@@theologyofthebody8383 A couple of questions I have asked of people who “go woke”: Do you think you HAVE to accept the Woke mentality in order to keep or maintain a social image of yourself as a young person (18-35) because you see what happens to those who don’t choose the “woke” dogma? Are you afraid of the fallout of what happens to those reject wokeism ? Do the the woke dominate through fear?

I think people would be interested in hearing *your* story, Amber Emily :-) God bless you for having the courage to own your stance towards Brett and Heather while they were going through their difficulties at Evergreen....how did you move towards RCIA and confirmation from that place?

You're a greener who says "bless you". I thought I was the only one.

Very very cool. I was a Marxist when I was young… (I’m 50 and fairly conservative as I age) so maybe it’s a common experience to see the left play out, and learn as we grow. Glad you commented.

I agree with MS. I’ll add that I wasn’t aware of their experience at the time, but have discovered them through their podcast during the public health issue the last two years, (still!, not aware of the Evergreen occurrence!) I finally had to explore further what happened, what was this Evergreen thing? Shocking!, no doubt. I listened to/ watched hours of interviews, video of student mobs, faculty meetings... I finished high school in the 90’s, attended/ grad LSU late 90’s. This mobbing, cornering and agitating, and total lack of conversation has been shocking- not surprising (given the temperature of opposing sets of the last little while, I’m not really sure, as I’d have to admit I must have not been paying attention... admittedly) This tactic of dealing with the world and each other, I don’t think was my generations way of going about social gains... One of the things that I have been curious of again and again is just what Amber Emily states here, and thank you for doing so. I have wondered how these young adults have developed outlooks and insights since Evergreen. If their stance has moved them to dig their heels even deeper... or has time, life experience broadened their view of those in their concentric circles of interaction and influence gained their consideration and respect- have they figured out that many of those that were the subject of their vilification had viewed them with mutual respect (and even in the face of the mob really tried to have reasonable dialogue.) I do wonder if many “outgrew” their rage... thank you, again for your comment. I do think it is met with understanding, compassion, and appreciation.

I think those are just his interview prep notes rather than study notes. The host of the unbelievable podcast who do hour long interviews like this one does the same.

Yes, and he adds to them.

Inspector please

I would imagine he's either crossing off pre written questions(it looks like he does it several times during the interview) or adding new questions he could ask. I think it would be inappropriate to spend time writing "study notes" as the interviewer

He recently did a talk on this topic to a different audience and presented the argument he had for that talk to these folks. He added info for further discussion to his notes which he wrote while reading their book with his arguments in mind.

Same here. Have you seen the one with Brett and Jonathan Pageu? You should if you have not.

I also watch both! So surprised to see this!

It's not really strange. The Catholic Church and Bishop Barron personally both stand behind evolution rather than a literal reading of Creation in Genesis 1, they just teach that evolution was caused by God.

Love to see science and religion getting along. It is kinda wild to see them on his show, ngl. It's nice though.

@@josemartinez6316 you are so good I can oooooioiiioioiooj

They are more than "compatible." They are married, and their fruit is a theology in itself. A lot of science much include a love of art. Part of the problems we have in medicine, is science with out CONscience. Too many "smarts," too little wisdom. Fear and feelings, over faith and facts. REAL science affirms and is affirmed by the faith. And faith, affirms and is affirmed by...science. It's all from, of, for and by God.

@@jac1161 I'm just curious, is the wonderful fruit of this marriage between faith and science include the theology of Islam or Hinduism, or does it only include Christian theology which, by the sheerest accident, you just happened to be born into?

Of course they are compatible since God created everything ♥️

@@thanksforbeingausefulidiot9016 Where they each encounter an immutable truth, they share that encounter in common. This is certainly what Christian theology would say. Any honest Christian would say that Islam touches upon inevitable truths. The question is not about that, but rather about the fullness of truth. This is where the fundamental divide is found and it is encumbent on each person to work to discern and understand that divide.

I agree, as a non catholic but a steady listener to all three of these extremely intelligent people.

Hello Michael how are you doing over there?

Very well spoken Michael.

@HeartSpace Relaxations like yourself, many of my friends and I "discovered" Bret & Heather, we are grateful for their input and the discussions.

I have listened to that same group of people. Including the Bishop though I'm not Catholic but I am an evangelical small E Christian. I'm not sure anyone presents the christian worldview better than him.

Be grateful we have points of disagreement. That means (1) we're in a democracy (2) there is more to learn (3) we are not uniform (4) the world is rich and multifaceted.

Hello Debi how are you doing over there?

I am grateful for a multitude of perspectives…it’s interesting to me how many of the comments show that many of us do seek them out. The civility and good will in these interactions is heartening.

I have also gained much from listening to datk horse. Its very interesting to me how little we really disagree on when all involved are being straight.

And they have a great energy. And just stands out more when them two are together. Makes me feel so relaxed/ present.

Great and gentle conversation. Thank you, Bishop Barron, Heather and Brett!

Convert to Catholicism! You won't regret it, I promise! God bless, friend!

Mike Judge also wrote Idiocracy

Our "leaders" are too stupid and lost, so let us let the Dead bury the Dead.

Why are you a theist.

@@jamesmorris8600 The short answer? The real foundational question is whether or not ALL of reality is contained within spacetime? To the atheist it is. To the theist, space and time are created things. It takes more faith to believe that the universe was just "there", that is, ex nihilo with no creative agent. A pre-existing particle or the infinite regress of the multiverse do not constitute "beginnings". It takes less faith, IMO, to believe that an infinite-personal God, who "exists" outside of spacetime and who created space, time, and everything contained therein. God's existence can address the issues of origin, morals, meaning, and destiny. Atheism explains nothing. The planets are silent. All the planets allow for are social contracts and arbitrary absolutes. IF there is a reality OUTSIDE of spacetime, using the tools of Greek logic, to/from and before/after, that are trapped INSIDE spacetime, are useless to determine the existence of anything outside of spacetime. So saying God isn't "logical" makes no sense. God "exists" outside of logic. My quick 2¢. Sorry for being long-winded.

Hello Dawn how are you doing over there?

Sounds like Deism

@@davyroger3773 or... You know... Every scientist pre 1800

@@kaufmanat1 Dat Natural Theology tho

Yes I agree God will allow Science to discover Him🙏

@@ninaluz8710 God made the universe. Studying the universe is effectively studying God's fingerprint. To study any creation gives insight to the creator. To study all creation does give insight to its creator. This was one of the fundamental principles behind the origins science, assumptions like a rational universe based on a rational creator were necessary, and explains why it was Christians that gave rise to the scientific method... Not atheists.

Yes, when a scientists confronts questions that science cannot answer because they are metaphysical questions, they should think about those questions and read what others, especially philosophers and theologians have written because they are humans first, scientists second.

I concur with this comment whole heartedly! 3 of some of the greatest minds together in one room ♥️

more of this, please. if we'd enjoyed this level of discourse the MOMENT sound files could be transmittted on the web 20 years ago, I wonder if we'd be in a better place today.

Me2❤

Agreed ! Very important.

Hello Angeline how are you doing over there?

Theology meets science: Brett got out of the question, of the mathematical improbability of this universe, by saying physics claims we might have an infinite number of universes. Therefore we just happen to be in the one, that works mathematically. Brett talked himself into implying God exists, when he said that. Why so? Because an infinite number of universes would contain an infinite number of intelligences. What is a standard word for something with infinite intelligence? God.

The best attempt was Plato. But Aristotle and Plotinus, in my opinion, really challenged him in a way that kept what was useful from Plato (form/pattern, logos, anagoge) and threw out what was not useful.

I thought it was answered quite well. The evolution of morality and why humans sacrifice opportunities for the sake of others. I suppose even when we’re ‘doing good’ there’s an agenda. Obviously the Bishop could have pushed back. This is the beauty of conversations without ego, there doesn’t have to be a winner ☺

Hello brenda how's it going with you over there?

Welcome Home sister

Hi Sarah. I just want to inform you that there is only Father God. There is no Mother Earth. You are mashing together to religions to make a religion for yourself; this is called syncretism. If you see any similarity in Gaia Theory and Catholicism, I would question that; it could be a strong deception from the Enemy. I'm surprised you made it through a year of RCIA and you are still worshipping the goddess. (I'm being sarcastic here: I'm sure Almighty God is thrilled that you made a little room for Him.)

@@janetgrupe9870 The Gaia Theory, or any scientific theory for that matter, is a conceptual structure used in research of natural and observable phenomena thus I'm surprised that you would equate it to goddess worship and religion. It's not disagreeable to find science in faith. When I recite the Nicene Creed and say that God is the maker of heaven and earth I am affirming that God is also ultimately responsible for what we find in the study of biospheric science too... in fact we were told by our priest not to shy away from it because he believes the study of sciences eventually leads back to God. I think Bishop Barron is trying to send out the same message too.

@@sarahgames7617 I am familiar with the scientific method. I guess the word 'Gaia' carries certain connotations. After working in academia a dozen years, I haven't heard that phrase used. I wouldn't even call it pseudo-science. It's considered ancient mythology. Here are some quick Google definitions: One of the Greek primordial deities. the personification of the Earth, as "Mother Earth", she was the second element in the evolution of the cosmos after Chaos- the primordial void, one of her first offspring was Ouranos, the sky god, who became her lover and later abuser. she encouraged her son Kronos to castrate Ouranos and throw his genitals across the sea. It's more than 2,000 years since she was first worshipped. Today, this false god is back largely thanks to the scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock, whose Gaia hypothesis describes how all living organism form part of an interconnected, self-regulating ecosystem. "For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear." 2 Timothy 4:3 Please forgive the annoying capital letters: TO BE SAVED WE NEED JESUS PLUS NOTHING ELSE

​@@janetgrupe9870 I'm not fond of the word "Gaia" and its inclusion to describe this particular paradigm. Maybe in the future, through research and discovery, a better fitting word or description will eventually be found. Something that doesn't trigger people into calling it "goddess worship" when there is no basis for it what so ever. But regardless of that, I will continue to enjoy learning about a subject that I find fascinating a little understood and if I encounter difficult moments where it challenges my faith in God I have no doubt that I will receive kindness and compassion through prayer and a couple conversations with my priest and other trustworthy folks at church. Thank you for your concern.

Ironically, that book is pretty obsolete and Collins has taken much heat for it. ENCODE 2012 pretty much killed neo-Darwinism. Read Genetic Entropy, Signature in the Cell, Foresight, and others. Darwinian theory is done.

@@dave1370 Collins’ book is a bit dated. I have heard him in more recent discussions respond to some of the criticisms, and discuss the accepted science to date and enduring truths that he attempts to illuminate in the book. I know that during the pandemic he was widely criticized for his leadership of NIH (in some instances rightly so). Einstein said that the most incomprehensible thing about the universe is just how comprehensible it is. Collins’ points to some of the lasting constants and equations that bring about that comprehension. For me, some of the book and the direction of his argument was as much philosophy/theology as it was science. Thanks so much for the additional sources. I sincerely appreciate you taking the time to pass them on. Have a blessed day.

I am not catholic, but I love Jesus Christ ❤ and hope everyone comes and receives God's grace. Be blessed friend. 🙏

No it isn't. Its a theory that denies God. Also is completely false.

@@duartem3586 Give me a break.

@@duartem3586 ah ah ah…it’s all ‘emergent’ . Science is never settled ☺

Evolution is great 👍 I love studying the bones of ancient apes 🦍

@@duartem3586 No, it doesn’t deny God and is not false. When you get stuck at that false dichotomy, you are doing exactly what this interview speaks to as a barrier to further conversation.

Hello Sara how are you doing over there?

What is ‘it’? They give an evolutionary explanation. Period.

They are saying that morality evolved as an aid to create successful societies that help members get their genes into the future. No contradiction.

@@yidiandianpang no their not "saying" their assuming. They have no explanation for it and Barron is simply pointing that out

@@ethanb2554 Why do you think what they say is not an explanation?