and it would still be trivial to conclude that the Earth is not at the centre of the solar system. And Galileo didn't come up with the theory, anyway, Copernicus did (also, it wasn't exactly a theory, but let's not get into that). And Kepler figured out the orbits. Galileo simply confirmed it experimentally (i.e., he "proved" it - without any need for stellar parallax observations). What was demonstrated about one century later (by observing distant stars, with better telescopes) was that objects _outside_ the solar system don't orbit around the Sun (i.e., the Sun isn't the "centre" of the universe - in fact it's not even exactly at the centre of the solar system).

@@RFC3514 "It's irrelavent whether he was right or wrong." And that begins to discredit your own statement.

@@arnowisp6244 - If you think that, then you didn't understand my "statement". The trial wasn't about how accurate his calculations were, or even if his model was remotely correct. The trial was about *blasphemy.*

The Catholic Church is famous - or indeed infamous - for that sort of thing.

@@RFC3514 Got there before me.

*Send me a Direct message right away*

agreed, but it's not a debate. The man was answering a question in the way he saw fit, and respect for Brady that he didn't fall into the "let's try and correct the guy on his answer" moral trap, even if he disagreed with it. When you interview someone you don't act as if you know the right answers and you're checking his to give him a score, you ask the question and let them give you an answer, even if that answer might be wrong.

He won a Carl Segan Medal for promoting science. That says a lot.