If only there were an ethical package that had self-sacrifice at the top of the hierarchy.

@oambitiousone7100

3 жыл бұрын

🧐😉

@Millenko

3 жыл бұрын

we have one, jesus the christ and his words :-]

@playswithbricks

3 жыл бұрын

@@Millenko OP was alluding to that.

@whit2642

3 жыл бұрын

❤️🙌

@lionelchan1601

3 жыл бұрын

@@Millenko There's self sacrifice (serving Him alone), and then there's Self sacrifice (idolatry that doesn't see itself, serving and seeking help from anything less than the Eternal). The historical horrors of sectarian arrogance everywhere stem from this conflation, perhaps. How do we turn away from this without disowning it, in order to not repeat the mistakes of our forebears?

Back when I was an Atheist, I imagined religious people were just old Republicans who didn't have personalities. Now that I'm no longer an Atheist, when I watch a discussion like this, I see just how lame, impotent, uptight and full of philosophical jargon Atheism is about (Ethical packages that people believe in) lol, and how Religion is about Art, Story, beauty and appreciation for the universe.

@mothwizard4307

2 жыл бұрын

I Cringe when I think of the arguments I would use against theists before. Some of them do still hold against bad protestant arguments but it's so embarrassing to not see how self refuting atheism is.

@Danuxsy

14 күн бұрын

Atheism is the appreciation of truth, there is nothing larger than that.

These conversations are like watching Pageau explain something in 4d, and then watching the conversation partner try and superimpose it into 3d, where it loses crucial information. I'm a big fan of Adam and am thankful he sees value in this conversation, but it might be too much pressure on Pageau to have to explain this over a conversation from essentially point 0. Pageau knows how the atheists think but they don't know how he thinks. It would be incredible to see Adam read Matthieu's book or something similar and have another conversation. That being said, don't feel discouraged Jonathan! I don't think you understand how much people are getting out of you essentially run into a wall, there is value coming out of it. For me at least.

@fr.hughmackenzie5900

3 жыл бұрын

Jonathan didn't have an answer to Adam, towards end, on the fact that categories of artefacts, like a rock as a chair or a projectile, are just created by the human. Surely a chair should not be Jonathan’s key example of a divinely given category. But it does show (human) mind creative of categories.

@danthefrst

3 жыл бұрын

I think that Adam might be one of the best to talk to on the atheistic side, because he seem one of the very few atheists that is actually truthful in their proclaiming of being truly interested in having a trustworthy and respectable inquiry on the topic. Adam seems to not be out talking for the win. Those are the folks that is nice to have around, they're not out to destroy others with phony arguments but to actually understand.

@sirelegant2002

3 жыл бұрын

What book?

@strigiformsW

3 жыл бұрын

@@sirelegant2002 The language of Creation - Matthieu Pageau. Highly recommend.

@sirelegant2002

3 жыл бұрын

@@strigiformsW thanks dude

I love that all of this is happening while Jonathan is wearing “Vote Kanye” hoodie

@Adam-Friended

3 жыл бұрын

I voted for Kanye

@shakyraindrop

3 жыл бұрын

@@Adam-Friended aaaaayyyyy 😝

@sennewam

3 жыл бұрын

@@Adam-Friended what are you wearing tho

@todmann67

3 жыл бұрын

Where do I get one?!

@getemoutside6398

3 жыл бұрын

Haha. I didn’t notice that until I went to the dark side and started reading the comments.

Pageau makes a great deal of sense to me.

@OptimizeNurse

3 жыл бұрын

Yes his videos juxtaposed with JBP have helped me greatly!

@jgarciajr82

3 жыл бұрын

I used to be an atheist but I definitely do see the perspective and I have changed my mind on this.

@jedicharls

3 жыл бұрын

I honestly cannot grasp it. I just cannot wrap my mind around this whole symbolic world view thing.

@06rtm

3 жыл бұрын

@@jedicharls I spent two years watching his videos slowly grasping more and more. Now I go back and watch his old videos with a new lens and it all seems so simple to me. The main premise is that ancient people told stories symbolically not scientifically. So the stories aren’t a biological description of an event but rather a symbolic pattern. So something difficult could be described as having climbed a mountain or slayed a dragon. We speak in that way all the time, like we say I’m flooded with paper work, or I’m swamped. Or we might describe a bad event as a train wreck. It encapsulates the pattern of the event rather than the actual details of the event, so that everyone who hears the story can relate to it. The idea is that we dont remember events, we remember patterns. Thats why witness testimony is so unreliable; spouses will recall the same event differently. Its not the details that survive the test of time, its the pattern of the story.

@jedicharls

3 жыл бұрын

@@06rtm But Pageau believes Jesus literally, physically, historically rose from the dead, right? Not just symbolically...?

Jonathan you have the patience of a saint. God bless you.

@zootsoot2006

2 жыл бұрын

As well he should

Pageau: Science cannot create the category itself. Adams’ brain: does not compute, need category...error error error.

@vivekbarnvasynanndi3439

3 жыл бұрын

this

@lampad4549

2 жыл бұрын

Wow great straw man. The reason you cannot compute that question is cause it is so stupid and had nothing to do with the conversation as a whole so why ask it.

@notloki3377

Жыл бұрын

SO YA SEE, BACK WHEN WE WUZ AFRICANS

@DoctorLazertron

Жыл бұрын

It's fair to try to bring complex and sometimes symbolic realities down to earth. I think that's what Adam is trying to do here. People have trouble making sense of things that aren't concrete. Honestly might be part of why God had to send His son down to the physical world... People weren't grasping the concept, so here's a physical living person embodying God Himself.

he keeps wanting to reduce ethics to material expediency and avoid thinking that ethics exist on a different ontological plane than material. this makes him the conquerer of ethics, subject to no system other than what brings the best material gain. this is the kind of shit that destroys our quality of life and our reverence for the sacred. this need to save evolution at all costs is costing us everything.

@bethkindt8432

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed it's annoying how the secular materialist keeps missing teleology and metaphysics

@Adam-Friended

3 жыл бұрын

What is the telos of Christianity?

@conantheseptuagenarian3824

3 жыл бұрын

@@Adam-Friended to be conformed to the likeness of jesus christ.

@IndyDefense

3 жыл бұрын

What he ignores is that religion itself is an evolutionary straegy to out-compete other groups. Though it may seem paradoxical, in trying to tear down religion as a human institution, he is anti-evolution. This explains why atheists have few if any children.

@Adam-Friended

3 жыл бұрын

@@IndyDefense What are you talking about? I'm pro Christianity. Someone didn't watch the video. lol

To any atheist /materialist trying to understand - the last half hour is crucial, but developing the intuition for it won't come easy. It's a subtle, yet significant change that needs to happen and I'm not sure how one gets it exactly. That's the really frustrating part of having those exchanges - you can't readily explain it into someone, although once you get it the explanation seems clear. To Jonathan: don't give up, you're expressing this stuff better than anyone I've listened to. I'm a former Sam Harris fan, gradually shifted over by JBP. Few years back I had the same 'wall' that you're frustrated about not being able to penetrate with Adam and others, impeding my understanding, but I knew I was missing something and was sufficiently intrigued to keep going at it and getting deeper into my implicit assumptions that I wasn't aware of. I think your efforts will be very valuable for some people on a similar path.

@lisahorne2394

3 жыл бұрын

Wow, nice!

@north6417

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe there are some novels that might help people in that 'turning' if they wish to explore it. Perhaps something like Dostoevsky's novels

@baalstone675

3 жыл бұрын

You just told my story. I sometimes wonder where's next. It's been a hell of a trip these past 10-15years

@Sijilos

3 жыл бұрын

Check out Jay Dyer.

@OffbeatRefrigerator

3 жыл бұрын

@András Belina I wish I could tell you. For me overcoming it had something to do with following my beliefs and things I take for self-evident all the way down and recognizing the implicit assumptions they rely on. A general interest in philosophy, and particularly in phenomenology and epistemology would be useful and realizing that the understanding of 'science' of the average internet atheist, and what they consider 'scientific', is largely verbalistic and non-rigorous. It will probably still not get you all the way there, but it would be a good start. I've seen other people recommend the book of Jonathan's brother. I haven't read it, but you may want to give it a try.

Now I understand why Adam Friended is still an atheist. I had thought it was for some existential reason but, no, it's another misunderstanding of what religion is.

Conversion takes time, I think it's normal for this to feel frustratingly slow. It went fast with Sargon only because he was already an Aristotelian/Platonist, most people aren't there yet. They're still materialists and have yet to grasp that forms/patterns are real, and not just psychological.

@j.p.marceau5146

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe it could be worth bringing up that Jonathan's scheme can explain a lot of stuff that materialism doesn't. Because patterns are real in the symbolic worldview, you can say that not only scientific laws are real, but also consciousness and rationality.

@emmashalliker6862

3 жыл бұрын

It's not pattern that modern science misses out, all we know are patterns and regularities of nature. It's relations between things that modern science forgets.

@mudhut4491

3 жыл бұрын

@Vela S Yes, this. I'm getting so tired of the it's "just psychological" thing. Everything is psychological, it's all happening in our individual psyches. You can't escape your psyche, that's where the patterns are.

@henrik_worst_of_sinners

3 жыл бұрын

@Vela S. "That’s why humans see patterns all the time". Interesting pattern you have discovered! Self refute much? ROFL

@fr.scottmurray4931

3 жыл бұрын

I agree that this is the key problem, and it's why the conversation is so frustrating. Materialists have no metaphysics, obviously, and yet their worldview is sitting on top of the Aristotelian/Platonic framework without them being able to see it.

Jonathan is so incredibly patient

The host is all “evolution” and “utility” until it comes to defending sexual “lifestyles”. Then he switches tactics soon as Jonathan corners him with "What is human sexuality for?"

@LKRaider

3 жыл бұрын

Human sexuality is for entertainment, self satisfaction and abuse, and to exploit the limbic system of other humans for selling products to them. Did I get it right? Sorry I am being sarcastic, but this seems to be the world we live in.

@alaricpalaiologos665

3 жыл бұрын

All atheists are subjectivist nincompoops

@Joefrenomics

2 жыл бұрын

Honestly, from watching both this conversation with Adam and the earlier one with Rationality Rules, the ethic that emerges is something like the “Inclusion of all lifestyles which don’t suppress other lifestyles.” Kinda approaches 666 symbolism as expressed by Pageau

@lampad4549

2 жыл бұрын

@@alaricpalaiologos665 sure when they believe in objective science they become subjective nincompoops.

@lampad4549

2 жыл бұрын

He even defends this, that in animals same sex is practiced to prevent overpopulation sexual lifestyles could be a by product of that.

"I feel qualified to talk about Christianity...I was a southern Baptist" lol

@Cahtuhwheels

3 жыл бұрын

So unfortunately common.

@frankpugliese3380

3 жыл бұрын

Cognitive dissonance.

@internetenjoyer1044

3 жыл бұрын

@@frankpugliese3380 i dont think it's that, it's just the impoverished state of Christianity after the reformations of the Reformation (ie the baptists, anabaptists, non denoms, certain derivatives of the Reformed tradition) are so ubiquitus in America, yet so narrow and confined to a post enlightenment ahistorical perspective, that you can grow up in those churches but not have a handle on Christianity as a whole.

@internetenjoyer1044

3 жыл бұрын

@TestSubjectDayjob In the West, some narrow offshoots of Christianity came to dominate, and it dominates most peoples interactions with Christianity, and it has blinkers about historical Christianity. I dont want to write the tradition off entirely, the "mansplaining" behaviour is a normal human thing accross the board. Still, I just found it funny that understanding Southern Baptism is taken as an understanding of Christianity per se. It's just such a narrow thing

@TheDonovanMcCormick

3 жыл бұрын

You laughed at that too I see

'There is no neutral reason to posit categories'. So much gems but this guy doesn't pick up anything while claiming he is agreeing. I was thinking atheist = knowledge without understanding, an incapability to perceive the implicit.

I cannot over state how helpful I’ve found this recent spate of discussions Jonathan’s been doing. Having these atheists as foils really forces him to distill his ideas and watching the back and forth mirrors my internal struggle between my completely scientific and spiritual brain. I feel like Jonathan’s been taking apart the Sam Harris in my head.

I just love what happens when western secular philosophy meets eastern orthodoxy. This is just a lovely conversation. God bless.

You grew up Baptist? No Offense man, as somebody who grew up Baptist, became atheist, and is now orthodox- dig deeper. It’s there.

@marcusantoninus1838

3 жыл бұрын

You have a similar path as me. Roman catholic, atheist, getting back to a form of catholic. Basically, "I could poke holes in that which I did not fully comprehend".

Very cool convo. I would agree with Adam that you shouldn't be frustrated. This is exactly how we learn how to cross the divide, to speak to people in a language they can understand, to translate what you know to the Pastafarians. Speaking for myself, when I first came across your channel I didn't understand much of anything you or your brother were talking about. After a few years though, I emerged from the fog. I think this is what Jordan has also offered to many people. Your work might be the second bridge.

@OffbeatRefrigerator

3 жыл бұрын

I second that.

@GITAHxgCoo

3 жыл бұрын

"Explain it like a physics problem" is how a comment on another video put it. When your conversation partner's view of the universe is that it's a place filled with objects made of atoms, that's the only way.

@MonlopoMAN

3 жыл бұрын

@@GITAHxgCoo You can't bring people out of Plato's cave unless you do it by force, or they choose to.

@MonlopoMAN

3 жыл бұрын

@Jerfbahn Hernkel I agree, and The fact that there are people obsessed with bringing others from one cave to another is also very disturbing

It seems like Adam approaches things with the question, “where did it come from?” Jonathan asked the question, “what is its purpose or meaning?”

@thamill3826

3 жыл бұрын

This is a good description of modern v classical thinking. No wonder we have a crisis of meaning now. We’ve dismissed meaning as unimportant on page 1.

@thamill3826

3 жыл бұрын

@Jerfbahn Hernkel lol I see you don’t get it. Have fun

Lmao Adam's hoodie has an anime babe eating ramen on it and Jonathan's says "Vote Kanye".

@bambi7154

3 жыл бұрын

Lol sorry thats a high school youngster not a baby XD

@ALLHEART_

3 жыл бұрын

@@bambi7154 In English, "babe" can be used for a young woman also.

@ALLHEART_

3 жыл бұрын

@@bambi7154 At least in certain dialects of English, like several major ones.

Guys, Religion means to Re-unite, or to unite/link/bind strongly, The word religion literally means "that which binds things into unity, ot that which links the many into one", please stop thinking about religion in the weird way your culture of personal background made you understand it. Re-ligare is the latin word, ligare means to unite or to link, so when Jonathan says that money can become a religion is totally true, there are people that link all their morals and actions to money, thus every decision they make has as a principal motive the economic wealth, and their lives begin to have specific "rituals" around that new religion, the way they dress, talk, move, etc. When you have a principle to which you bind all the aspects of your life to, you will end up behaving in a certain manner, and most likely people that you don't even know that bind themselves yo that same principle will act very similarly to you, why does this sounds like crazy talk or "metaphorical" it's pure reality. This is a problem of language and conceptualization, people don't like when others speak in a different mode, using the same language but using words or concepts differently than them...

@BadBootyShakanosis

3 жыл бұрын

That’s a very good point. For example, for what do boards of directors commune?

@lionelchan1601

3 жыл бұрын

Like Yoke/Yoga, and the Cultus of culture... but also cult. The cult of money, the cult of fame, the cult of science, the cult of work... all very easy for the religious to identify. But what about the "beam and dust mote" warned cult of sectarian arrogance, serving the sect above serving Him Alone, when God Guides whom He Will? These secular cults aforementioned surely had their origins in this too, given how "even atheism is really Christian atheism" as Tom Holland says. If the cult of the sect is what serves as "that which binds to unity" for all but all, it makes sense that religion instead constantly divides.

@AprendeMovimiento

3 жыл бұрын

@@lionelchan1601 We can only have ONE true religion, because there is only ONE supreme God in which to be united for eternity in love, so even though "religions" in the etymological sense are anything that binds people into unity, the only one that binds people into unity while keeping their diversity is the one religion instituted by Jesus Christ himself, which is the one that the apostles were part of and also their successors, the True religion must be of traditional apostolic lineage. The fact that people tend to separate from the religion, cause schisms, and separations has nothing to do with the religion itself, but the nature of the people doing the division and the people following those tendencies, those have other masters and not only Christ as their master. Judas was inside the church yet he decided to betray the Church, the Church or Christ is not to blame in that case, and his Church is not to be dismissed because of that incident. The TRUE BINDING happens through LOVE, and if you don't love the true religion and if you don't love your Lord, then you will end up separated from the one true apostolic Church which is not to say that the church causes divisions rather that certain sinners by uniting with the divider (diablo) participate in the division.

@juliepaine532

3 жыл бұрын

The word sin, as demonstrated here, is also supercharged with new meaning. Missing the mark isn’t how most people understand it.

@AprendeMovimiento

3 жыл бұрын

@@juliepaine532 I mean in Hebrew it does mean "miss the mark" it was actually used in archery when someone failed to hit the bullseye, so it's kinda like missing the goal, which for us would be God himself, our Goal is God since he is the source of everything so if we pursue happiness we should be pursuing God since he is the giver and creator of happiness, etc. So sinning would be to fail in that goal, and when you fail to reach God, or even fail in the pursue of God, you will end up doing things in everyday life badly. Sin is pretty much satan, since it is a lie and a father of lies, a false truth as well as a falseness giver, it's product of an obscured will, a crooked line (snake), and so on. Displaying the whole meaning of each word or symbol could take you your entire life, that's why sometimes you just have to use it in context and in a more "simple way".

Towards the end of conversation, friended says something like “LGBT folks can’t live their lives and be comfortable inside of Christianity.” Christianity is a death march to a life camp. No one is supposed to be comfortable inside of it. To which one might then begin to criticize contemporary Western Christianity and, well, they’d have a point.

@warb_of_fire

3 жыл бұрын

Right, every Christian has to give up some of their desires to pursue the truth. I think anyone in any belief system has to give up some of their desires for what they believe is something greater.

@fus132

3 жыл бұрын

Life itself is a death march technically.

@Sijilos

3 жыл бұрын

There's so many aspects of Christianity, why is it the case that it is only the renouncing of everything for God, understanding that God is basically everything?

@mrRambleGamble

3 жыл бұрын

"T folks" aren't comfortable being themselves -- that's the basis of their identity. Christianity would help them focus on something bigger than themselves

@danieleriksen1130

3 жыл бұрын

That is true, LGBT folks cannot live 'comfortably' within Christianity, but in Eastern Orthodoxy, they are always welcome as persons (but not permitted communion, without confession, trying to overcome the passion). Likewise, it would also not be comfortable for a CEO of a military arms company, or a top 1% elite politician/tycoon lying and ripping people off, or a Mafia Don ordering hits on rivals yet attending Catholic Mass, or a Catholic politician who supports abortion, etc. They are ruled by their 'passions', unhealthy distortions of God-given natural drives that become addictions/obsessions destructive to society. Like any addict in denial, one cannot be comfortable when the people you are hurting are telling you so. The Church tells us so. All of us have our 'passions'. No one is better than another in that aspect.

57:37 “...it’s helpful to have 10-15% of the population that’s atheistic/scientistic types, working on medical advancements, that everybody benefits from. They don’t necessarily believe in evolution, but when they show up at the hospital...” The degree of historical illiteracy in that statement is painfully hilarious.

@matfejpatrusin4550

3 жыл бұрын

That one felt like talking to a Civ player. In Civ communism is pretty good too, you can just work and starve your people to death without any revolts. Yay.

@Adam-Friended

3 жыл бұрын

Why? because of Gregor Mendel and Copernicus?

@DrMichaelChristian

3 жыл бұрын

@@Adam-Friended no, more from the actual historical origin of the “hospital.”

@Nozdrum

3 жыл бұрын

@@Adam-Friended Most scientists before modernity were religious and many still are.

@Hooga89

3 жыл бұрын

@@Nozdrum Most people are religious in general which skews the results, but that doesn't mean it was or is common for most scientists to be religious, even pre-modernity.

@43:00 Jonathan gives the definition of love, being a non-totalizing unity amongst a multiplicity of differences, and then when applied to a scientific framework, gets asked what trope definition of love he’s referring to. I think these conversations are showing me just how many presumptions we bring into every interaction and how they can blind even our rationality, myself included. Thanks to both parties for making these conversations public.

That the modern West is a disintegrated, fragmented version of the traditional West, may be Jonathan's most important formulation. Jordan Peterson also describes ideologies as fragments of philosophy -- pieces that are wrongly exalted as complete philosophies, but these fragmented ideas lead to fragmented human souls.

"We need to transcend our evolutionnary impulses". That sums it up.

Jonathan is doing so well in these conversations. He is trying to explain ideas that require a huge shift of perspective to people for whom the ideas are alien and completely counter to the culture. And if we’re honest his interlocutors are not quite at the same level shall we say. Sterling work and brilliant to be party to!

@matthewparlato5626

Жыл бұрын

Almost. Its nots merely perspectival shift, its a bit deeper...an Existential mode of being. Its a Participatory knowing-being.

@bryanutility9609

Жыл бұрын

He’s using a lot of word salad to justify believing in miracles that don’t happen. A chair is real, virgin birth is not.

@uroszivkovic9988

10 ай бұрын

If that's your take away, I think you simply can't understand it.

Holy moly just found this guy last night, recommended from a friend. Two minutes into his flat earth video and I knew I had found what I've been searching out for a looooong time. This video is also incredible. Jonathan friggin gets it

The idea that religion, specifically Christianity, is the product of evolution is deeply problematic. Christianity had a massive leveling effect in terms of human persons and their value or worth and elevated that worth far above where it had ever been previously. The reason we have hospitals dedicated to keeping people alive, insurance dedicated to protecting health, and every other sort of program aimed at keeping the weakest members of society going is due almost entirely to Christianity, and all of that is in diametric opposition to evolution.

Also, about halfway through this video, you can clearly see what looks like the hope starting to drain from Pageau's eyes 😄

Please keep doing these Jonathan. We need more of this kind of discussion no matter how hard it may be.

Materialist by definition are hard to communicate with. They only see a part of the universe or world. The only success I have ever had is by asking them what "math" is and whether or not it exists outside of human perception...what mathematical theory is. Whether or not calculus existed before Man created it are there things that are not material and yet influence the material world? Many people just rolled their eyes but others begin to think that maybe the "theory" is an actual thing that maybe "heaven"exists...

@RSanchez111

3 жыл бұрын

It's not just materialists, and it's not just by definition. The opposite, "spiritualists" (who are also known as *gnostics* ), are hard to talk to too. You need God *and* the Incarnation.

@daneracamosa

3 жыл бұрын

@@RSanchez111 we are all materialists if we are raised in the west... We all struggle to see the enchantment that science wants to strip away... This is not just an atheist problem...

@RSanchez111

3 жыл бұрын

@@daneracamosa then why did you start talking about materialists as "they" and not as "we" from the beginning?

@daneracamosa

3 жыл бұрын

@@RSanchez111 your responses are exactly why conversations like this cannot happen. There is no reason to be defensive or argumentative. My comment was not directed at anybody but rather was an observation. Go fight with someone else.

@RSanchez111

3 жыл бұрын

@@daneracamosa I don't know man, sounds like conversations like this cannot happen because you're not consistent, and you like to blame it on "them".

I love these more debate-style videos, they elucidate many of the points that Pageau and others have been talking about so well

@MoonBurn13

3 жыл бұрын

My exposure to Pageau is, admittedly, limited. From what little I’ve heard, I still don’t get him. My impression is one of a nebulous intellectuality around a species of Catholicism. I have no problem with him - but maybe it’s precisely because of that? 🤔

I think one of the issues with Rationality Rules is that he idolizes Sam Harris. I noticed points in the conversation where he parroted some of Sam Harris' arguments against Jordan Peterson even when they didn't necessarily fit the discussion at hand. Like there was at least one point where he asked something like "What is your viewpoint on x." And then rebutt the answer with "Well I take issue with you assuming Christianity as the default." Which is something Sam Harris said to Jordan Peterson in their first public conversation, where it made a bit more sense eventhough it was a weak argument (seeing as it's not likely possible to stand objectively outside the foundation of your culture and judge it or anything else morally). In the case with Rationality Rules though, I just thought to myself, "Well you asked him his Christian perspective, so..."

@Xanaseb

3 жыл бұрын

This, on the other hand, was a conversation with a child of Bret Weinstein!

@1108penguin

3 жыл бұрын

Most things most people say are just direct quotations from other people that they don't think much about. Did you ever re-enact scenes from movies with your toys when you were a kid? It's a more complex version of that.

@GITAHxgCoo

3 жыл бұрын

He seemed to be wavering between trying to understand and trying to score points.

There's something about the attitudes these "enlightened" atheists display when they are talking to Jonathan (or any other intelligent Christian for that matter) that rubs me the wrong way. It seems like they have bought Brets argument about metaphorical truth and would like to show themselves open-minded towards, and tolerant of, all the peasents who are too dumb understand "literal" truth. Ironically, though, in doing this, they are showing themselves to be far too narrow minded to even understand that they have no foundation, frame or narrative to back up anything they say. Everything is opinion, everything is arbitrary. One might say, even, that scientific truth is woo-woo; to use a rationalist insult. Great job once again, Jonathan. Keep it up.

@FDosty

3 жыл бұрын

How can you get rubbed the wrong way when earth-dwellers behave as they must, by nature, behave?

@alaricpalaiologos665

3 жыл бұрын

The scientific method cannot justify the scientific method on the basis of the scientific method, therefore it is dogmatic presupposition. Without God to create you to be rational and possess knowledge your only option is that meaninglessness and happenstance somehow magically granted it to you, so you can't deal in metaphysics, at all. This is what Hume was saying and no atheist has given an account of this dilemma since. They just deny metaphysics entirely

@DavidRemington

3 жыл бұрын

@@alaricpalaiologos665 Preach!

@SageStudiesGunnarFooth

2 жыл бұрын

@@FDosty don’t you get rubbed the wrong way when someone cuts you off in traffic? Determinism does not preclude emotion or judgment.

Great conversation Johnathon. I found so much substance in the dialog and liked the way it drifted through different topics.

Explaining the essential cosmological structure is very helpful. Its giving me the words to explain it to my friends

For the love of God, can these people stop talking as if there are no Christian scientists, no Christian homosexuals, etc.? That's the whole point-they exist because we don't deny them! I think these conversations could go well if atheists made the effort to read and study what Christianity is actually about instead of pretending to know. Their definitions of terms like "religion" and "love" are 14-year-old level.

@mostlydead3261

3 жыл бұрын

@iOS SANOS also known as priest, also known as monk..

I was an atheist. I think I can bridge the gap if I could talk to him. I understand the problem of thinking everything is material and not knowing of the metaphysics etc. If someone can get me a discord link of something of sorts I can do my best to lay down the philosophical understanding he is missing.

To the hierarchy of being, starting with the chair, if I might be so bold as to attempt an explanation which exceeds Jonathan's. The chair without a category of chair is just wood, planks, sticks. Without those categories, it is cells, atoms, etc. Without any categories the chair is just chaos, nothing. The categories of experience are what "speak" objects into being and through this hierarchy of categories the chair not only finds form and function but participates in higher categories, like a dining room. These categories continue to stack up through house, neighbourhood, city, state, country, world, solar system, cosmos. And all of the categories in the universe participate in unities (like the chair) and multiplicities (like the chairs in the dining room) which participate in higher unities (the category of all chairs) and up and up these orders stack. Where the materialist fails to follow is in dogmatically insisting that the matter is the reality and the category is arbitrary, but we know this is not true -- without the category we don't even encounter the "matter". If we instead look at reality as a hierarchy of category (or being) which allows matter (and everything else) to manifest meaning and actuality, and we notice that the categories allow all of reality to harmonize into higher and higher categories, then we can begin to see how all of reality points towards a unifying category beyond all categories and through all categories find harmony and the ability to form a universe. If this was not the case we would expect reality to be rather incoherent. The parts of the chair would not cohere into a chair, the chairs would not cohere into a dining room, etc. There is a quiet unity beyond all division which allows even the divisions to be manifested. Once you begin to notice the patterns between beings and how beings participate with each other, creating identities through each other, and always point beyond themselves to even higher beings and unities then you can begin to understand the language and grammar of symbolism and why these symbols are considered a truer expression of reality than a materialist's accounting of the matter. A material accounting of a book does not reveal the truth of a book, not even close. It might be factually correct, and one might claim that the matter is the only real thing about the book. But until you recognize that a book participates in higher orders of being, like knowledge, and the categories, the common symbols in the book, participate in higher orders of being, like words, language, grammar, and meaning, you will not understand the reality of a book. The matter is only one aspect of a being's composition, and when we fixate on that one aspect we become blind to all the other aspects.

@GITAHxgCoo

3 жыл бұрын

I don't think the average materialist would disagree with any of that (unless they were super strict I guess) or they wouldn't be able to function in the world. They just think it's all a trick. "We are the universe experiencing itself maaaaaaan"

@TheRationalCarpenter

3 жыл бұрын

I guess I've never met an average materialist then. All would insist the material is the reality. I don't think I've met one who would say that the pattern is more real than the matter.

@GITAHxgCoo

3 жыл бұрын

Ask them if they have a bank account.

@Giorginho

3 жыл бұрын

I think a materialist would say this is all in the human mind, thats what he was trying to say. Bu that means all of this is subjective and leads to solipsism

A teleologist and a utilitarian walk into a bar ...

@mikeguliano3159

3 жыл бұрын

Most witty and brilliant comment ive met in a while

I loved the RR conversation, but one of the things I find majorly irritating about materialists (and I saw this a little in RR too) is that they can be condescending, dismissive, and arrogant at times. I don’t know if this is intentional or I’m just misreading it. For example, I answered a question put forward by one of RR’s viewers about Jonathan’s worldview, and the response I got back was like he was trying to debunk me rather than converse. Not even that, it was more of a finger wagging lecture about how wrong I was, which really got on my nerves. He also gave me a grand mythos of the universe and said it was derived (scientifically) from “the cosmos” (not sure what he means by cosmos). Overall, just a lot of religious language for someone who’s not religious XD I dunno man. The anti-theists seem hyper focused on boxing everything up into little categories and discarding what is “false.” They leave no room for mystery. If something doesn’t fit into a category of “real” or “true,” they automatically axe it without a second thought. Seems like an over abundance of Heaven to me.

@bradspitt3896

3 жыл бұрын

Because they haven't followed through with the nihilism and are still optimistic, which means they evangelize. But their evangelism is pure polemic logos, no art/beauty/storytelling. Whereas the nihilist artists engage in propaganda, or more "empathy" stuff.

@redtrek2153

3 жыл бұрын

Yes, it can be hard to explain why "debunking" doesn't need to be the default approach to new ideas.

@dragonfriend6874

3 жыл бұрын

@@bradspitt3896 Dang. Someone's on the ball. Lately, I've been trying to understand the need to reunify science, aesthetics, and spirituality and your comment has some valuable insight.

@bradspitt3896

3 жыл бұрын

@@dragonfriend6874 lol well Jonathan drops a lot of seeds of truth and leaves you to do the rest. He doesn't like making things so explicit. I arrived at this from when he talks about how "Christianity is about more than ethics." That's the seed, and you go from there.

Great stuff, especially from J. Pageau. The most important concept one can grasp, and yet very few do, is the concept of the Logos, which I equate with the concept of Natural Law. And yes, it is not an easy concept. But so critical to understanding how the world really works. My take is that while religion, and specifically Christianity (in my opinion, mostly Catholicism - until recently anyway) has done a pretty good job at capturing some of the key elements of the Natural Law/Logos, we can now refine and adjust our understanding of it using recent (last 50-60 years) advances in science. And here, I am NOT talking about physics, chemistry, or even biology. Rather, we have to look at the following sciences: game theory, evolutionary epistemology and psychology, complexity theory, cybernetics (systems control theory), cognitive science, economics, and probably a few more. And it turns out that many of these advances in fact confirm the validity of many aspects of the Christian understanding of the world. But the new sciences make that understanding far, far more explicit, and add some nuance in places where it needs to be added. This is precisely what Jordan Peterson (and to a lesser extent John Vervaeke) have been doing: explaining the value of the Christian view of the world, but in terms of the meta frame of the Logos/Natural Law. I think Pageau gets this, whereas, say, Paul VanderKlay is missing the point entirely (so do all the "celebrity atheists," by the way). Well done, but needs a part two.

People always seem to want to have Jonathan talking philosophically and scientifically but it is also important that they make the effort to learn to talk symbolically. Because that is Jonathan’s main language.

@dionysis_

3 жыл бұрын

​@@705-nun-ya I think there is value in engaging. First of all I don't think it is healthy avoiding discussions that challenge our current views. Secondly, it is important to find a rational bridge to the symbolic understanding. It is not necessary for everyone but for those of us that are, by nature, intellectually inquisitive it is essential 🙂 Finally, I believe that without genuine intellectual rigour, religious thought can become fanatical dogmatism and produce defficient theology and philosophy.

@Adam-Friended

3 жыл бұрын

Aren’t all words symbols? If we take away different meanings from the same symbol we are not communicating.

@705-nun-ya

3 жыл бұрын

@@dionysis_ I agree there is value in engaging . But one that is orthodox knows that their is a mystery that happens when the intellectual side is abandoned and progresses to just the spiritual aspect of reality. St. Theophan the recluse said if you always stay in the intellect you can never truly be spiritual. Engage but if you are orthodox and you are engaging with philosophical ideas than that is misinterpretation of orthodoxy. And what Christ came for. It is better for the soul to be obedient to Christ and the Saints and his church. He said the gates of hell will not conquer his church. So for an Orthodox Christian to have conversations about philosophical ideas as if something can be figured out or known That was not known before it’s vain and prideful. And this is not a judgment it’s just truth. At least the truth Christ came for. He said I didn’t come to bring unity but I came to divide it to bring a sword.

@dionysis_

3 жыл бұрын

​@@Adam-Friended You are thinking of symbols here in the sense of an abstract syntactic symbol which is of course valid. But there is a layer under the linguistic where embodied, phenomenological meaning is, and that is where Jonathan usually is. For example when you said 'conceptual categories' talking about the logos of the chair, it was, I believe, a mistake for Jonathan to agree. A logos is not a conceptual category. A conceptual category is founded (I am using the term phenomenologically) on the already present perception of the logos. A logos arises before abstraction and it is the basis of it. Think of it this way: What is there before you point at it to a kid to name it? There is a perceptual unity already there that allows for the attachement of the word. A symbolic structure in the sense I, and Jonathan, are talking about stems from that level.

@dionysis_

3 жыл бұрын

​@@705-nun-ya Though I am not a practicing Christian I certainly see your point and I am reminded of the words of St. Dionysios the Aeropagite: …Timothy, my friend, my advice to you as you look for a sight of the mysterious things, is to leave behind you everything perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and, with your understanding laid aside, to strive upward as much as you can towards union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge. St. Dionysios the Areopagite, The Mystical Theology But I would also like to point you to Luke 10:27 where we are instructed to love God with all our 'mind' which is a kind of strange translation of διανοία which is more accurately translated as 'intellect'. The intellect is important and although it can become a trap I believe it can also protect us from other kinds of traps on the path as long as it engaged in with sincerity and humility.

Logos: the sum total of everything we know and what remains to be discovered, including meaning.

Jonathan, please don't be discouraged. Almost understanding what you're saying is what it's all about for me and this was a really good conversation. Adam was a good interlocutor for you. I'm on the edge of my seat when you're like "this is really hard to talk about." Keep going with that stuff and with these kinds of conversations. I think I get you, but it's kind of like when I'm dreaming and have a clear understanding of something in my dream but I wake up and it's not clear anymore. So the more words come out of your mouth the better because maybe it will fill in some gaps in my puzzle. And again I'll say Adam asked good questions and represented un-Jonathan well. Really was sorry you had to stop there. Thank God for you two and KZread.

I loved this. Thank you for sharing and talking. I'd love to hear more.

The Tao begot one. One begot two. Two begot three. And three begot the ten thousand things. ~ The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations. These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. Darkness within darkness. The gate to all mystery.

@sennewam

3 жыл бұрын

when one orgasm's one still proclaims 'oh my god' :3

@playswithbricks

3 жыл бұрын

Apophatic theology?

@Bellial12

3 жыл бұрын

Interesting thing is that in Chinese translation of the Bible, the Logos is translated as Dao (道). Makes plenty sense to me, the old Jezuits knew what they were talking about IMO

At a little past 40:00 and it feels like Jonathan Pageau has just shattered my mind via the destruction of the concept of heaven I grew up with 🤯🤯🤯 Previously, when I heard him use "heaven" as being like a pattern and "earth" as the facts(?), I just kinda nodded my head, like ok that makes sense, but now as he's doubling down to Adam that's it's literally(?) not a metaphor, that's what Heaven actually is... it's like, wait so it's not an actual place you can go when we're said to be reunited with Christ, it's just a..an actual damn pattern??? But, then thinking about it further, it's like, well what makes you think that pattern isn't something we can fully become one with when we have left earth, if earth is all these limitless facts that we're navigating with a variety of patterns, but there's one pattern above all of them??..It's like it makes sense, but it doesn't at the same time... Literally in my room groaning at my phone while trying to think, my girlfriend must think I'm crazy... Is this what Peterson feels like?? 😄

@warb_of_fire

3 жыл бұрын

The ultimate destination in Revelation isn't heaven, it's the renewed earth. Or heaven and earth joined together. (I don't know what that last sentence means symbolically or if it's a true description, but anyway the reference is Revelation 21)

It’s interesting to see two people with differing world views try to sort things out, to make a kind of elusive understanding tangible. As Jonathan says it’s hard to put it into words and get the idea across to someone who hasn’t had the intuition. I’m probably one who hasn’t had that intuition myself and yet somehow I can sense it, like tasting it on the tip of my tongue. It’s just fascinating. I gotta keep on digging. So Jonathan, I just want to thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing what you’re doing, and reassure you that even though I’m obviously not grasping these things as lucidly as you I still find it deeply meaningful to listen to you elaborate on these topics. Also I find it satisfying to hear you have these kind of conversations with someone like Adam. I’ve had an atheist upbringing myself and similar questions as his can come to mind at times. I think conversations like these has to be life-long, not just 96 minutes long. I would lie if I said I sometimes wasn’t struggling to get your point of view. But that’s part of the process for me. The beauty of it is that it feels meaningful so I just enjoy the ride and marvel at that there is much more to grasp and learn. So, take some well deserved rest from conversations of this type, but I encourage you to keep doing them in some form sometimes. There are lots of atheists out there who are open minded and hungering for alternative world views that can offer greater meaning, depth, and truth. Now I’ll go read up some more on Plato, for starters. From Sweden with love.

Great discussion Jonathan! I'm absolutely loving these. I think you're being too hard on yourself. It's hard enough to help people understand (for example) different political opinions, and what you're trying to show people a whole new way of viewing the world. So it'll definitely take time for people to come around. If you are concerned about confusing people it might be worth while spending more time finding common ground and walking then towards your world view in baby steps

Way oversimplification, I know, but could it be that the perceived confusion or blindness or lack of understanding on the part of the atheist is he lacks capacity at this point? If one truly believes the Triune God is above and over all then the power to "open the eyes of the blind" rests solely in His hands, meaning God's will will be done. Jonathan, keep going, don't get discouraged.

Don't lose hope Jonathan. The beginning of the conversation was excellent, I think you just grew a bit tired in the head. Still a very clear and good convo. Adam seems to be keen to want to understand amd you both did a great job. Keep it up!

Whatever use these kinds of conversations have for materialists, they are extremely beneficial for those of us who are also trying to communicate these ideas in a materialist world. And I think as more of these conversations happen, the wall will begin to break down. It's certainly more likely to happen than if the conversations were nonexistent. Thanks, Jonathan!

You say so much great stuff, JP. Keep it up. Even if it’s not passing through to your conversationpartner, it’s by lagre passing through to the audience.

This is like trying to convince a blind person the sky is blue.

I loved the conversation up until the very end when Jonathan said that he didn't hold hope for a second conversation. I thought. I thought the concept of trying to "translate" the other person's concepts into language that their own followers would understand was brilliant. I really hope this conversation continues, because I got a lot out of it. Lots of respect to both these guys.

@lukaszzieniewicz6934

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly, I think that finding a way across this metaphorical wall is a very worthwhile effort to make

“The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible.” -Albert Einstein

Big fan of Pageau. This conversation was super frustrating but wow, I learnt a lot from Pageau discussing this topic with a non religious person. Fantastic 👍

Science is an algorithm which looks through frames. Religion organizes frames.

@oambitiousone7100

3 жыл бұрын

Well put!

On Love, it would be helpful to distinguish _Love as positive sentimentality_ from _Love as unified multiplicity._ The current cultural mindset only recognizes the former. Which is why Adam laughed and called it subjective.

@Wolf-Spirit_Alpha-Sigma

3 жыл бұрын

Exactly this. I did catch that from Jonathan. I even begin to suspect that any given multiplicity can't exist for long if it doesn't posses the quality called love. Which is really the coolest definition of love I've heard so far.

@matfejpatrusin4550

3 жыл бұрын

It was a heavy cringe moment.

This was interesting, thanks for doing this. Contrary to what some seem to express here, I don't think this was a waste of time. Watching these kinds of civil interactions is encouraging because its an example of how to have a conversation between two people with a good amount of info/knowledge gap. It also shows an example of two people who find their fellow man worthwhile enough to converse with despite disagreement.

Tradition is not the worship of ashes, it is the preservation of fire.

“We turn objects into utility” Adams got it backwards. We have turned utility into objects.

@virginiacharlotte7007

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah I think that is the bit had me shouting at the air as I was driving along! i.e. It just seems so simple to me that the purpose of a chair comes before the chair exists - we would not make a chair if we did not need it. Therefore the pattern of the chair in our thoughts also exists as the logos of the category of all chairs as it perfectly fits our purpose. If we can do that - then why argue that it is beyond the capacity of infinite and pure being and act itself to do the same with a whole universe - that is : God. At least- I think that is what I am starting to understand!

It seems like at about an hour in Adam gives up on trying to think

I found this to be a fruitful and engaging discussion about important ideas. Thank you both. Such philosophical tensions don't get resolved in the space of a KZread video. Please don't lose hope Jonathan you are doing very important and insightful work. Continue with conversations like these they shed light on many things. Perhaps some of these intuitions are best expressed visually. There is a degree to which words fail us when attempting to convey symbolic intuitions. For example Matthieu's book heavily employed images as cues and reference points which I found very helpful. It is similar in a lot of the Jungian literature which is littered with artworks that illuminate an 'archetype' or pattern. As the old saying goes a picture speaks a thousand words. I am sure you know this already as you are a practising artist. But I know I, for one, would appreciate more visual cues and markers to illustrate the patterns you discuss. I can usually follow the intuition as you speak but a visual cue would really help marry Heaven and Earth together. After all it seems that you principally think in terms of image. Thus perhaps 'speaking' in image would be helpful too. Just a humble suggestion, I love and appreciate your output greatly as it is. And I know you do use images more heavily in certain presentations I have seen you do. Anyway I know I have found it extremely useful at least when thinking about symbolism to structure my thinking in terms of visual images on PowerPoint for example. Thanks again!

Don't get jaded Jonthan! We need you to continue speaking. It is not always confusion it is wrestling with ideas people have not heard of or though of before. Espically being educated in a public school system which does not cultivate that type of thought. Great conversations both of you thank you!

Hi jonathan, just wanted to say that i understood what your framework was a year after watching the "santa is real" video. Is no surprise that people, especially atheist (or antitheist as Adam pointed out) are not gonna understand what you are trying to say. I think it's going to build slowly in those communities. Anyways, thanks to put yourself in this conversations, it's inspiring. Never watched Adam before but it come across as a very nice and intelligent guy. Definitely will check his channel.

Adam doesn't hold a candle to Jonathan's argument, he is too blinded and grounded in materialistic things.

@thechurchmilitant4293

3 жыл бұрын

Most secularist's are materialistic.

Really thought provoking conversation. Thanks!

I found it really useful! I’m a fan of both. It’s funny how both make so much sense at the same time like if it was ok for both worlds views to be true and almost revolve around each other

I love your videos but I often find it hard to understand why you value the bible stories and cristianity so much. This conversation was very useful to bridge that gap for me.

The problem is that Rationality Rules is speaking from the same frame that all atheists speak. That of seeing themselves as the highest mind in their perception and thus themselves as God. This is evident when RR says "we" no longer need some parts of religion. But amy honest person must know that they cannot rightly judge what all of society needs. This is because you can only add to society, not subtract. By that I mean you only know what you need, and because you are part of society, then at least part of society needs that thing. But to remove something which society has you must say that not a single person in all of society needs it and thus it can be removed. But no person can possibly know what all of society doesn't need. RR's desire to claim something should be removed means he is counting his rational needs as that of all of society and thus playing God. Wrongly attempting to judge all of society from top down for he has set himself at the top.

Right on Jonathan. 15:00. The frame is a good anchor. I am raised Baptist in the Maritimes. The frame of christianity as my upbringing, although my current views essentially turn my Christian roots on it's head, it's still my moral frame of understanding and my rock. And, further, i can download the other frames out there and get a sense of how other religions have evolved and are understood. Transcendance is a slide that we need more folks to explore for the sake of getting to know one's neighbour. whom are humans..

The best part was the conlussion you both had at the end. It's difficult to communicate and it is confusing. We need more of these conversations, to make bridges and ways of communicating.

Already watched it on Adam's channel. Came here just to leave a comment:)

I used to listen to Adam, was subscribed to his channel, but... Frankly, I can see why people on both sides of the religion debate don't like him. If I have to hear the words "ethical packages" again...

Wow this was awesome - when is part 2?

Hey Jonathan. I believe you explained your point of view in this video well enough. The topics you were discussing are challenging for Christians and even more so for the atheist person. Keep it going, brother! God bless you.

To be honest, to me this conversation was worse than the one with rationality rules. Jonathan dives into topics that are really interesting only to be interrupted by Adam Friended, who really tries to agree with everything without even understanding half of the argument.

Now this was MUCH nicer to watch! Although it's beyond me how it is difficult to grasp what Jonathan is explaining. It's like the most straightforward thing articulated in a fascinatingly simple way. That is exactly why it's so powerful. Symbolism is pretty much common sense, you just need to exercise it like a muscle to become 2nd nature. And that's exactly what Jonathan did, he's read enough to be able to see the symbolic patterns (or the lack of them) in most stories.

I understood the part about there will always be chaos/potential behind the categories. It makes sense to me with chemistry and quantum mechanics. We came up with the concept of the atom and we thought that was it. Then we came up with quarks and gluons etc. but behind all these categories of structure there is a chaotic quantum soup when you get to the very bottom. We will certainly continue to create additional categories beyond what we have but there will always be a chaos

I don't think I ever heard RR before now, but honestly I think this was a really good conversation. I'm going to re-listen at normal speed (I usually listen at 1.5) later, but I will definately keep an eye out for a follow up conversation.

I think this was fruitful. The chair conversation is tiresome to some but to me it is important. A chair is not merely reducible to it's utility. Someone in the video said that rock could be used as a hammer or used as a weapon. The phrase "used as" is important. The utility of a chair or rock is one part of it being what it is, but it's thingness cannot be merely reduced to it. I think the point is that the order, integrity, and unity of a simple object presets something worth exploring and potentially noticing about our deepest needs.

@dragonfriend6874

3 жыл бұрын

It wasn't until conversations like this as well as a cursory study of sacred geometry that I started to understand Plato's world of forms. For too long, (as we've been taught in school), I thought that it was just a silly, inferior method for deriving knowledge the way we do scientifically. I'm beginning to appreciate it's a bit more than that; that it's indicative of an innate framework for categorizing phenomena. And where we receive this framework is really the same question as from where do we get consciousness.

@thecorcoran

3 жыл бұрын

@@dragonfriend6874 I agree about knowledge. The current modern approach has so shaped our thinking that we assume empirically derived knowledge is hierarchically preeminent. The wonder that we experience is just taken for granted as a complex interaction of neurons. The material cause is something, but it is not as explanatory as the modern world takes for granted. As a teacher, brain based learning became all the rage and it seemed to me that we had uncovered a 'key.' It wasn't until I started trying to apply it that I realized it often times essentialized the person and made learning almost mechanical. I often times will ask my students, 'what is a chair?' It leads to such wonderful conversations!

@fr.hughmackenzie5900

3 жыл бұрын

What about the rock Adam mentioned which becomes a chair because we decide to use it that way - and then can become a projectile. What else is there to its chairness than its function-for-us?

@thecorcoran

3 жыл бұрын

@@fr.hughmackenzie5900 Fr. MacKenzie I thought that was a interesting part of the conversation. The utility of the chair is for sitting but we would not call the countertop or table a chair merely because it was being used as a chair. In the same way we would not call a chair a rock because it was stacked. There is something persistent about a chair and we could call that it's essence. Some think it's a word game and maybe it is in some instances, but I find it helpful for thinking about the unity of things (which scales throughout the hierarchy of being).

@fr.hughmackenzie5900

3 жыл бұрын

@@thecorcoran Thanks. But if the rock were genuinely useful and used enough as a chair by a sub-culture, it would start to called a chair in common language. Similarly, with a table haphazardly converted into something that is used widely as a chair. It gradually "becomes" a chair. I’m not arguing against essences or species - just that in modern science such physical unities across the time-space hierarchy are intrinsically relative things, and that holistic unity-levels are rooted in intentions of mind. And Jonathan, I think, is searching for such “mind” language.

Interesting. I like watching the ebb and flow of understanding in this conversation; the moments where your “languages” or “wavelengths” come closer together and farther apart are super interesting, because there is an earnest attempt to understand each other.

Marriage originally was the institution used to mediate the relationship between a man and a woman in a context where their were dependents involved, and we didn't want people to get hurt. The entire discussion about gay marriage was a continuation of a discussion that had begun in the 1960s about whether we still wished to use marriage for that purpose. The answer was no, and this reduces marriage down to just another civil liberty, that should be made available to everyone. If gay marriage was actually about the importance of marriage, people would care about gay divorce rates. They don't. All they care about is access to the right, and that reduction occurs because marriage itself has lost its role of bringing greater communal sanity to peoples' lives.

I keep thinking a great way to turn the attempt to explain the religious frame as beneath science by being an evolutionarily advantageous adaptation, is to point out that the religious frame reflects the most fundamental aspect of reality to which we are adapted. It turns the “adaptation” below evolution to the “Selector” above it.

Something that's helped me grasp Symbolic meaning (apart from JP & JBP of course ) and also begin to be able to comprehend things from outside the 'atheist/scientific' model perspective is by reading Alan Watts' books (not the Cali Lectures which are blathered and cut up online though) and also Carl Jung's publications. These two chaps really helped me to understand the concept that categories do not constitute the reality of what is actually contained within them, as well as the fundamental link between all religions and how this manifest's itself in humans from some deeper level and is not just 'man-made' as atheists purport. Obviously Jung is far more in depth than Watts, and Watt's was kind of a 'stepping stone to Jung for me - Just as JBP was to JP. I find far more depth and meaning from what Jonathan talks about than JPB. I do feel like I'm on a spiral journey towards a centre though which will ultimately result in me coming out as a full-blown Christian! Haha. But the journey is meaningful in itself, even if I have a feeling of where it leads.

@tylerdavis520

Жыл бұрын

Watts was a confused drunk

Would love to see you talk with Keith Woods. He's done a lot of reading in the vicinity of Guenon and others...think you could have a very rich conversation about traditional Christian Patriotism vs Modern Nationalism that could help a lot of people, among other things.

@Epicrandomness1111

3 жыл бұрын

Maybe too much of a stretch into hard right wing thinking. Keith's anti-materialism and spiritual beliefs are vague, and not exactly unique, it's basically idealism.

@jarlnicholl1478

3 жыл бұрын

@@Epicrandomness1111 Look at some of the guests he had. If Jensen had talked to him even after Keith explained where he stands politically, it would be pretty weak of Jonathan to shun him. And Keith also shown dome interest in Eastern Orthodoxy and Russian philosophy.

@jarlnicholl1478

3 жыл бұрын

I left him a recommendation for Jonathan. Hoping for the best. Let's how sizeable are The Balls of PAGEAU.

@thegoldenthread

3 жыл бұрын

@@jarlnicholl1478 And he just did a breakdown of Fr. Rose's "Nihilism"

@mostlydead3261

3 жыл бұрын

Woods the druid and Jonathon the bard.. it woukld be a productive communion..

This was super cool! I was excited that they brought up John Vervaeke as well

I appreciate Friended's efforts to understand Pageau's point of view. As Friended mentioned toward the end, so often when people don't understand something, they become dismissive, but I felt that he was making an honest effort to grapple with the ideas Pageau was presenting. Good on you both for having the conversation and promoting honest dialogue from differing points of view.

It’s all in Plato, all in Plato. -CS Lewis

@39:00 As a past materialist/atheist I've had a transformation in myself where a year ago I could grasp maybe 2% of what Jonathan said and the rest was gibberish to me. Now I can watch the same videos and it seems I can grasp more, maybe 49% of what he says. I'm guessing this is something related to the speaking in tounges pattern, can anyone point me towards a video Jonathan has done relating to this if it exists?

one of the best conversations I have ever watched

When Jonathan says it's giving him no hope to try to explain it I'm afraid that he's not taking into account the possibility that people already made up their mind and that they don't want to actually understand it. I was exactly like that at some point and still am sometimes. What I found out is that what brings you to the Truth is your love for that and that thirst that you want quenched. The genuine love for the truth and honesty. It's hard to go back at what was lost, the most precious thing. So it takes effort to reach that place and you can easaly get lost.

I appreciate Adam's efforts but it's quite frustrating that he can't seem to have a different framework other than the evolutionary/scientific. It seems that it's always Jonathan who has to adjust his ideas to translate them to his scientific language while from the other side anything that's not on those terms is immediately dismissed, as if that's the only basis to evaluate truth. It's not only Adam, this happens all the time with modern minded people.

I'd love to see you talk to Fr. Gregory Pine. He's a Catholic priest, a Dominican friar. He's part of the Thomistic Institute. I see that you are pounding your head against the wall talking to many materialist atheist types lately, so if you want a change of pace he'd make for an interesting conversation.

@thechurchmilitant4293

3 жыл бұрын

Jonathan is doing what so called "Traditional Catholic's" should be doing, schooling atheist materialists on Christianity.

I knew that something was wrong with atheists when I was having a conversation about cathedrals. He said that cathedrals were good because to build them requires complex math. I knew right then that my friend had missed something huge. Even I’m my atheist mind I knew that it was more than that. I replied “ a cathedral is an ideal, not an abacus”

You need a 'heart' to 'see' what JP is saying. No level of clarity of explanation will make it land for those who can't perceive two realms:Form and meaning. JP love your approach.