Merry X-Mas? – The Dialogue #59


It’s Christmastime once again, and Tim and Cal are talking about the war on Christmas, and the “peace” of Christmas, as it’s celebrated even by people who aren’t believers in Jesus Christ. This was a great show to bring the year to a close!



  1. Friends,

    A few thoughts…

    Firstly, what makes The Dialogue a great show is the authenticity of your friendship with one another. It shines.

    Secondly, a short half hour show Mon-Fri would be a real treat for your fans. You’re at you’re best when you’re simply chatting as mates about real life issues. I’m not sure that it would require a rigid format. One day you could discuss the news, another day you could discuss moral values, comparative religion, etc, continuing to shake it up ass you please. Maybe the best approach would be to take turns on choosing the Topic Mon-Fri and let the fans choose the Friday topic via a poll on your website. Just an idea…content is king in this day and age. A Mon-Fri show would have to be good for attracting a wider audience.

    Thirdly, this is what the Catechism states in brief on Agnosticism:


    Agnosticism assumes a number of forms. In certain cases the agnostic
    refrains from denying God; instead he postulates the existence of a
    transcendent being which is incapable of revealing itself, and about
    which nothing can be said. In other cases, the agnostic makes no
    judgment about God’s existence, declaring it impossible to prove, or
    even to affirm or deny.

    Agnosticism can sometimes include a certain search for God, but it can
    equally express indifferentism, a flight from the ultimate question of
    existence, and a sluggish moral conscience. Agnosticism is all too often
    equivalent to practical atheism.

    Objectively speaking, we all know that the life of a person starts from the moment of conception. Every single persons life on this earth started from this moment. There is zero debate about that. A learned Catholic understands that the need to have this debate in and of itself is apprehensible. We are debating the legal right to murder. This is how low our society has degenerated too. A learned Catholic is fully grounded in the truth of God’s revelation to man thanks to organised religion i.e. the universal Magesterium of the Church. The truth is universal and that’s what catholic means, universal. This universal Magesterium is exclusively Catholic because it is a gift from God to man and it’s critical to maintaining the purity of the Faith.

    If you don’t believe this Cal study what Protestants believe. You’ll find at least 40,000 dominations i.e. interpretations to choose from. Some approve gay marriage, others polygamy, some believe in freewill others don’t, etc. It’s a food fight that makes a mockery of the Church and Magesterium Christ established. The Catholic Faith is free of contradiction and logical fallacies. It is grounded in natural and divine law, laws that are universally and objectively true.

    Agnostics on the other hand can dismiss basic truths truth’s such as life starts at conception and then essentially condone murder however good willed he or she feels about it. At best, they acknowledge a God with no authority or significance in their life. Therefore they are their own authority on truth. It’s not universal or infallible. It is moral relativism. It amuses me how atheists have adopted this as a buzzword and miss the fallacy and irony of their arguments. A debate doesn’t change reality. If a professional speaker and university graduate who is agnostic debated and won the argument against an average lesser educated Catholic because of his superior linguistic and debating skills, the fundamental universal truth would still be true: life starts at conception.

    I won’t say anymore on this because I’m looking forward to you and Tim airing a whole show on this topic.

    Thanks so much for your work and efforts. I wish you both a very merry Christmas and Happy New Year…again!

    God Bless

  2. mat_y  One question for you, why did you start talking about the moment that life starts? I don’t think it was mentioned on the show and I don’t see how it has anything to do with agnosticism. In fact, it has nothing to do with agnosticism.

  3. CalKane mat_y 

    Cal, if you took the time to actually read my argument in context, the case was made that agnostics are moral relativists. I used the issue of abortion merely as an example of that. It was a random choice. You can replace the sin of infanticide (abortion) with any other sin of your choosing.

    Agnostics are ‘free thinkers.’ Ask 1000 different agnostics what there ethics are and you’ll get a thousand different answers. If you want to know the Catholic ethic you can simply read the Catechism. Once upon a time, when we were cultured and civilised, the title ‘free thinker’ was considered an obscenity. Today it’s a badge of honour! 🙂

    Read, ‘Liberalism is a Sin’, if you’d like this explained:

    Liberalism is another term those on the alt-right and conservatives in general have hijacked and perverted. They decry liberalism whilst promoting homosexual marriage. That’s about as liberal as it gets!

    God Bless 🙂

  4. mat_y CalKane  I hate to sound like a broken record here but agnosticism doesn’t have anything to do with morality either, it only deals with what people claim to know about God. I feel like you’re making the subject needlessly complex when in fact it’s actually pretty simple.

  5. CalKane mat_y 
    Even though we disagree here, I liked this response.

    It is simple. Agnosticism is another term used in essence to mask moral relativism.

    What one believes or doesn’t believe about God has everything to do with morality. A Catholic believes in God and therefore recognises the natural and divine laws inherent (organic) to the nature of the human person e.g. procreation and marriage. The Catholic ethic is grounded in reality. Agnosticism is as empty as a hollow shell.

    False religions, like Islam, might believe in God. But they fail to recognise natural and divine law e.g. Muslims allow polygamy, child brides, etc. Their ethic makes a mockery of God’s natural and divine laws.

    I think you’re missing a profound truth here Cal, a truth it might take you another 10 years or so to digest if the Catholics here are correct according to your earlier predictions! hahaha

    Btw…I do have fun with you, Cal. It’s my Australian sense of humour at work. (It probably links back to our convict past). We love to payout mates / those we know. But I will say on a personal note, you are light years ahead of where I was at your age in terms  of your understanding of human ethics. I stumbled my way to the Faith over a period of many years. I wasn’t fortunate to have the influence of people like Tim Haines around me. It was a solo journey that included countless wrong turns and dead ends.

    We’re all cheering for you Cal! 😉

  6. I hate it when you guys go on a well deserved break.Take it easy on the drinks.
    I’ll be praying you guys get to do actual liveshows of the dialogue. I wouldn’t mind visiting New York city. I was just watching Ghost Busters and New York city is just so beautiful on screen. So so beautiful.
    Cal, you’re such a good person for an atheist. You really do speak like a christian/catholic. It sounds like you do a lot of reflection on the sincerity ans genuiness of your own good deeds. For as long as I’ve been a catholic, which is all my life, I’ve never met a catholic who does something good without being sincere about it, even if they’re told.
    I don’t think that you can do good just because its good. A lot of good and righteous deeds have to be learned or taught. I’ve met a few atheist who are just like you who do what’s right because it is the right thing. However, unfortunately, what they can do for others is limited compared to a catholic. For example: An atheist such as yourself I can imagine would be at loss with words with a cancer patient or a grieving person. I think it would also be impossible for an atheist to make such radical act of sacrifice like mother theresa. Sacrifices like that are beyond your ability which is what I think frustrated the late Christopher Hitchens. May God have mercy on his soul.

  7. Tim, I just wanted to say I needed to hear that segment about seeing your neighbor in the image of God especially the ones you don’t like. Why is it that you always say something that I needed to hear. Sometimes I question your humanity. Tell me the truth. I won’t tell. LOL
    Really good show. I will miss you both, sincerely.
    Hope you guys have a wonderful christmas with the ones you love.

  8. CalKane mat_y I think you (Cal) and Mat may be making different points. Mat is asserting the Church’s understanding/knowledge on the matter.  You are making an assertion from experience, with modern parlance as the basis.  And that isn’t necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes people’s experience doesn’t reflect the reality of a term, phrase, etc.  For example, “Alt-Right” has a very specific meaning and context, but people use it to refer to all modern conservatives who are vocal, blunt, etc.  “Alt Right” is like “The conservatives of the conservatives” to them.  They are using the term from the perspective of their understanding and experience, but they are actually using the term incorrectly.  To be “alt right” implies specific social and national policy views that are very specific and not very common (and I can’t recall what they are, so don’t ask lol).  “Faith” is another example. Many atheists use “faith” incorrectly (belief, just because”).  
    That being said, I have nothing to offer on the term “agnostic”.  It’s not a term I have thought much about.  But in all my years being Catholic, critically studying the faith, etc., I have concluded that the Church’s understanding is always spot on.  So I’m inclined to trust the Church mind.  In other words, what the Catechism says of “agnosticism” is probably the correct understanding. 
    Regarding “Liberalism is a sin”, I would suggest that both Mat and you keep in mind that “Liberal” and “Progressive” are incorrectly used interchangeably today. They are not actually the same thing.  I think Cal is may be 70% progressive, and maybe 30% liberal.  Give or take 10 percentage points.  Maybe that’s a topic we can get into in 2017.
    God be with you both.  And Mat, thanks for the time you take to make such well-thought-out comments on our shows.  When people leave comments it makes us feel like we’re not talking to the wall here lol

  9. Tim/Cal,
    Thanks for another good show.May you and your families enjoy the Christmas season and have a great 2017. As an idea for shows news from each country’s perspective Cal how you see the USA and Tim how do you see UK/Europe. The Distance Perspective.
    Keep up the good work and hope to hear you next year

  10. JediMasterTim CalKane mat_y 

    Tim, that was a superb break down and analysis of our conversation. I’d love to see you and Cal cordially butt heads on this topic. 

    Regarding your comment on agnosticism, I’ll only add to be fair to Cal the Catechism does state that some agnostics, (Cal would be an example), are sincere in their spiritual and moral enquiry. I sincerely identified as an agnostic for most of my life before having an authentic conversion in the Catholic Faith. That doesn’t change the fact that I was a moral relativist during that entire time.

    (I was baptised as an infant and confirmed as a child spending my life surrounded by non-practicing, non-believing and cafeteria Catholics who were a miniscule minority. The state of Catholicism is even worse in this country than in the US. 9% of Catholics go to Church regularly when the stats were last taken, a disproportionate amount of whom are elderly. The majority of this 9% aren’t Catechised in the Faith properly and cherry pick their ethic e.g. fornicate, use contraceptives, etc, without conscience. That’s a whole other story. When you grow up with a Faith you aren’t properly raised or Catechised in you assume a knowledge you don’t have. We are also raised in a culture now that celebrates other cultures while denigrating our own history and traditions hence my attraction to studying ‘exotic’ religious paths outside of Catholicism. I sincerely believed all religions were the same until I finally studied the New Testament for the first time at 33 and immediately saw that it was unique unto itself. It then took me another two years to figure out the Catholic Faith held the fullness of the Faith. I was influenced by Protestants in news media to study the NT).

    CAL, one further point I’ll make before closing… Law and sin are horrid words that are filled with stench and an unbearable historical memory of supposedly tyrannical priests to the average westerner today. When in actuality the law is reality and to harmonise one’s life with God’s law is true freedom. In the same way as harmonising one’s driving of a car to the road laws creates a much safer and smoother driving experience for everyone.

    We were far freer in Catholic Christendom than we are today because we weren’t culturally nihilists enslaved by sin during that era:

    “Thus, a good man, though a slave, is free; but a wicked
    man, though a king, is a slave. For he serves, not one man alone, but, what is
    worse, as many masters as he has vices.” – St. Augustine, City of God

    We had strong marriages/families, nations, friendships… God, virtue, and goodness, actually had depth and meaning to us back then until our falling away/revolt against Christ and the Church. Everything wasn’t perfect. Men err. Catholics have freewill the same as everyone else. They were better…hands down.

    Christendom blessed us with far greater freedoms than the so called freedoms we have today e.g. the freedom to access pornography freely online (at the expense of the innocence of our youth).

    Tim gave a master class on this very topic, “man’s freedom”, on his last Vericast episode. I recommend the article he quoted from in the Catechism:

    Tim and Cal, thank YOU! You guys are the ones offering us, your audience, a high quality production with meaty content week after week. The internet world is saturated with information but it’s largely starved of any real substance. Vericast is a rare exception and you both continue to mature and improve each week. I don’t see a ceiling. You can go as far with this as you’ll allow God’s grace to take you.

    Well it’s literally Christmas morning here in Oz, so I must take my leave! A merry Christmas and Happy New year to everyone!

    God’s Blessings

  11. Cal,

    I haven’t got a twitter account so this spot will do us 🙂

    This is a response to your twitter reply to Tim regarding sexbots and A.I. You noted how you warned Tim about the threat of this.

    My response: Remember how I warned you about the threat of artificially separating the unitive from the procreative?

    Germany and other parts of Europe already has bestiality brothels spreading. America already has homosexual marriage.

    When we artificially remove the unitive from the procreative literally anything goes, because there is no longer a universal or objective standard to base ethics upon. Who cares if homosexuals can’t procreate and they don’t compliment each other physically/psychologically/spiritually? Who cares if bestiality is not sterile? Who cares if children are sterile?

    There is no universal standard. There is no intelligent design. There is no God. Truth is what each and every individual decides is true. To be more precise, truth is whatever I say it is x 7 billion people plus!

    This my friend is moral anarchy, of which, you presently subscribe too.

    Let’s follow Americas current trends in brief and its general timeline:

    1930’s contraceptives normalised i.e. the artificial separation of the procreative from the unitive.
    1960-1990 fornication, softcore pornography, explosion in paedophilia cases, divorce, secular feminism, new and growing amount of std’s rates and infections normalised.
    1990-present hardcore pornography, homosexuality, transgenderism, all normalised. Softcore paedophilia also normalised e.g. teaching children in schools how to have sex, saturating our culture with sexual content (not limited to the internet) that is sexualising children younger and younger.

    These are facts. You can continue to live horse blinkers on or open your eyes to the truth. There is a Creator of this universe. It has an intelligent design. There are natural and divine laws that we have the freewill to reject at our own peril.

    It’s no coincidence that first on this list is artificial birth control.

    This the real world Cal. The Catholic ethic is wholly anchored in reality. Agnostics, atheists, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, Protestants etc, are not.

    God Bless

  12. mat_y  I mean, you claim to be responding to my claim about the rise of A.I and so far you have talked about birth control, bestiality, homosexuality, homosexual marriage and morality as if the rise of those somehow leads to A.I and robots. If you would like to talk about AI lets do that but stick to one topic at a time yeah? I can’t keep up 🙂

    Also, please don’t presume to know what my position on morality is. If you want to know just ask. Don’t accuse me of subscribing to moral anarchy since you have no evidence at all to back that up because I don’t don’t. I believe in objective moral values 🙂

  13. CalKane mat_y 

    hahaha…that’s because everything stated above is factually, logically and universally true. When the law of procreation is dismissed as irrelevant sexual ethics have essentially become relative to the individual person because there is no longer a universal law or standard to base them upon. It’s now open season. The slippery slope has been established and it’s heading straight for the sewer.

    If you can’t see the link of this and the rise of artificial intelligence sexbots you aren’t being intellectually honest with yourself here. It’s simple to see and understand when explained.

    As long as you insist upon justifying the artificial separation of the procreative from the unitive you are a part of the problem in essence. That doesn’t mean you personally subscribe to every evil listed above. It simply means that you support the argument ultimately used to justify these evils i.e. the law of procreation is irrelevant when it comes to debating and understanding sexual ethics. This law, procreation, is meant to serve as a firewall against these perversions, unless you think bestiality and the like are good and we should all have the right to partake in them?

    Cal, before my authentic Catholic conversion I was blind to these truths. I’d never once contemplated the law of procreation and its deeper significance. The New Testament ethic resonated with me on an intrinsic level from that first read onwards. The intellectual understanding didn’t follow until I finally took that leap of faith and believed. Then, and only then, was the veil lifted. No one shone the light of truth on my soul or intellect in my personal life. It shone when I first read the NT of my own accord and then when I finally believed and saw this truth with clarity. (That’s another story. This isn’t the time or place for that. Let’s stay on point).

    Cal, I’m not presuming anything. You have openly stated numerous times on The Dialogue that you support the legalisation of sodomy and homosexual unions. You once went as far as saying you were fascinated by homosexual attraction and sometimes ponder why men have them and what it would be like. You have also made clear that you yourself aren’t a homosexual. I also know for a fact that you use contraceptives without conscience. These are poignant and relevant facts to the argument presented above.

    Take your time to really chew on and digest the  Catholic (universal) truth that have been presented to you here. It’s sound, flawless, and factual.

    There is an old adage that is particularly relevant to this day and age: “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

    I don’t doubt your intentions. I do doubt the faulty logic you base your ethics upon.

    May God bless you and give you the eyes to see and the ears to hear good friend!

  14. mat_y CalKane  Let’s keep what me and my girlfriend do in the privacy of our bedroom out of the conversation. That’s really no one’s business but ours.

    Ok, I know what you think about the fact that a women wants to marry a robot so we can leave that alone. But what about the rise of A.I itself? The technology behind it, what it could teach us about consciousness, what it means for humanity and so on. I would like to hear your opinions on that instead of us going over ground we have already covered 🙂

  15. CalKane mat_y
    hahaha..okay, done!

    I worry about every advanced military technology modern man has today because we don’t have the maturity to handle it. Nuclear and biological weapons, artificial intelligence, etc. It’s all unimaginably dangerous in the hands of a human race that is collectively in rebellion against God and going madder by the day.

    In the good old days when we were Catholics we had a strong ethic even in times of war, we called it chivalry. In Iraq (war 2) America used “shock and awe” tactics that were catastrophic on the Iraqi citizens themselves. This included the use of depleted uranium that has caused cancer and baby deformations,  and made Iraq a breeding ground for the most  radical Muslim terrorists.

    In Japan two nuclear bombs were dropped on cities full of civilians.

    That’s not to pick on America. We’ve seen mass genocides across the board in recent centuries. We can look at China, Russia, Turkey, Indonesia, Rwanda, the list goes… 

    Chivalry is dead!

    In short, only God will be able to save us in the end…

  16. mat_y CalKane  I agree. The prospect of having machines that can learn at superhuman rates in the hands of people that think morality is about opinion or the law or whatever is very troubling. And it’s not as if we just wont develop smarter machine and robots so we are all going to have to face the reality that one day we will be in the presence of things that look and sound very human but in fact are far from it. Maybe troubling is too soft a word 🙂

  17. CalKane mat_y 

    Morality is about harmonising our lives with natural and divine law i.e. God’s intelligent design, in obedience to our Creator.

    I’m not sure what context you used the word law here, so maybe that clarification was unnecessary 🙂

    By and large we agree on this one.

    Many global elitists couldn’t care less about the general population. We are slave cattle to them. A.I. robotic technologies give these pagan elitists all the more reason to implement extermination policies on us, the people, now that they’ll be able to create obedient robots to weight on them. This is an extreme case scenario but very plausible:

    You think history would’ve taught us how demonic paganism is. Apparently it hasn’t thanks to social engineering and conditioning through Hollywood (e.g. Avatar) and education (e.g. Darwinism).

    I also understand this technology can go wrong and they could ultimately turn on humanity itself.

    In saying that, I don’t believe mankind will ever be able to create something that’s greater than us. We are the crown jewel of God’s creation. What we can do is create military grade weapons and technologies of which have the power to destroy life on earth. I don’t believe it’ll ever come to that because the Bible doesn’t prophesy the annihilation of the entire earth. It does prophesy a cataclysmic war we refer to as Armageddon.

  18. mat_y CalKane  We already have created things that are greater than ourselves,  just at very specific tasks. iPhones are better than us when it comes to calculation and memory. And since everything we do is just a matter of information processing and is therefore understood by science we will one day build machines that can think like we think and act like we act. Whether that’s better is up for debate but in terms of doing human work we will almost certainly be outstripped my robots one day. Pretty scary thought 🙂

  19. CalKane mat_y 

    In a manner of speaking, that is true. Machines in factories work at productivity rates we never could. As a whole being, I don’t personally believe we’ll ever create something as genius, intricate and beautiful as the human person. The reason?

    The human ‘soul’ separates us from every other creation.

    A.I. regardless of how advanced we make it will always lack a human soul unless of course we delve into the area of transhumanism. There could be a time when man does fully merge with machine and A.I. merges with the human person. It’s a bizarre thought, and I’m not sure that’ll ever eventuate on such a grand scale. Humans, as long as our nature is fallen, will never realise the true potential of our species in scientific terms. Armageddon will come before we ever reach that point! haha

  20. CalKane mat_y 
    P.S. The most bizarre and unethical science I’ve seen emerge in recent decades (to date) is genetically modifying species through splicing dna together e.g. a human and animals dna:

    Sadly there is honestly no action that will surprise me in this rebellious nihilistic age of godlessness.

    Tim, being the classy gentlemen that he is, would’ve phrased this a little differently and instead wrote in a world without God 😉

  21. mat_y CalKane  I, rather unsurprisingly I guess, don’t think a soul is a hindrance in making truly intelligent A.I since everything human that we do has either been understood at the level of the brain (to put it another way the function of things like genius and creativity are not mysterious and can be seen in the brain) or will be understood one day. So a soul, whether it exists or not, is not essential in anything humans do and not a requirement for making A.I that could write poetry or do philosophical work.

  22. CalKane mat_y 
    Hi Cal, that is an expected response from your present world paradigm.

    A.I. will never understand the fullness of the human experience/person. It’s an impossibility. It’ll lack a soul, human emotions, frailties/sensitivity (taste, touch, pain…). A.I. no matter how humanlike we can make it will never essentially be human. It’s depth of understanding won’t reach beyond that which it is a product of, the corporeal. As humans we are in touch with both the spiritual and the corporeal. We have a body and a soul, mortality and immortality, wrapped in one being. If A.I. offers us advancements in any field of science it’ll strictly be in the corporeal sciences, not the theological/philosophical/spiritual.

    Yes, you can reject the reality of a soul in the same way as I can reject that there is a law of gravity. That doesn’t change the reality of either though. The higher faculties exclusive to man are the faculties that separate us from the animal kingdom, or in future, even A.I. These higher faculties are gifts of the human soul.

    We can keep a body alive indefinitely on life support nowadays. It’s nothing more than an empty vessel no matter how long you keep the machine on for when the human soul has departed it.

  23. I keep getting these notifications from my hotmail app so i might as well add my two or three cents. (Which i dont mind since im enjoying this exchange) Cal, no offense, but you really need to stop lying to yourself that you belief in objective morality because you really don’t. If objective morality is still based on what YOU think is right or wrong (I recall you mention this to Tim on one episode) then it’s still subjective. It is still based on your opinion, which means you could be wrong. Objective morality is suppose to be free of error.
    Another thing is, I really don’t think that we could create something as complex as human beings. We can’t even take care of our own trash..Scientist are still racking their brains trying to figure out how to mimic the placent cord which nourishes the fetus/unborn human and gets rids of waste at the same time.

  24. mat_y CalKane  My original points still stand. Nothing humans do, can’t be understood at the level of the brain. ideas, thoughts and emotions and so on are all understood and all happen within the view of science in the brain. So even if a soul is real or not, it’s not needed for humans to think or feel or be creative. So the question of A.I one-day being human level A.I is not a spiritual question or a metaphysical one, it’s a scientific one. Unless you can tell me something that humans do that is not understood at the level of the brain. I’m pretty sure there isn’t one but I like being wrong so indulge me 🙂

  25. CalKane mat_y 

    Okay, let’s continue with your logic here.

    If everything can be understood by the brain alone than according to you, we, human beings, can perfectly understand exactly what it would be like to be a mouse, cat, rabbit or even an insect.

    Sorry Cal, what you’re arguing isn’t logical at all 😉

    We will never on this earth understand what it’s like to be any other life form other than human, whether animate or inanimate.

    A.I’s as previously stated will purely be limited to the corporeal realm and corporeal sciences. If we ever depended on an A.I. to teach  us about philosophy, God help us! hahaha

  26. CalKane mat_y 
    P.S. To give a simple example, someone could describe the taste of an apple to you down to its finest detail. The only way you’ll ever truly know and understand what an apple tastes like though is by tasting it for yourself.

    If you’d value a more intimate example, we could use romance. The only way to fully appreciate what it’s like to fall in love with a person from the opposite sex is to experience it for oneself. Yeah, as humans, we have the ability to imagine and fantasise what it would be like to a degree, and even to experience small glimpses of what it might be like. The same way as we can imagine eating an apple. To taste spousal love firsthand though is to know it, in the same way as to taste an apple is to know it. We can’t imagine falling head over heels in love with someone to the point where we are blissfully thinking about them day and night (the puppy love honeymoon stage, that’s perfect for early marriage and procreation before it starts to mature), until it happens.

    An A.I. could never taste this human reality and experience of love on an authentically human level, and therefore it will never know it in substance. It won’t have the depth to love as humans love, because again, it’ll lack a human soul (that eternal component to its being that we as human beings have).

    Any understanding of love that it does have will be a shallow a dictionary understanding of it, because it won’t have the capacity, a soul, required to actually and experience human love and all that it entails, as we can…

  27. CalKane mat_y 

    P.S. 2: One need look no further than its name. Artificial Intelligence. 

    This means: “Made or produced by human beings rather than occurring naturally, especially as a copy of something natural.” Oxford Dictionary

    Everything about these machines will be artificial. Its thoughts, body (machinery), and even its supposed feelings (if it is created to think of them), will be artificial. As noted above, A.I. will be bound to the corporeal world alone.

    The human being on the other hand, created by God, is an organic part of creation. As Catholics, we would say, the crown jewel of creation, because we are made in the image of God. We can think, feel, create, learn, discern, choose, and we have an immortal soul.

  28. mat_y CalKane  I said that everything humans do can be understood at the level of the brain, I didn’t say that everything can be understood by the brain. So my points still stand. What you need to do to invalidate my argument is describe a function of humans (creativity, love or whatever else) that is not understandable at the level of the brain. If you could do that, then the existence of a soul or some kind or non-scientific concept would be necessary for A.I to ever get to human level intelligence. So far all you said is “A.I can’t do what humans do because they don’t have souls” but you haven’t stated what a soul actually does.  

    Everything else you were saying about experience had more to do with the hard problem of consciousness which, whilst no less interesting (maybe more interesting haha) is a different topic.

  29. AFlowerofStTherese  Before we start, I think it would be best if you state exactly what you think my position on morality is. Just so we don’t have to spend any time correcting any errors further down the road 🙂

  30. CalKane mat_y 
    CalKane mat_y 
    Hi Cal,

    Nice to see you still have your gloves on! 🙂 This is a substantive and concise answer:

    “A living human body is not the same thing as a corpse. Now the soul is the difference between a corpse and a living being. A dead body cannot move, eat, think, express itself, enjoy, or be miserable. It can but fall to pieces and go back to dust. There is something that stops your body from doing that now. It is your soul. For every activity you must find a principle of operation behind it. The principle in a man which thinks and loves, and is happy or miserable, is a very real thing. It is not nothing, less than the very body it animates. Nor is it a chemical. No doctor, examining a corpse, can tell you what chemical is missing that it should not live. If there be nothing else save chemical substances, let doctors and scientists gather together the requisite chemicals and say, “Live!” They can effect nothing like this. There is something that chemistry cannot reach; it is the soul or spirit. Look anyone in the face, and behind those animated features, those changing expressions, in the very eyes, you will read the soul.”

    Regarding its immortality and faculties:
    “Its essential structure forbids dissolution by death. Death is the disintegration of parts. Only composite things can die. Yet the soul is not composite. Its power of pure immaterial thought proves its independence of matter. It is endowed with spiritual faculties, and is as spiritual as the faculties it possesses, which will enable it to live and operate when separated from the body. Not being material, it can never be destroyed or fall to pieces like matter. Nor would God endow it with a nature essentially fitted to live on just for an idle freak, and with the intention of annihilating it after all.Secondly, every individual experiences a sense of moral obligation, and every obligation demands a sufficient sanction. If the State said, “This is the law,” and I replied, “What if I do not observe it,” it would be ludicrous were the State to reply, “Oh, nothing will happen. I say only that it is the law. If you break it, you break it, I suppose.” That would be a joke, not a law. I know that I shall have to answer some day for my attitude towards the interior sense of moral obligation. I can go right through this life without encountering anyone capable of judging me concerning it. The real answer must be given at the judgment seat of God, and my soul will have to be there. Consequently it must survive.Thirdly, a more universal view of human life shows us the many inequalities which offend against the sense of justice. We know that justice will be done some day, and as it is not always done in this life, it will be done in the next. This implies our presence, and therefore our living on after death.Fourthly, every soul naturally has an insatiable natural desire for happiness, and for lasting happiness. No earthly or temporal good can satisfy this hunger. Yet this innate natural tendency cannot lack its rightful object. You might as well try to conceive the existence of the human eye, perfectly adapted to sight, yet without the possibility of light anywhere to enable it to see.Reflection, then, upon the simple structure of the soul, upon the future administration of the sanctions attached to the moral law, upon the rectification of worldwide inequalities, and upon the teleological inclinations to a lasting and perfect good, makes it a violation of reason to deny the survival of the soul.”

    Source: Radio Replies

  31. CalKane mat_y 
    That’s the formal response. Now to an informal one on the topic of consciousness.

    Atheists, traditional pagans, quantum physicists and new agers in general, for lack of a better term, often love this word ‘consciousness’. The problem with this is they explore the field of consciousness with no real grounding in reality. For example, I could spend the rest of my life, as a male, dreaming about conceiving a child with another male. I could spend day and night dreaming about it and consciousness won’t manifest this scenario no matter how much I believe in it or imagine it to be so. It’s impossible because it defies the natural law of procreation, man and woman, as God created us.

    It’s very damaging in my view how pagans get lost in this world of consciousness with no real grounding in reality. The body and soul are complimentary, each does not cancel out the other. Man is body and soul, consciousness and matter. Materialistic atheists take materialism to the extreme as nihilists and miss the reality of God/soul/eternity whereas new agers take consciousness to the extreme and miss the absolute organic laws of nature and its finiteness (a reality they more often than not see purely as illusory). 

    To use a simple analogy with respect to the human body, the soul acts as its electricity except it’s a spiritual substance not a corporeal one. It’s there but we can’t observe it with the human eye. A.I’s, being corporeal, will function via electricity or another corporeal force of some kind. When the soul leaves the body, temporarily, (this separation isn’t permanent according to Catholic teaching), it loses its soul/life/animation. In the same way as when these A.I’s have their corporeal power source shut down, it’ll be lights out for the machine.

    The soul isn’t corporeal electricity is. We can’t perceive the soul with the human eye because it isn’t a material substance. That’s how we can distinguish between the two.

  32. CalKane mat_y 
    Hi Cal,

    Man you and Tim are on fire at the moment! I’m looking forward to your surprise New Years Eve show and will try catch this it live (for the first time).

    This one is a brief comment regarding Tim’s “crazy Catholic and your “racist atheist” show description. I’ve watched a descent amount of content from Stefan Molyneux’s show and this has given me a general idea of the atheist viewpoint. I disagree with Molyneux on a lot of issues by the way without doubting his sincerity. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” as already mentioned.

    Molyneux does inadvertently teach a Nazi ideology. According to him, Asians are the smartest, whites are average and blacks are backward due to their genetics. This is a silly argument. When Europeans were Christian we dominated the world in every field. We thrived in virtue, philosophy, education, work ethic, medicine and science in general. We were grounded and formed in Truth as Christians. Today we don’t have the same culture or work ethic which is why we’ve dropped to average and are continuing to fall. We are nihilists.

    Asians who migrate to the West on the other hand culturally drive their children to succeed. They expect them to get straight A’s and become doctors and lawyers, etc. Most white parents don’t. They are happy to let their kids get average marks, play video games, party, hang out with friends, etc.

    Blacks on the other hand are disproportionately poor and fatherless. They, again disproportionately, are stuck in a welfare cycle (whites are descending to their level today). If blacks were dumb there would be no Dr. Ben Carson’s.

    If the brain was the source of the intellect we’d know was smarter based on brain size alone. The soul is the seat of the intellect. The brain is merely its tool. It’s not like swimming or running. If we gave an iq tests to illiterate Chinese villagers in China how do atheists think they’d score, better than the average white in the west?

    As a Catholic I believe in one race, the human race. What atheists mistake as evolution I explain as adaptability. If I safely spend time in the sun each day I’ll slowly tan and build up a tolerance to it. The human body can and does adapt to its environment within its human limitations. Blacks adapted to the African sun over thousands of years in the same way as Europeans adapted to Europe’s cold. When a fertile African of the opposite sex marries a fertile Asian woman they will procreate. This wouldn’t happen if a human partnered with an animal, sexbot, the same sex, or a child.

    The fact we can procreate and have healthy offspring with other races proves we are essentially the same even though our bodies adapted to different environments ancestrally. This isn’t evolution in the way atheists understand it. Its adaptability. Yes, our material sciences continue to progress because of the knowledge our ancestors hand down to each generation. We didn’t need to figure out how to harness the power of electricity, oil, computers, etc. These advances were gifted to us to continue developing.

    Catholicism does teach that national patriotism is important. We do not teach ethnocentric ultra-nationalism (radicalism), which is growing immensely in popularity today.

    The scariest thing about A.I. technology is that it will lack a human soul and therefore a conscience. It’ll only be as smart as the data it processes, data that could be faulty. It also, like psychopathic environmentalist might, decide the best solution for “saving the earth” is to wipe out the human race altogether or 90% of it.

    Atheists sure put a lot of faith in theoretical (so called) sciences and very little faith in the actual laws we can study and observe with absolute certainty e.g. the law of procreation is always between a man and a woman.

    God Bless,


  33. CalKane mat_y 
    On the subject of atheist Stefan Molyneux, he published this talk featuring Catholic professor Dr. Duke Pesta recently:
    Duke and Stefan both believe in the theory of evolution and discuss the
    Faith from this vantage point. (I don’t believe that man evolved from
    an apelike species as you know. In human terms I find the question of “how”
    the earth and humans was made/formed materially as essentially
    meaningless in and of itself. The critically important question to me is
    “who” created creation or “what” is its/our source. My answer to this question is obviously God).

    I’m sure you (and Tim as well) will enjoy their cordial and robust discussion if you take the time to check it out.

    God Bless

    You and Stefan have something in common Cal. You both can’t help but
    continue to slowly gravitate toward Catholicism! hahaha

    was vehemently anti-Catholic for much of his public speaking career
    until this past year or so. I sense in Stefan’s case being a parent is
    the catalyst that has continued to soften his heart toward Christ and
    the Church i.e. universal Truth. The nihilism of atheism
    has been losing its luster for him ever since that moment (although he
    still identifies as an atheist for now…old habits die hard).

    If I personally had Stefan’s ear, I’d be giving him the Catholic Catechism to study at this stage of his journey. As far as I can tell (based on the questions and misunderstandings he shared in the above discussion), that’s what he lacks. None of us is capable of understanding the fullness of Scripture in the absence of the Churches teaching. That’s why Christ instituted the Catholic Church and its universal Magisterium. Left to our own devices we fall short each and every time. Every single form of protest Christianity proves this point beyond doubt even the more orthodox ones e.g. they’ll allow the moral use of contraceptives thereby rejecting a universal truth (natural law).

Comments are closed.