It's like religion is the globe around everything, and we don't see it because it's translucent, so we speak about everything in the globe but refuse to recognize the globe itself.
The majority of the universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is a force we cannot test, we cannot observe, we cannot interact with, we in fact have no way of verifying its existence, except we see its effect on the universe, and thus we theorize and attempt to verify its existence. I am a physical therapist, not an physicist, so I am the wrong kind of physio to claim any sort of authoritative knowledge on this subject. However, it seems to me science readily accepts the existence of soemthing that is by its definition, not scientific. It cannot be observed, measured, or tested. What bothers me is the way atheism tries to belittle religion and magnify the importance of scientific discovery. Religion is not the invisible man in the sky. The widespread use of the flying spaghetti monster demonstrates the fundemental misapprehensions many atheists have about "religion", and it unfortunately results in them throwing out the baby with the bath water. Truth is religion, historically, seems to have been man's attempt to know that which cannot be tested, observed, or measured, and a means of interpreting that which CAN be tested, observed, and measured. To me it seems science is great at describing the universe. It fails miserably at explaining the universe. A higher order of thinking is necessary. I believe religion is that higher order of thinking. Everyone in western society is operating within a framework built by religious principles established in the past, but these patterns of thinking are not obvious to us, and easily dismissed by many as not being there, or assumed as though they ought to be there simply because we observe them (consider the debates on morality). Religious principles are trivialized by anthropomorphisizing and straw manning the concept of a God figure. I'm not quite sure where I was going with this. I had an idea when I started writing, but this seems to have become the ramblings of poorly thought out ideas... My apologies.
@@kaufmanat1 I don't think it is ramblings....I think it is inspiration from God! I agree with you totally, though I don't fully understand 'anthropomorphisizing'? Will look it up later...anyway, I like what you write and want to say thank you, apologies not accepted, ah, ah, ah.
@@yhalee345 anthrompomorphisizing occurs when we attempt to view the figure of God as if he were a human, and then add features on to make him God like. Truth is, God, conceptually, is so vastly different from humans, to draw any comparison severely diminuates God's status conceptually and people then call him a "bearded man in the sky". This is not God. God is infinite, he is atemporal, He is metaphysical, we cannot wrap our heads truly around what that means or looks like. Comparing humans and God isn't comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and angels, it's comparing glue sticks and demacracy, concepts so fundamentally different, the act of making the comparison distracts from fully understanding the concepts themselves.
I’ve been studying the revolutionary/colonial period of America and I read once that “Christianity was the atmosphere that was breathed during this time.” You don’t need to be conscious of the fact that you’re breathing(thinking symbolically) to be breathing.
Materialism is one hell of a drug. Many people today value large numbers of data about the matter over things like love, compassion, justice, wisdom etc. so much that they claim love is just a chemical in the brain or justice is just a social construct.
@@_VISION. 1) Justice is experienced that is to say it is not fundamental substance 2) Since it is not fundamental substance it is social convention or construct A materialist would absolutely say that
@@_VISION. yeah they would say that because they don't believe there's a actual source of truth, so they believe everything is just a survival mechanism E.g. love exists so that humans can procreate to keep the population booming
I'd argue that pursuing love, compassion, justice, wisdom, etc without seeking data that challenges your faith can be destructive to all of those goals
If love IS in fact just a chemical in the brain, you need to understand the way it works so that the people who DO know can't use that higher knowledge to manipulate you
Religion furnished the framework in which science can flourish, they compliment each other not in conflict, it makes the universe inteligible and worth investigating
100% agreed. I've never heard a scientist who was able to effectively communicate his or her branch of knowledge without using symbols or metaphors. A "branch" of knowledge is itself a metaphor, and quite an illuminative one at that. Symbolism is super-efficient language for high and constellated abstractions.
@@rohanabraham4169 yeah that has been such a useful insight for me as well. and now i cant see how it would be any other way. doesnt he have a knack for that sort of thing?
@Pouty MacPotatohead mathematics themselves are a superior epistemology than science from which moden science would simply not work, or at least be stripped of 99% of its functionality. They completely by pass the problem of interpretation, the problem of having imperfect senses to draw observations from, numbers are imaterial and absteact yet describe reality better than any language we have created. The perfect depiction of "cogito ergo sum" in my opinion. Sucks that Im abysmall at math lol.
Here's what I think people may be missing including Jonathan. I have no issue with symbolic language, and I don't think anyone does really. The issue is, if the stories in the Bible are just symbolic of the way we perceive the world in these hierarchys, then why the hell would anyone be a Christian? This is what I'm struggling to wrap my head around. If the Bible was symbolically trying to infer that God/Christ is already with me, i would be all for it as this is what I got from the new testament. However, Christians tell me this is heresey.
'You are trying to throw mud up in the air, up into the heavens, in hope you can than worship it' This sentence is now on my desktop. It brilliantly summarizes this video.
Without religion, or Christianity science would be completely devoid of meaning and purpose? Why should we use science to develop protective clothing? That question requires Christ to answer.
Spirituality "human life is precious, so we should protect it" Science "invents protective clothes" Spirituality "investigates universe. discovers science." In your own example it's spirituality ('human life is precious') that gives science ('invents clothes') its telos.
Hi Jonathan Your commentator doesn’t understand that science has never provided us with a single truth: only a coherent explanation of the physical universe based on the current state of the data, and that that explanation is always provisional, because well-formed scientific theories must be falsifiable. Perhaps she should think of scientific theories as more accurate or less accurate, and reserve the word “true” for mathematical proofs etc. I’m a physics graduate. I’ve never understood the urge to treat science as if it were analogous to religious belief. That misses the point of both science and religion. Anyway, that was another great video. I think I’m getting closer to understanding what you’re talking about.
I think he is saying that we can never be absolutely sure that our “truths” are absolutely true. In the past, many things were thought to be “truths” which were later thought to be false. The things we hold today as “truths” could be so called “disproven” tomorrow. Discovering something new can make us throw away an old hypothesis and make a new one and this cycle could continue indefinitely until we know the absolute truth which humans will never know.
He is in physics; therefore, we can safely assume he is referring to quantum theory- the four fundamental forces/ interactions, as they are all not completely reducable. There does not yet come one discernible proof of such. Your field of study is quite different and much easier to quantify. We know what 2 hydrogen+ 1 oxygen is. I think that is what is meant in the comment.
Jamie Young You can never know what is falsifiable in principle, but because reality is praxis and not theory, it seems everything we can know should be. Science is pragmatic reason, and is subjected to the practical aspectuations which we commit to. You are contradicting yourself in referring to theories of less/more accuracy because that is an indeterminate quantity in principle. Similar to saying something is in principle true or falsifiable; it’s an indeterminate, that is, non deterministic statement. On the other hand, you delegated unquestionable truths to the purely analytic, that is to say, what Kant would refer to as Apriori, but this shows that you do adhere to a kind of metaphysical foundationalism. People don’t realize that on non pragmatic purely rational/empirical grounds, they’d have to be purely skeptical, so much so, that it is inherently circular, and that is the contradiction of universal rationalism. In principle everything is falsifiable, thus everything should be treated with skepticism. The implication of a lack of truth, epistemological nihilism is inescapable. Metaphysical foundationalism, is existentially necessary and it’s existent is equally arbitrary as our own existence.
Wow man, this is fascinating. I wish a priest in a church that I visit could say any of this during his preachment. I have never heard so deep and coherent explanation of the bonds of religion and science. What I like about you is that you go really deep not limiting yourself by the shallow explanations. I wish I could double or triple like this post.
I've watch a lot of Peterson's videos and take actions in my life to change my circumstances; it's been great. I have recently started watching yours, from the oldest up. I feel like your explanation of religion is what I've needed for a very long time. This video has really helped. Thank you
You are really articulate in explaining what religious structures are all about, but I think a lot of atheists will see that as mumbo jumbo, they won't even know what you are talking about. Hopefully some of them will understand the points, even if they don't agree.
Yeah. I think Jordan Peterson said it best (I'm paraphrasing) that one cannot help but be religious in some way, otherwise they can't function. Science has no value structure, every bit of information is not more significant than any other bit. Just to select which information is worth knowing and what is important on you to act is a value structure, therefore you have some sort of hierarchy in your mind on what is most significant and what is less so. If anybody had a purely scientific mind without any sort of "belief" in anything, no sacred values, no "religion", there is no point or meaning in anything you do or not do. You can see that on how the woman who asked the questions instantly used religious language without even noticing that she is projecting her own sacred values.
Jonathan Pageau Thank you, man. I've been faced with a lot of these symbols and archetypes through JP and I must say it's not hard to understand. Your explanations are remarkably vivid. The hard thing is letting this kind of framework, for lack of a better term, to operate in the brain-simulation. Admittedly because of ego and personal resentment from childhood circumstances I couldn't comprehend. I can finally understand my friend who went really deep into hindu philosophy/religion, although, I don't believe in a literal god person. Don't discount us atheists too quickly... :)
I agree, I know of two Christians who became such by reading The God Delusion, irony, I am thankful for Dawkins for that. I also know of several ex-atheists and they make the best intellectual Christians. You're right Jonathan
" one cannot help but be religious in some way, otherwise they can't function" For that statement to be even close to truth, one would need to extend the definition of "religion" to mean almost anything. I can see Antony Flew's 'death by a thousand qualifications' waiting in the wings.
Oh man, you've just explained so simply what I've been feeling for years. I always thought that the schism between science and religion was so unnecessary but couldn't put my finger on why. Thank you so much for this explanation.
"You are already spiritual...you are trying to throw mud up into the air, up into the heavens, in the hope that you can then worship it." Yes, when we refuse to worship Yahweh, we don't cease to worship -- we are constitutionally incapable of ceasing to worship because He made us to worship, designed and built us to worship -- so the only way for us to move on from worshiping Him, to continue to exist at all, is by replacing Him with something else. Thus all sin is idolatry and we are all idolaters, living in self-destructive contradiction and defiance of the way we were designed to function and operate, having repurposed the temple of our minds and bodies to worship a created thing (usually ourselves) instead of the Creator, the one true God.
Great content. I've had a thought for a long time, maybe you'd be interested in it. It's essentially this: symbolism is intentionally and necessarily paradoxical. Take this illustration: a geometry student is unable to understand three dimensional shapes because every text book example of a three dimensional shape is illustrated on two dimensional paper. However, the student is able to understand concepts like "circle" and "triangle." Now, in order for the geometry teacher to provoke the student toward understanding a concept like "cone," the teacher can not simply say "cone," because that is meaningless to the student. So the teacher must say something clever like "circular triangle" or "triangular circle." Confronted with this paradox the student can do one of three things: (1) she can dismiss the phrase "triangular circle" as an absurdity; (2) she can reinterpret the teacher to mean something that she can immediately understand, like "triangle and circle"; or (3) she can integrate the concepts of triangle and circle into an intelligible whole wherein "triangular" can be meaningfully descriptive of "circle" or "circular" can be meaningfully descriptive of "triangle." It is like that with all symbolism. It must be paradoxical because it is attempting to use what is immediate and understandable to us to reveal a deeper, more wholesome dimension of reality. But in order to take option (3), the student must trust that her teacher is grasping something real and important that she has not yet been able to grasp. That process requires faith, charity, humility, self-challenge, and self-edification. In Matthew 13, the disciples ask Jesus, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" (In other words, why all this symbolism?) Jesus replies, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused...But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear." This is why the chief virtue is humility. Whoever has it will be given more. Whoever does not have it, even what they have will be taken away. "Guard your heart above all else, for it is the wellspring of life." "He who has ears, let him hear."
OH. MY. GOD. I just discovered you. After seeing your video, let's just say I am REALLY grateful you simply exist. Wow. Here is to seeing more of your videos. Cheers.
Spectacular, Jonathan. You are peeling back and exposing the layers that have always been there. It’s like we have been worshipping science even though it is really at the bottom of the heirarchy.
Thanks. Your videos helped bring me from lifelong atheism into the Orthodox church. Idk if I can call myself a Christian exactly yet by their standards, but I've been learning a ton. It's been a long process, still ongoing, of poking the bear at our Socratic club, the priest, and going at the parts of creed and scripture that turn(ed) me off of belief one at a time. Reading a buttload of Jung has also done a lot of the work for me lol. The knots just get undone with proper scrutiny, surprisingly, and an engineer's scrutiny at that. Even my issue with Genesis 1 vanished when I decided to give it a fair shot and dug into the Hebrew. I can definitely see where translation issues come into play lol. For anyone wondering what the problem word was, it's "created" in "God created heaven and earth." The Hebrew word is "bara," which has no translation, but gets used in the contexts of filling, fattening, crafting from existing material, and importantly, "designating," as in God "bara" this land as Jerusalem, and God "bara" north, south, east, and west. It's very reminiscent of the Jungian worldview, where the psyche is the primary reality, which coming from someone inevitably living in a landscape modeled by the brain, is very sensible, and also fits that "sculpting" type of process of natural selection. I must say, Greek and Hebrew have the most fascinating words. Just for shits and giggles, humoring the idea that I hit something that makes me want to leave the church somewhere down the line, I would have zero regrets with this journey. I could even imagine remaining there as the one dude who still goes to the church but doesn't quite fit. It's been so intellectually juicy and the people I've met are amazing. Already networked with a PhD Physicist who runs a weekly Socratic club, as well as multiple other engineers my age. Idk if all Orthodox churches have such smart people, or if I happened to strike a lucky goldmine. Either way, thank you for being one of the key people to bring me here. My quality of life has notably improved, along with my psychological well being. I definitely have a much greater appreciation for the poetic language. Nowadays, I have a hard time discerning between atheism and merely a cruel sterilization of language with the way the Orthodox view things. So, finally, I have a question. Imagine, you wouldn't mock someone for being stupid because they dared to call someone a son of a bitch, like "HAHA, YOU THINK A DOG GAVE BIRTH TO THEM?" How do you even respond to that? Is that the type of feeling you when someone mocks you for believing in God? If yes, that's sort of the feeling I'm getting for the Orthodox Christian worldview.
Happy to hear your story, Vincent. Yes, Your son of a bitch comment resumes exactly not only how silly it feels when someone implies that I believe in a bearded man on a cloud, but also it is the arrogance in their stupidity which sometimes disarms us, because how do you answer such juvenile thinking?
Jonathan Pageau Apparently by explaining why Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real. I had a real hoot with that video 😂 I was already going down that line of thought, wondering what y'all are willing to consider a body, and that about answered my question. Result: My grown ass believes Santa exists again 😂😂😂 I've come full circle.
Aristotle talks about how our inner world has to be identical, at least formally, with the outer world, for us to have any kind of real knowledge about the outer world. This means that the for science to work, the inner has to be identical with the outer. Talk about representations of reality in the mind leave open the possibility that we have no real knowledge of the world, which leads to the incessant problems that plague any attempt to justify human knowledge through modern philosophy. But, if the inner and outer are fundamentally the same, that creates a very different view of what reality is like. The so-called objective world may still exist outside of our perception of it, but it cannot be merely a bunch of meaningless stuff. Its existence has to be closely akin to the mental, which means that it is inherently purposeful and meaningful. That means that the symbolism we find in the outer world cannot be something we lay on top of the world, but something that is already there.
Of course the ultimate implication of this is that mind, not matter, is the fundamental basis of reality. And since this cannot be our own finite minds, this points up to an ultimate mind.
I'd focus more on the content of our thoughts than the mere fact of consciousness, which even animals have, but without any kind of reflective thought. Though consciousness is, of course, a necessary precursor to thought.
I am a disaffected atheist. A heretic of materialism. I love my atheistic friends, but I can’t help but notice how they speak in absolutes without acknowledging that they are doing so. The belief that it is absolutely true that there are no absolutes, that you can know that nothing is really ultimately knowable, that it is meaningful to say that everything is meaningless, that all truth is just a construct except for the construct that all truth is a construct, that everything is a matter of perception except for the perception that everything is a matter of perception, and finally, that you shouldn’t believe anything that isn’t empirical despite the fact that this sentence in and of itself is not empirical. It is a way of privileging yourself I think subconsciously while denying everyone else. And it is ultimately every bit a statement of faith as any other religion. Ontologically speaking, absolutes are unavoidable. This is because absolute is a defined term, it is by its very definition non-subjective. In this way it is unique or “holy.” Something cannot be mostly absolute, kind of absolute; so therefore absolute truth either exists or it doesn’t. And since you have to presuppose absolute truth to deny its existence- you essentially end up saying, “ it’s absolutely true that there are no absolutes.” And since this is fallacious logic, we know this can’t be true. I used to say as an atheist, “Well so what? What does that matter? For in order to say what the absolute truth is, you would have to be standing from a absolute vantage point of knowledge, data, and discernability so even say what it is- and since no mere mortal has that luxury it might as well not exist for all intensive purposes. For even the act of attempting to measure everything with then create new data set points that would then have to be measured; so you would go on calculating for infinity and never reach your goal. It’s pointless.” What I didn’t realize till later was how even making this remark, was how I was stating something about the nature of the absolute: That empiricism is bankrupt at ever arriving at it. This means that faith is not just utilitarian, but inevitable. Because we live in a world where we have to make value judgments, and even the choice to get out of bed in the morning is a value judgment. It also means that there is truth that is quite literally beyond us and our ability to measure. And by extension, how there is truth beyond our perception, or even existence. This means that there is truth that is transcendental. This is not proof of God, but it is evidence of him. And as a lover of science, we should all be in the process and practice of examining all the evidence.
I was an atheist for a number of years. I know the point of view well, I was devout in my disbelief. I then realized what religion is as a whole. I think the fault is with the churches that have mangled religion into something it's not. I still very much believe in science, but it doesn't discredit religion. At it's base religions are philosophies about how best to live your life to minimize suffering. If a religion was to be created today it might include things like mandating exercise and a healthy diet. If you look at sin objectively they're things that will inevitably lead to suffering. You see this in eastern religions too where the focus is on ending suffering by controlling desire. Once you grasp this religion becomes a much more beautiful thing. It's an archaeological record of the teachings of wise men. It's still that even if you don't believe God is real. Of course once you delve into religion enough you realize God is in fact real and there are seemingly even other spiritual entities. I realize I might lose many people in that last sentence, but I don't want to mince words about it. Religion is also a guidebook of your own soul, the universe, society, and your place in it all. While I surely consider myself a christian I would be lying if I said I don't find value in every major religion. I practice daoism on a daily basis and I also read my Bible every night. I still have a negative view of church because I believe most preachers don't understand the religion. I don't allow that to separate me from religion though. Life without religion is dull and depressing because you're missing this giant aspect of the world. That's why I love this channel, it has such a great way of interpreting the texts in a meaningful way. It's important to note that there's more than one way to interpret religion though. That's the true wisdom of the texts, simply reach out and find what you need. I used to say "I've read the whole bible and it made me an atheist" but I never REALLY read the Bible. To anyone who has abandoned religion give it another chance. Be humble and stop believing you have mastered the knowledge of the world. If you find yourself in suffering then I promise you there are things you don't know. You don't have to do Christianity if you have an aversion to it, but eventually you will find your way back to it. I personally study all the religions, their commonalities, histories, and differences. It's a far more interesting subject matter than you've allowed it to be.
Hi. Thanks for your comment! If I may ask, what tipped you over into fully believing in God? I'm Catholic myself and I'm trying to get to the bottom of what God IS. Naturally, if there's something everyone agrees on, it's that He's transcendent, so I can't get to the bottom of it. But is He the Creator of the physical universe? Is He a projection of the human psyche? Is He both, because the human psyche is a reflection of the universe?
@@sirkamyk9886 I'm not a knower of great secrets of the universe, I don't claim to know the nature of God. I know God exists though and as clichè as it sounds the reasoning isn't really something I can articulate. All I could really say is that God softened my heart. Even now when I endeavor to open someone up to God I am incredibly gentle as I'm under the belief that only God can soften the hearts of men to accept him. When you get into the large questions like whether or not God created the physical world around us you're really just delving into esoteric mysticism. Is there more than one divine being? An original God and a legion of lesser entities one of which being the demiurge, the creator of the physical universe. I can't say really if I've been convinced one way or another. I do know the most high God is responsible for the deepest portion of yourself, the observer behind your thoughts and actions that is often overlooked. In the end, getting too caught up with unanswerable questions is pointless and drives many to what is essentially madness. You could read a million books about it and just end up with more room to speculate.
I've read a lot of similar symbolic unpackings of reality ala Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung, but you say things I've never come across, imagery and explanations that clarify metaphysics while making the familiar feel new and wonderful. I'm greatly enjoying it and can't wait to see you at St. John Cantius later this month!
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries. -Robert Jastrow
The pejorative connotations that come along with words like "subjective" and "relative" aren't inherent to their nature. I think when people scoff at subjectivity, what they're really assuming is incommunicability: we don't assume that perspective can be shared. Recently I attended a talk where someone was hell-bent on emphasizing the "objectivity" of beauty; I got a lot of sidelong glances from the conservative, religious crowd when I told him he's hitching his cart to the wrong horse: beauty isn't purely objective, and nor is truth for that matter-both are Being, one as being sensed and one as being known (just as goodness is being as pursued). The real thing people are missing is that subjectivity of beauty is exactly what makes it so powerful. Claims of objectivity neglect the nobility of what beauty, symbolism, and religion truly are, and they're signs of a person retreating from the real question: the thing exists, but how can we look at it together? However, we don't get to this question because we never assume subjectivity can be communicable, because we live in a world where communion rarely exists.
You might call the _perceived_ beauty of a thing subjective, but beauty as a category has a specific nature. As Jonathan has said, it is the coming together of things, in ordered love. Vervaeke would call it his more general relevance realization, his meaning. But in this frame that renders our "subjective" sense of beauty only so because of our inability to see the Whole Show, meaning that, ultimately, some of our subjective beauty is true/alligned and some false/misalligned. Beauty, properly conceived, is to see the Kingdom, which you can see in every thing if you see it right. To see a World in a Grain of Sand And a Heaven in a Wild Flower Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand And Eternity in an hour A Robin Red breast in a Cage Puts all Heaven in a Rage
Anyone else's mind go straight to CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man when Jonathon mentioned the word "sublime"? Choice of wording couldn't have been more perfect.
I remember once I was hearing a dissertation by Stephen Hawkings, in which among other things, he spoke on being an atheist. I don't recall the entire argumentation, since this was many years ago, but what kept resonating in my mind through all these years was that he ended up his speech by saying "No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful". By that time, I found the word to be very spiritual and "non atheist-friendly"... because it is my understanding than gratitude is a warm and humbling feeling towards the one who gives you a gift or a blessing. If being alive is a random fact, then there's no point on being grateful. "To whom was SH feeling grateful then?", I asked myself. When you said that the words "sublime" and "precious" were an interesting choice of words for an atheist when referring to scientific answers, I recall the SH anecdote. I can think of many atheists who are way more spiritual beings than some people who go to church... those "generations of smart people alienated from religion" due to an overwhelmingly poor job done by the clergy, as you very well say at the beginning of your argumentation.
There’s a major difference between being an atheist/agnostic and yet being spiritual and being a strict atheistic materialist who denies any spirituality and think they cease to exist at death.
Great analysis of the comment, very illustrative answer, it really brings understanding to where science and symbolism stand, and how they are ultimately related.
+Rob Vel Christians talking about what we believe =/= trying to make you not an Atheist. Being critical and mocking of the ideology known as Atheism =/= trying to make you not an Atheist. Maybe his purpose is to show maybe that religious thought isn't inferior to Atheistic thought. Something most Atheists push in some way or another. For example the very common false claim that we have to abandon logic and reason to believe in the concept of God or a concept of God. Plus there are some Atheists like Richard Dawkins who pushes all Christians should believe in the false teachings of Young Earth Creationism and Biblical Literalism.
I am a 2nd year Psychology student and these videos are seriously distracting me from my school work. Yet, I am making time for them because something deep within the structure of my Being, my cognition, my heart, etc, is shifting and moving about. I am nauseated by listening to scientists. If my profession is to help heal the sick (or help improve those who wish to improve) then I must grasp these things. I won't go into a retelling of my past, but I have always been a deeply spiritual person. But I spent years bashing Christianity and wandering the worlds religions/spiritual practise and philosophies. I realize now that I never actually understood the word Religion. I in turn (and I persist in this) failed to even grasp the most basic meanings of Christianity. Of course, the horrible irony is that I could never help but act and think like a Christian symbolically, whether or not my conscious will is willing to admit it. I have read a lot of Jung. I was initiated by the fungi. And I am coming to find that Jung had much to say about the unconscious, the dark Chthonic face of God. But I am wondering if he didn't neglect an 'Upper' Unconscious. Or maybe it is that the bottom most point of the soul is also the highest most. The symbols work like this. But I am horrified to admit the possibility that the structure of our unconscious is actually Christianity. Yet I realize like St. Augustine that the kingdom is an available for any of us to walk into, at any moment, if we could just drop it and walk through. I can feel what must be "The Kingdom of God" as a reality of the heart. And one cannot apprehend the Glory, and Magic of existence without entering this Kingdom. Science will never report on it, for it is not in the physics or the atoms. It is in the heart. In the consciousness. And how could one not perceive the totality of Being truly, without weeping?
Supporting Empirical Evidence (From Peterson): “It is the hippocampal system - which, as we have seen, is an integral part of the regulation of anxiety - that is critically involved in the transfer of information from observation of ongoing activity to permanent memory, and that provides the physiological basis (in concert with the higher cortical structures) for the development and elaboration of this mnestic representation. It is the right hemisphere, which is activated by the unknown, and which can generate patterns rapidly, that provides the initial imagery - the contents of fantasy - for the story. It is the left hemisphere that gives these patterns structure and communicability (as it does, for example, when it interprets a painting, a novel, a drama, a conversation - or a dream). The hippocampus notes mismatch; this disinhibits the amygdala (perhaps not directly). Such disinhibition “releases” anxiety and curiosity, driving exploration. The right hemisphere, under these conditions of motivation, derives patterns relevant to encapsulation of the emergent unknown, from the information at its disposal. Much of this information can be extracted from the social environment, and the behavioral interactions and strategies of representation - emergent properties of exploration and communication -that are ‘embedded’ in the social structure. Much of this ‘information’ is still implicit - that is, coded in behavioral pattern. It is still knowing how, before it has been abstracted and made explicit as knowing what. The left-hemisphere gets increasingly involved, as translation ‘up the hierarchy of abstraction’ occurs.” (Maps of Meaning, pg. 67)
Modern man takes so many things for granted, not realizing that all those things are possible and known because of religion. If you’re only goal is to understand the universe then what you’re undertaking is a labor of narcissism, not love. It’s a sweet little lie we sometimes tell ourselves. I agree with you though, Jonathon, we have to do a better job of explaining to intellectuals within the Church. Its why I became an atheist as well and it took apologetics to set me back on the right path and accept there was definitely more to Christ than I thought. I think having apologetics as a mandatory part of the preteen/teen Sunday school program is a very good idea. Trying to start one in my own town for that very reason.
Wow. Just saw this....Superb. - - -the logical flow of your argument, the artistry of language, the flawless unfolding to your piercing yet gracious conclusion. I lift up a joyful Amen!, Sir.
The hierarchy of value, symbolically expressed, is inherent in language. Language is the most basic explicit form of measurement. All measurements proceed from the fact of experience that we see relative speeds, sizes, etc and they have relative value for us as persons. "Taking out the subject" is a post-hoc correction necessary to sieve the kind of data valuable to science, but notice immediately there is an accompanying valuation placed on the presence or absence of human interference. You can't get away from it. "Objectivity" is a divine attribute.
A thrill of delight, irony and recognition went through me when watching this video just now. Jonathan focused on the word 'sublime' in the email from Amber. This is because only a few minutes earlier I had been watching the Q&A section of the gathering with Jonathan, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein somewhere in Vancouver, which I believe is much more recent than this video. Anyway, there, behind Jonathan on the stage at that event was a big covered vessel of cold water, and on it were the words 'Ice Water'. Seeing that got me thinking about solids, liquids and gasses, and how they change between ice (solid), water (liquid) and vapour (gas), and the gas aspect was being used in the power of speech by these three men and the chap posing the audience's questions to them. So funny, to my easily amused mind, that in a matter of minutes later none other but Jon Pageau was describing 'the sublime', and of course 'sublimation' is from that, and it is the 'scientific' term for the process of a solid becoming a gas and not stopping at the liquid state. Great, when there's an inner 'time slippage' like this. Wondrous and funny at the same time. THANKS for your wonderful work Jonathan!
Atheists put the scientific method and reason at the top of the hierarchy of value. Description of the universe is the end goal. But when ignoring the subjective reality of human consciousness human experience becomes irrelevant. Since we are a speck on a speck in a brief moment in time, the individual experience contains no value. I think this is why collectivism and leftism is so heavily correlated with atheism. The macro of society is the thing that lives on, so if "reason" could just construct the perfect system, then society would be perfect. This brings to mind Jordan's description of the tower of babel and communism. When reason is at the top of the hierarchy, why can't reason lead to the utopia? Sort yourselves out.
"Atheists put the scientific method and reason at the top of the hierarchy of value." NOPE. Modern Science is just another religion. It doesn't even follow the scientific method. Its just bullshit. All the real science was settled in the 1800s. Since then they just make up religious bullshit like cosmology and quantum physics.
You ask "Why can't reason lead to the utopia?" Hume answered this question over two centuries ago: "Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." Furthermore, the quest for a utopia invariably leads to a dystopia. I agree with Jordan Peterson 100% on that, at least!
oconnorseanj : because reason it is not a matter. You need to sort it out of as it is written for example, for with men of other thongues and other lips I will speak to this people, and yet for all that, they will not understand " hear me", when I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things keep secret from the foundation of the world... But why do you reason in your hearts? Because you forgot about Bread ?😂
I love this! Thanks for heightening my understanding! I'd love to hear an explanation of the story of Rahab. There is good surface value but I believe there may be deeper meaning / patterns I'm missing?
Great points! Also, the idea that so-called materialists are actually materialists is also ridiculous. They believe in things like mathematics, energy, gravity, space-time, waves vibrating in vacuums, particles popping in and out of existence from nothing. The idea of matter itself is a construct of mind; how can one ever stand outside of consciousness? The thing that makes something “physical” is the assignment of a physical property to it, but where does that property come from? It comes from mind; what in the world is physical about math or universal wave functions? It’s magic that has been labeled physical because of its explanatory power conceptually; not because of any material evidence!
I really want to develop a better understanding of the natures/meanings/functions of ancient religious symbolism. I know one mistake I used to make is to try and know THE meaning of a symbols, when a good ancient symbols is good partly for its capacity for manifold levels of meanings. What beginner and advanced resources would you recommend that explain/explore the nature of ancient symbolism?
That’s very interesting, and listening to this it occurs to me that all of the scientists and atheists who have inspired me use transcendent (and often hierarchical) language. Nietzsche certainly wrote a lot about the mountain tops. Perhaps religion simply gives this tendency a more developed language.
I am no literalist but now I want to know what you think happened to Christ and His body after he ascended into heaven? did Christs body decompose? Did he remain here? Did his soul separate from his body again? did His soul ever reunite with his body again or in the first place after the crucifixion? These are things that need to be answered without pure relegation to allegory or metaphor.
It was roughly this line of reasoning that helped me escape from atheism at the time. The atheist "solution" to purposelessness is to create your own purpose. But that's like saying the "anti-materialist" solution to the cold is to build a house out of thin air. Purpose doesn't come from matter. Purpose comes from design, and design comes consciousness, and all of this ultimately comes from the God who is the fundamental origin of all things.
Excellent video Jon. Religion parallels the micro of human experience to the macro of universal nature, Science specifies the macro of universal nature to categorize the micro of human observation. Neither are inferior or less/more advanced as they both articulate the structure of cycles; both are just narrow-minded as a symptom of their own conscious existence. Science sees the personal as insignicant, blinded by the values of infinity. Religion sees the external as black and white, blinded by the realities of everyday adversity.
Emergence. That's a term sometimes used by scientists to refer to the phenomenon that mud in certain configurations is capable of being more than mud. The "higher" properties somehow "emerge" from the arrangement of parts. There's no need for heaven in cosmology because you get heaven-like properties by rubbing earth and earth together, somehow. In this regard, I do think religious cosmology has merit as a scientific theory because it is more complete. A theory that can't account for a big and vital part of the phenomena that need explanation is, let's say, a work in progress. Awesome video!
I love how gently you use symbolism to explain what typically becomes a rancorous polemic. You gently orient the atheist to their own symbolic world that they use to critique science and religion. At this point in my old age this approach opens me to a larger perspective. I have long believed that moving toward meaning is basic to humans; however, I believed that it originated in appreciation of specifics and moved outward. I now see that it is the context that presses us to examine the specifics in the first place (e.g., scientific enquiry). Some things that have long mystified me are becoming clearer. Like Gobekli Tepe, symbolism/meaning motivates humans to aggregate and build before advances in agriculture and technology.
It's almost like we're back to the debate between the platonic ideal (religious/symbolism) and the aristotlean sub structure or building blocks (science/materialism)...
I am not sure if you have checked this out brother Pageau: the Semiotic philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. It is complex, but will show the underlying logic and reasoning shared between the religious, scientific, mathematical (Peirce actually claimed it was the basis of our knowledge of all things). That sort of semiotic analysis also helps do away with the wooliness of a lot of symbolic interpretation.
I would recommend Christopher Hookway's chapter on it in his book called "Peirce" from the Arguments of the Philosophers Series (ed. Ted Honderich). Peirce's analysis of semiotic makes language, logic, scientific discovery, metaphor, symbolism, art, poetry, so on and so forth, all part of the same analysis of meaning of signs. This seems directly relevant to your brother's attempt to collapse the metaphor/literalist biblical distinction.
Throwing up mud and hoping it sticks long enough to worship. The unconscious physical and spiritual can only come together in Christ; that in which we were made in the image of, created in the space created within the Mother, our consciousness. Thanks Jonathan for all you do. -Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
You have a strong center that does not require orbiting material (JBP) to give it credence. These are answers I have been looking for. Great stuff. I have been exploring Lakoff's metaphors as such and I have been trying to corral them into something. I don't know what that something is but your description of the mountain and it's experience was a light bulb going off for these low level metaphorical experiences. An example Lakoff gives is how trouble is a container. Great stuff.
I think most of the people who come to my channel are doing so because of JBP, though indeed I was thinking these things long before Jordan and I met. But to be honest, it is Jordan's "fault" that I am making these videos, without the strange story he has brought me on, I would never have thought I could attract the attention of atheists and skeptics the way it has been playing out. And also I appreciate what he is doing for western culture so I want to acknowledge that. But as we move forward, you will see me coming into my own more and more. Jordan and I disagree on many rather basic things.
I love Jordan. I was trying to compliment you in that I have known about your for a long time because of the videos you have done with Dr. Peterson. He gives you respect thats for sure. After watching a couple of your video's I see immense value that is a different value than what I get from Jordan. I look forward to more! Thanks for the high quality videos and the great content. Blowing my mind this morning.
Hey Jonathan, This is a fantastic video, and I can't wait to get a copy of your new book as well. The only thing I think I might disagree with you on, and I'm unsure if this opinion is shared by you or not based on this video, is that I believe Heaven and Hell are indeed real places that are placed outside our reach. When Christ died and ascended to heaven, I believe that's where he went - not to the sun or to the moon - but the place where He came from, outside of our reach and understanding. Science has never described such a place, but this is why faith is central to belief systems - the ability to believe in that which is not discoverable or seen physically. Science is nested in religion in the way that it expands on religion, explaining and showing the beauty of the world around us that we *can* know, but I feel that pushing aside the reality of the divine and impossible (to us as humans) is to throw faith away from religion and then only subscribe to those items "inside" religion through science, thus turning the equation inside-out, invalidating the nest being as it was, stated initially, "science in religion." What do you think of this though? I'm very curious, and again thank you for such a fantastic video.
“Your ability to have empathy with the Geometer-to imagine what it would be like to be someone else-isn’t a mere courtesy. It is an innate process of consciousness.” ― Neal Stephenson, Anathem
Good Sir! Will you ever be doing a video or essay about the enneagram? Also connected to this is the symbol for vortex mathmatics. Gurdjieff and Randy Powell (Thru Marco Rodin). If you are unfamiliar the most basic description is a circle divided into nine equal parts 9 at the apex with the 3, 6 and 9 forming an equalateral triangle. Lines can be drawn between other numbers differently each with their own but in many ways overlapping significance. Thank you again for all of your work. Peace and God Bless
As you weaved the symbology of the mountain, I thought of the Mandela. Carl Jung talks about the circumambulation of the self using mandala's. I had a great image of a 3D mandala that looked like a mountain. Thanks for the imagery.
I enjoyed the video. It makes sense that Atheism and science don't contain a value system, but I would make the argument they don't claim to. Science is just a tool. I think your making a leap by saying it is nested in religion. If you are arguing that religion is all subjective experience then the argument would make more sense to me but religion itself seems to be nested in subjective experience. Educate me, am I missing something here?
From what i can see the religious world view is an account of how humans experience consciousness, there are structures and properties that are universal to human consciousness that are there all the time, so it not subjective as there are the same patterns in all human consciousness. One example being when you see a glass of water, what that glass means to human consciousness is 'reach out hand in glass shaped grasping action and make movements necessary to drink restorative wet thing', it takes a lot of effort to then think in the scientific method to determine the exact composition of the glass, the chemical composition of the water etc, you could do this, it requires a lot of rigor to maintain and you can't do it for very long before you revert back to the pre scientific world view that it is a thing you reach out for to imbibe a restorative cold liquid. The phenomenological view of the glass of water exists 'around' the scientific world view, with the scientific world view requiring a huge amount of effort to temporarily get rid of the meaning humans give to things until it gives way to the phenomenological reality again.
I am a Christian, but I am also firmly rooted in the scientific paradigm when it comes to the physical. I think this argument conflates science with the wider discipline of philosophy. Science is a product of philosophy and not all philosophy is religious. There is plenty of philosophy that can firmly be counted as secular, i.e. non-religious. The video is driving at some interesting and likely true phenomenon of cognition focusing on assigned meaning, value structures. The commentator even admits as much, but in doing so argues against himself. The application of some formal logic, diagraming the argument with clear hypotheses would help here. I suspect there may be several category errors here too. Still, this has promise with some untangling.
Throw mud up into the heavens to worship it? That is so spot on. This cats pov has opened up a whole new world of understanding to me. He is a blessing from God. His brother is pretty kewl as well. Jesus is Lord!!!!
Steven Meyer has written several books addressing the subject of science & religion. Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell & Return of the God Hypothesis. There are also a few excellent interviews & lectures here on you tube.
I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is a fundamental mistake in your first premiss. I would say that science and religion are both nested in our human need to understand the world, and by 'the world' I mean both the 'external world', and our own human feelings and desires. One can trace this desire for understanding back to the Pre-Socratics, through Plato and Aristotle on the Western side, and through the the eastern traditions of Egypt, Assyria, India and China. I would suggest this desire takes two basic forms, which one might call the technical and the poetic. The technical involves the hunting of animals and the gathering and cultivation of crops, the making of clothes and shelter etc. All are necessary for physical survival. Then there is the reflective or poetic form, found in the Psalms, and the great poets down the ages, in art and music and in architecture [which becomes a bit of a hybrid when it combines the functional and the aesthetic]. As humans, we desire and need both the technical and the poetic or emotional/moral aspects. The technical to develop our external environment and the poetic/moral for our internal and inter-social development. One will help to preserve our physical well-being, the other our emotional and cultural well-being. Both are nested in our human condition, and thus have a common ancestry; but neither is 'descended' from the other. As an analogue, consider that humans and chimps have a common ancestry, but neither is descended from the other.
You are running circles around the word religion for some reason, there is a word which unites art, architecture, poetry AND social/moral structures of a society, that word is religion. If you want to go back to ancient people, you will notice that for most ancient people, all actions were anchored in religion and ritual, whether it be hunting or building a house or even cooking, all the things we today would consider technology and medicine were grounded in pattern and seen as a manifestation of a hierarchy of meaning. A progressive letting go of that hierarchy of the sacred has led to amazing leaps in the capacity to measure, predict and reproduce material phenomena which lead both to medicine and hygiene and a reduction of physical suffering, while also leading to weapons of mass destruction, the creation of hereto unseen techno/political systems of tyranny and psychologically suffering masses (1/3 of women on anti-depressants, massive amounts of boys on ADHD medicine, opioid epidemic, etc.). Such radical results of those opposites are precisely what happens when a true hierarchy is undermined, Babel and Babble as the result. But in the end, you cannot really destroy the hierarchy, it must exist in order for technical language to exist by the nature of Being itself. I think with people like Jordan Peterson and hopefully with what we are trying to do, we are seeing ways to bring those two into a symphonic relationship. (But symphony also necessitates hierarchy...)
So are you advocating a return to primitivism? It rather sounds like it. One can have (and benefit from) an orderly and fulfilling life without resort to magical thinking. Do you really attribute all the ills of modern life to the abandonment of religion? That sounds as unlikely as blaming the downfall of the Roman Empire on homosexuality.
@@saltburner2 You seem very early-on in this journey of life. Your language and premises seem that of an anthropology major? I would suggest you continue your studies far beyond that which one receives in university. Further your growth without confirmation bias, but with an introspective and well-reasoned approach. You do yourself disservice with glib, pointed comments meant to be "true" as such. If you don't think that the negative slide of moral behavior had something to do with the fall of Rome, you are kidding yourself. If you think that the species of man is both related to but not descended from ape, you are trying to have it both ways- all the while disregarding both science and religion. I think you can do better.
A fascinating video. The symbolic world has much in common with the mathematical world. Sophisticated symbolic analysis, just like pure mathematics, looks at a collection of things which appear to be related and then defines a higher-order abstract object, of which each element in the collection is an instance. Just as 1 and 4 are distinct instances of the higher-order object "number", love and truth are distinct instances of the higher-order object "God".
I see your explanation very much as a treatise on epistemology (rather than ontology) and making sense of the (rather unexplainable) neuroscience of the mind - it's the giant missing link that the atheist interlocutors you describe are quite arrogantly ignorant of. Thumbs up for hierarchies (or classes of events ;)!
I would just like to add that science is the birth child of philosophy and theology has often referred to being the queen of the sciences from philosophical thought. If we acknowledge philosophy as the king of sciences (which includes atheism as a form of philosophical thought and all understanding thereof of natural philosophy) then we must acknowledge all the realms of philosophy. The scientific methodology like I said before was born from natural philosophy and it is a mistake to only acknowledge one method of knowledge to all of the existences. Many prominent scientists have tried to separate science as the foundation of all knowledge. I'd like to point out a particular example in your video. She said " The value that science brought to humanity, on the other side, is irreplaceable. I will cease being an atheist and become spiritual or whatever when all these post hoc connections and symbols will make a difference in allowing me to understand the nature of the universe outside my insignificant, tinny life." She also goes on to say "These answers are more sublime and precious than anything I know." And also says "Then, how could anyone judge you for being an atheist when science, as imperfect as it is, brought you the knowledge about distant stars and galaxies, the small atoms and much more?" There is a lot going on here that is based on several misconceptions and contradictions. One being that the scientific methodology itself is restrictive in its methodology which cannot answer many philosophical questions. Philosophy asks the question "what is the most real thing" and it's a philosophical statement to say "what is the natural explanation for X" or "can there be a metaphysical answer for X"? The scientific method is nested in natural philosophy for natural explanations but it's not philosophical in asking "is this important, does it have value, meaning, purpose, etc." So my objection here is that she equates atheism (philosophy) with science (it technically is a science of understanding and thought) but it's not science. To do the scientific methodology it doesn't matter if someones philosophical views are atheism or religious in nature...it just does not matter. So the moment we start talking about atheism in any sense we are no longer talking about the scientific method but philosophy. I also found it curious that she finds great importance, value, meaning in the scientific views which bring us knowledge of these things but then considers her life to be insignificant. Therein lies a contradiction here in practice because if we are insignificant as being part of the cosmos itself then so is our knowledge and the cosmos itself. For example, if I were to run into a baby kitten abandoned crying hungry and sick. The last thing that comes to my mind is how insignificant that kitten is compared to the grand design and knowledge of the cosmos. At that moment, all I see is great cosmic significant for that kitten's life as if it matters that I care for it. Caring for that kitten is a body of knowledge as well and the feeling I get for doing that good is also a body of knowledge which is if not more valuable to me personally than the grand design of distant stars and galaxies which is seemingly distant and indifferent to me. Now I say all body of knowledge is important whether it is true or not. She might dismiss this and she is welcome to but bodies of knowing whether they are true or not enlighten us! It doesn't matter if the multiverse doesn't exist in my mind it is still a body of knowledge which expands what we know and how to understand things from different perspectives which can aid us to discover the ultimate truth. The last and final point I want to make besides this misunderstanding she has between philosophy, science, and theology. That somehow she married together science with atheism (which is philosophical) and my objection to her perception of what is valuable and what is not is this... it's just not true that the scientific method brought us knowledge of stars, galaxies, and atoms and so much more. Ancient philosophers have understood and gave us knowledge of our cosmos as well. Stars, Galaxies, Earths revolution around the sun was discovered by natural philosophers. Even the concept of the atom was understood before we could measure it with instruments. So it's not true that the scientific method brought us knowledging of these things...they existed in philosophy long before the scientific method was born. Technology is a separate branch of the body of sciences as well so maybe she finds technology to be the most important thing which isn't based in the methodology of science itself...that is a misconception again. Technological advancement is a body of knowledge that is based on numerous things. For example, consumers promote technological advancement, scientific, and other goods and services. Police use forensics to help solve crimes (which requires technological advancement for the harder cases). In short, Technology is the collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives. If our desire is to build A.I. it's not a matter of scientific methodology but our interest in making that a reality and building the goods we need to accomplish that objective!
To start, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know, therefore I cannot believe things are true without knowing. The video makes 100% sense for me since I don't really view science as the end-all-be-all of truth. It isn't really. Science a growing body of knowledge. *Knowledge.* Not experiences. There is a scene in the movie _Ex Machina_ that especially embodies this where Nathan explains to Caleb how some things just are. In his example, Nathan supposes that Caleb is into black chicks. He explains that Caleb is into black chicks because of his upbringing and such, not because Caleb evaluated all racial group mates based on a table. Also whether or not God exists is out of my knowledge. Think of Schroedinger's uncertainty principle. In the box, the cat could either be dead or alive, but we'll never know. A such, God could exist, or could not exist, or could both exist and not exist at the same time.
Wau!. What a rebuttal! People constantly combat each other back and forth. So boring and annoying. But this, how you handle criticism is so refreshing. The last sentence was like an orgasm. Its like people throw illusions at you and you dismantle those illusions down to the ground. They watch their illusions crumble right in front of them. And on the end its like getting a kiss. Just wow. :)
Science is good with details and satisfying our mental curiosities, while religion is good with the big overview picture and with helping and describing the human emotional experience.
Thank you for that. I love how your explanation shows that we are all oriented towards worship. What do you think about this? Every human behavior is an act of sacrifice to an ideal (god or the highest ideal God) in order to become that ideal. So a submission to science is a worship of the spirit of science whatever that means. What would the spirit of science and empiricism be? Like how is that expressed?
nothing in this universe is separate. there is a connection between everything, and as such between science and religion too. my problem with modern science is that it's missing two things: 1.) LOVE 2.) INTUITION the first one is easier to understand because nearly all of us have experience it once, but the second one is a bit trickier. we used to call it the "qualitas occulta", but now we call it intuition.
I have been following your work for a while now and THIS is such an incredible video! you touch so many important things! I pray for your conversion to the Catholic Church! I would love for you to get into the symbolism of the papacy, the immaculate conception, and so many other beautiful aspects of Truth! Much love to you and your family!
So your response to the argument of placing meaning lower in the hierarchy of importance for knowledge than objective truth is, that you can't use the same language to describe meaning and objective within the same hierarchy?
I think more good questions would be: Why try to understand the universe? Why is that understanding precious? Why is your tiny human experience worth less than that? What your answer gets across is that the fundamental structure of value and motivation is essentially religious. It is built upon a series of base assumptions about the world and the value of human beings that the commentator doesn't even know she is using. Are human experiences worthless than science? Then why is scientific understanding meaningful? Scientific understanding is human understanding. Enlightenment for who? For human beings. The human experience and the value of our experience in the universe and the understanding that this world is inherently good for us: all of these are products of Christian religious belief, revealing the basic structures of our consciousness and Being. "And ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free."
It's like religion is the globe around everything, and we don't see it because it's translucent, so we speak about everything in the globe but refuse to recognize the globe itself.
The majority of the universe is comprised of dark matter and dark energy. Dark energy is a force we cannot test, we cannot observe, we cannot interact with, we in fact have no way of verifying its existence, except we see its effect on the universe, and thus we theorize and attempt to verify its existence. I am a physical therapist, not an physicist, so I am the wrong kind of physio to claim any sort of authoritative knowledge on this subject. However, it seems to me science readily accepts the existence of soemthing that is by its definition, not scientific. It cannot be observed, measured, or tested. What bothers me is the way atheism tries to belittle religion and magnify the importance of scientific discovery. Religion is not the invisible man in the sky. The widespread use of the flying spaghetti monster demonstrates the fundemental misapprehensions many atheists have about "religion", and it unfortunately results in them throwing out the baby with the bath water. Truth is religion, historically, seems to have been man's attempt to know that which cannot be tested, observed, or measured, and a means of interpreting that which CAN be tested, observed, and measured.
To me it seems science is great at describing the universe. It fails miserably at explaining the universe. A higher order of thinking is necessary. I believe religion is that higher order of thinking. Everyone in western society is operating within a framework built by religious principles established in the past, but these patterns of thinking are not obvious to us, and easily dismissed by many as not being there, or assumed as though they ought to be there simply because we observe them (consider the debates on morality). Religious principles are trivialized by anthropomorphisizing and straw manning the concept of a God figure.
I'm not quite sure where I was going with this. I had an idea when I started writing, but this seems to have become the ramblings of poorly thought out ideas... My apologies.
@@kaufmanat1 I don't think it is ramblings....I think it is inspiration from God! I agree with you totally, though I don't fully understand 'anthropomorphisizing'? Will look it up later...anyway, I like what you write and want to say thank you, apologies not accepted, ah, ah, ah.
@@yhalee345 anthrompomorphisizing occurs when we attempt to view the figure of God as if he were a human, and then add features on to make him God like. Truth is, God, conceptually, is so vastly different from humans, to draw any comparison severely diminuates God's status conceptually and people then call him a "bearded man in the sky". This is not God. God is infinite, he is atemporal, He is metaphysical, we cannot wrap our heads truly around what that means or looks like. Comparing humans and God isn't comparing apples and oranges, it's comparing apples and angels, it's comparing glue sticks and demacracy, concepts so fundamentally different, the act of making the comparison distracts from fully understanding the concepts themselves.
I’ve been studying the revolutionary/colonial period of America and I read once that “Christianity was the atmosphere that was breathed during this time.”
You don’t need to be conscious of the fact that you’re breathing(thinking symbolically) to be breathing.
@@kaufmanat1 Quantum physics blew the scientific method out of the stratosphere, lol. Enjoyed reading your thoughts. :)
Materialism is one hell of a drug. Many people today value large numbers of data about the matter over things like love, compassion, justice, wisdom etc. so much that they claim love is just a chemical in the brain or justice is just a social construct.
Justice is a social construct lol the fuck? And a materialist wouldn't say that
@@_VISION.
1) Justice is experienced that is to say it is not fundamental substance
2) Since it is not fundamental substance it is social convention or construct
A materialist would absolutely say that
@@_VISION. yeah they would say that because they don't believe there's a actual source of truth, so they believe everything is just a survival mechanism
E.g. love exists so that humans can procreate to keep the population booming
I'd argue that pursuing love, compassion, justice, wisdom, etc without seeking data that challenges your faith can be destructive to all of those goals
If love IS in fact just a chemical in the brain, you need to understand the way it works so that the people who DO know can't use that higher knowledge to manipulate you
Religion furnished the framework in which science can flourish, they compliment each other not in conflict, it makes the universe inteligible and worth investigating
I noticed that she capitalized "universe". Everyone is religious. Some are just in a cult of scientism or transhumanism. Excellent video!
100% agreed. I've never heard a scientist who was able to effectively communicate his or her branch of knowledge without using symbols or metaphors. A "branch" of knowledge is itself a metaphor, and quite an illuminative one at that. Symbolism is super-efficient language for high and constellated abstractions.
I really loved the insight from Jordan Peterson that the artists come before the philosophers.
@@rohanabraham4169 yeah that has been such a useful insight for me as well. and now i cant see how it would be any other way. doesnt he have a knack for that sort of thing?
@Pouty MacPotatohead mathematics themselves are a superior epistemology than science from which moden science would simply not work, or at least be stripped of 99% of its functionality. They completely by pass the problem of interpretation, the problem of having imperfect senses to draw observations from, numbers are imaterial and absteact yet describe reality better than any language we have created. The perfect depiction of "cogito ergo sum" in my opinion. Sucks that Im abysmall at math lol.
Pouty MacPotatohead would you please restate that in a mathematical formula?
Here's what I think people may be missing including Jonathan. I have no issue with symbolic language, and I don't think anyone does really. The issue is, if the stories in the Bible are just symbolic of the way we perceive the world in these hierarchys, then why the hell would anyone be a Christian? This is what I'm struggling to wrap my head around. If the Bible was symbolically trying to infer that God/Christ is already with me, i would be all for it as this is what I got from the new testament. However, Christians tell me this is heresey.
'You are trying to throw mud up in the air, up into the heavens, in hope you can than worship it'
This sentence is now on my desktop. It brilliantly summarizes this video.
Spirituality "human life is precious, so we should protect it"
Science "invents protective clothes"
Both equally valuable.
Without religion, or Christianity science would be completely devoid of meaning and purpose? Why should we use science to develop protective clothing? That question requires Christ to answer.
Spirituality "human life is precious, so we should protect it"
Science "invents protective clothes"
Spirituality "investigates universe. discovers science."
In your own example it's spirituality ('human life is precious') that gives science ('invents clothes') its telos.
Science "enslaves us all over the equivalent of the common flu for a year, 2 months and counting"
God gave Adam & Eve clothes.
Hi Jonathan
Your commentator doesn’t understand that science has never provided us with a single truth: only a coherent explanation of the physical universe based on the current state of the data, and that that explanation is always provisional, because well-formed scientific theories must be falsifiable. Perhaps she should think of scientific theories as more accurate or less accurate, and reserve the word “true” for mathematical proofs etc.
I’m a physics graduate. I’ve never understood the urge to treat science as if it were analogous to religious belief. That misses the point of both science and religion.
Anyway, that was another great video. I think I’m getting closer to understanding what you’re talking about.
I think he is saying that we can never be absolutely sure that our “truths” are absolutely true. In the past, many things were thought to be “truths” which were later thought to be false. The things we hold today as “truths” could be so called “disproven” tomorrow. Discovering something new can make us throw away an old hypothesis and make a new one and this cycle could continue indefinitely until we know the absolute truth which humans will never know.
He is in physics; therefore, we can safely assume he is referring to quantum theory- the four fundamental forces/ interactions, as they are all not completely reducable. There does not yet come one discernible proof of such. Your field of study is quite different and much easier to quantify. We know what 2 hydrogen+ 1 oxygen is. I think that is what is meant in the comment.
Jamie Young You can never know what is falsifiable in principle, but because reality is praxis and not theory, it seems everything we can know should be. Science is pragmatic reason, and is subjected to the practical aspectuations which we commit to.
You are contradicting yourself in referring to theories of less/more accuracy because that is an indeterminate quantity in principle. Similar to saying something is in principle true or falsifiable; it’s an indeterminate, that is, non deterministic statement.
On the other hand, you delegated unquestionable truths to the purely analytic, that is to say, what Kant would refer to as Apriori, but this shows that you do adhere to a kind of metaphysical foundationalism. People don’t realize that on non pragmatic purely rational/empirical grounds, they’d have to be purely skeptical, so much so, that it is inherently circular, and that is the contradiction of universal rationalism. In principle everything is falsifiable, thus everything should be treated with skepticism. The implication of a lack of truth, epistemological nihilism is inescapable.
Metaphysical foundationalism, is existentially necessary and it’s existent is equally arbitrary as our own existence.
Jamie Young Also remember that mathematics is fundamentally tautological
"All scientists presuppose and therefore have faith in the rational intelligibility of the universe." - John Lennox
Sublime video! You do a great job at clarifying these matters.
Wow man, this is fascinating. I wish a priest in a church that I visit could say any of this during his preachment. I have never heard so deep and coherent explanation of the bonds of religion and science. What I like about you is that you go really deep not limiting yourself by the shallow explanations. I wish I could double or triple like this post.
I've watch a lot of Peterson's videos and take actions in my life to change my circumstances; it's been great.
I have recently started watching yours, from the oldest up. I feel like your explanation of religion is what I've needed for a very long time. This video has really helped. Thank you
You are really articulate in explaining what religious structures are all about, but I think a lot of atheists will see that as mumbo jumbo, they won't even know what you are talking about. Hopefully some of them will understand the points, even if they don't agree.
Yeah. I think Jordan Peterson said it best (I'm paraphrasing) that one cannot help but be religious in some way, otherwise they can't function. Science has no value structure, every bit of information is not more significant than any other bit. Just to select which information is worth knowing and what is important on you to act is a value structure, therefore you have some sort of hierarchy in your mind on what is most significant and what is less so. If anybody had a purely scientific mind without any sort of "belief" in anything, no sacred values, no "religion", there is no point or meaning in anything you do or not do. You can see that on how the woman who asked the questions instantly used religious language without even noticing that she is projecting her own sacred values.
Jonathan Pageau Thank you, man. I've been faced with a lot of these symbols and archetypes through JP and I must say it's not hard to understand. Your explanations are remarkably vivid. The hard thing is letting this kind of framework, for lack of a better term, to operate in the brain-simulation. Admittedly because of ego and personal resentment from childhood circumstances I couldn't comprehend. I can finally understand my friend who went really deep into hindu philosophy/religion, although, I don't believe in a literal god person.
Don't discount us atheists too quickly... :)
Jonathan Pageau That's just a cop-out
I agree, I know of two Christians who became such by reading The God Delusion, irony, I am thankful for Dawkins for that. I also know of several ex-atheists and they make the best intellectual Christians. You're right Jonathan
" one cannot help but be religious in some way, otherwise they can't function"
For that statement to be even close to truth, one would need to extend the definition of "religion" to mean almost anything. I can see Antony Flew's 'death by a thousand qualifications' waiting in the wings.
Oh man, you've just explained so simply what I've been feeling for years. I always thought that the schism between science and religion was so unnecessary but couldn't put my finger on why. Thank you so much for this explanation.
"You are already spiritual...you are trying to throw mud up into the air, up into the heavens, in the hope that you can then worship it."
Yes, when we refuse to worship Yahweh, we don't cease to worship -- we are constitutionally incapable of ceasing to worship because He made us to worship, designed and built us to worship -- so the only way for us to move on from worshiping Him, to continue to exist at all, is by replacing Him with something else. Thus all sin is idolatry and we are all idolaters, living in self-destructive contradiction and defiance of the way we were designed to function and operate, having repurposed the temple of our minds and bodies to worship a created thing (usually ourselves) instead of the Creator, the one true God.
Great content. I've had a thought for a long time, maybe you'd be interested in it. It's essentially this: symbolism is intentionally and necessarily paradoxical. Take this illustration: a geometry student is unable to understand three dimensional shapes because every text book example of a three dimensional shape is illustrated on two dimensional paper. However, the student is able to understand concepts like "circle" and "triangle." Now, in order for the geometry teacher to provoke the student toward understanding a concept like "cone," the teacher can not simply say "cone," because that is meaningless to the student. So the teacher must say something clever like "circular triangle" or "triangular circle." Confronted with this paradox the student can do one of three things: (1) she can dismiss the phrase "triangular circle" as an absurdity; (2) she can reinterpret the teacher to mean something that she can immediately understand, like "triangle and circle"; or (3) she can integrate the concepts of triangle and circle into an intelligible whole wherein "triangular" can be meaningfully descriptive of "circle" or "circular" can be meaningfully descriptive of "triangle."
It is like that with all symbolism. It must be paradoxical because it is attempting to use what is immediate and understandable to us to reveal a deeper, more wholesome dimension of reality. But in order to take option (3), the student must trust that her teacher is grasping something real and important that she has not yet been able to grasp. That process requires faith, charity, humility, self-challenge, and self-edification.
In Matthew 13, the disciples ask Jesus, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?" (In other words, why all this symbolism?)
Jesus replies,
“Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused...But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear."
This is why the chief virtue is humility. Whoever has it will be given more. Whoever does not have it, even what they have will be taken away. "Guard your heart above all else, for it is the wellspring of life." "He who has ears, let him hear."
or (4) show her a cone
Load up a cone with the most select herbs and spices and 3d won't be the only dimension she'll have trouble comprehending
OH. MY. GOD. I just discovered you. After seeing your video, let's just say I am REALLY grateful you simply exist. Wow. Here is to seeing more of your videos. Cheers.
Spectacular, Jonathan.
You are peeling back and exposing the layers that have always been there. It’s like we have been worshipping science even though it is really at the bottom of the heirarchy.
Thanks. Your videos helped bring me from lifelong atheism into the Orthodox church. Idk if I can call myself a Christian exactly yet by their standards, but I've been learning a ton. It's been a long process, still ongoing, of poking the bear at our Socratic club, the priest, and going at the parts of creed and scripture that turn(ed) me off of belief one at a time. Reading a buttload of Jung has also done a lot of the work for me lol. The knots just get undone with proper scrutiny, surprisingly, and an engineer's scrutiny at that. Even my issue with Genesis 1 vanished when I decided to give it a fair shot and dug into the Hebrew. I can definitely see where translation issues come into play lol.
For anyone wondering what the problem word was, it's "created" in "God created heaven and earth." The Hebrew word is "bara," which has no translation, but gets used in the contexts of filling, fattening, crafting from existing material, and importantly, "designating," as in God "bara" this land as Jerusalem, and God "bara" north, south, east, and west. It's very reminiscent of the Jungian worldview, where the psyche is the primary reality, which coming from someone inevitably living in a landscape modeled by the brain, is very sensible, and also fits that "sculpting" type of process of natural selection. I must say, Greek and Hebrew have the most fascinating words.
Just for shits and giggles, humoring the idea that I hit something that makes me want to leave the church somewhere down the line, I would have zero regrets with this journey. I could even imagine remaining there as the one dude who still goes to the church but doesn't quite fit. It's been so intellectually juicy and the people I've met are amazing. Already networked with a PhD Physicist who runs a weekly Socratic club, as well as multiple other engineers my age. Idk if all Orthodox churches have such smart people, or if I happened to strike a lucky goldmine. Either way, thank you for being one of the key people to bring me here. My quality of life has notably improved, along with my psychological well being.
I definitely have a much greater appreciation for the poetic language. Nowadays, I have a hard time discerning between atheism and merely a cruel sterilization of language with the way the Orthodox view things. So, finally, I have a question. Imagine, you wouldn't mock someone for being stupid because they dared to call someone a son of a bitch, like "HAHA, YOU THINK A DOG GAVE BIRTH TO THEM?" How do you even respond to that? Is that the type of feeling you when someone mocks you for believing in God? If yes, that's sort of the feeling I'm getting for the Orthodox Christian worldview.
Happy to hear your story, Vincent. Yes, Your son of a bitch comment resumes exactly not only how silly it feels when someone implies that I believe in a bearded man on a cloud, but also it is the arrogance in their stupidity which sometimes disarms us, because how do you answer such juvenile thinking?
Jonathan Pageau Apparently by explaining why Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are real. I had a real hoot with that video 😂 I was already going down that line of thought, wondering what y'all are willing to consider a body, and that about answered my question. Result: My grown ass believes Santa exists again 😂😂😂 I've come full circle.
Aristotle talks about how our inner world has to be identical, at least formally, with the outer world, for us to have any kind of real knowledge about the outer world. This means that the for science to work, the inner has to be identical with the outer. Talk about representations of reality in the mind leave open the possibility that we have no real knowledge of the world, which leads to the incessant problems that plague any attempt to justify human knowledge through modern philosophy.
But, if the inner and outer are fundamentally the same, that creates a very different view of what reality is like. The so-called objective world may still exist outside of our perception of it, but it cannot be merely a bunch of meaningless stuff. Its existence has to be closely akin to the mental, which means that it is inherently purposeful and meaningful.
That means that the symbolism we find in the outer world cannot be something we lay on top of the world, but something that is already there.
Of course the ultimate implication of this is that mind, not matter, is the fundamental basis of reality. And since this cannot be our own finite minds, this points up to an ultimate mind.
I'd focus more on the content of our thoughts than the mere fact of consciousness, which even animals have, but without any kind of reflective thought. Though consciousness is, of course, a necessary precursor to thought.
a Sublime and Precious video!
I am a disaffected atheist. A heretic of materialism. I love my atheistic friends, but I can’t help but notice how they speak in absolutes without acknowledging that they are doing so.
The belief that it is absolutely true that there are no absolutes, that you can know that nothing is really ultimately knowable, that it is meaningful to say that everything is meaningless, that all truth is just a construct except for the construct that all truth is a construct, that everything is a matter of perception except for the perception that everything is a matter of perception, and finally, that you shouldn’t believe anything that isn’t empirical despite the fact that this sentence in and of itself is not empirical. It is a way of privileging yourself I think subconsciously while denying everyone else. And it is ultimately every bit a statement of faith as any other religion.
Ontologically speaking, absolutes are unavoidable. This is because absolute is a defined term, it is by its very definition non-subjective. In this way it is unique or “holy.” Something cannot be mostly absolute, kind of absolute; so therefore absolute truth either exists or it doesn’t. And since you have to presuppose absolute truth to deny its existence- you essentially end up saying, “ it’s absolutely true that there are no absolutes.” And since this is fallacious logic, we know this can’t be true.
I used to say as an atheist, “Well so what? What does that matter? For in order to say what the absolute truth is, you would have to be standing from a absolute vantage point of knowledge, data, and discernability so even say what it is- and since no mere mortal has that luxury it might as well not exist for all intensive purposes. For even the act of attempting to measure everything with then create new data set points that would then have to be measured; so you would go on calculating for infinity and never reach your goal. It’s pointless.”
What I didn’t realize till later was how even making this remark, was how I was stating something about the nature of the absolute: That empiricism is bankrupt at ever arriving at it. This means that faith is not just utilitarian, but inevitable. Because we live in a world where we have to make value judgments, and even the choice to get out of bed in the morning is a value judgment.
It also means that there is truth that is quite literally beyond us and our ability to measure. And by extension, how there is truth beyond our perception, or even existence. This means that there is truth that is transcendental. This is not proof of God, but it is evidence of him. And as a lover of science, we should all be in the process and practice of examining all the evidence.
Very good. When I went from proud atheist to disaffected atheist it was for other reasons. Where are you now?
I was an atheist for a number of years. I know the point of view well, I was devout in my disbelief. I then realized what religion is as a whole. I think the fault is with the churches that have mangled religion into something it's not. I still very much believe in science, but it doesn't discredit religion.
At it's base religions are philosophies about how best to live your life to minimize suffering. If a religion was to be created today it might include things like mandating exercise and a healthy diet. If you look at sin objectively they're things that will inevitably lead to suffering. You see this in eastern religions too where the focus is on ending suffering by controlling desire.
Once you grasp this religion becomes a much more beautiful thing. It's an archaeological record of the teachings of wise men. It's still that even if you don't believe God is real. Of course once you delve into religion enough you realize God is in fact real and there are seemingly even other spiritual entities. I realize I might lose many people in that last sentence, but I don't want to mince words about it.
Religion is also a guidebook of your own soul, the universe, society, and your place in it all. While I surely consider myself a christian I would be lying if I said I don't find value in every major religion. I practice daoism on a daily basis and I also read my Bible every night.
I still have a negative view of church because I believe most preachers don't understand the religion. I don't allow that to separate me from religion though. Life without religion is dull and depressing because you're missing this giant aspect of the world. That's why I love this channel, it has such a great way of interpreting the texts in a meaningful way. It's important to note that there's more than one way to interpret religion though. That's the true wisdom of the texts, simply reach out and find what you need. I used to say "I've read the whole bible and it made me an atheist" but I never REALLY read the Bible.
To anyone who has abandoned religion give it another chance. Be humble and stop believing you have mastered the knowledge of the world. If you find yourself in suffering then I promise you there are things you don't know. You don't have to do Christianity if you have an aversion to it, but eventually you will find your way back to it. I personally study all the religions, their commonalities, histories, and differences. It's a far more interesting subject matter than you've allowed it to be.
Hi. Thanks for your comment! If I may ask, what tipped you over into fully believing in God? I'm Catholic myself and I'm trying to get to the bottom of what God IS. Naturally, if there's something everyone agrees on, it's that He's transcendent, so I can't get to the bottom of it. But is He the Creator of the physical universe? Is He a projection of the human psyche? Is He both, because the human psyche is a reflection of the universe?
@@sirkamyk9886 I'm not a knower of great secrets of the universe, I don't claim to know the nature of God. I know God exists though and as clichè as it sounds the reasoning isn't really something I can articulate. All I could really say is that God softened my heart. Even now when I endeavor to open someone up to God I am incredibly gentle as I'm under the belief that only God can soften the hearts of men to accept him.
When you get into the large questions like whether or not God created the physical world around us you're really just delving into esoteric mysticism. Is there more than one divine being? An original God and a legion of lesser entities one of which being the demiurge, the creator of the physical universe. I can't say really if I've been convinced one way or another. I do know the most high God is responsible for the deepest portion of yourself, the observer behind your thoughts and actions that is often overlooked.
In the end, getting too caught up with unanswerable questions is pointless and drives many to what is essentially madness. You could read a million books about it and just end up with more room to speculate.
I've read a lot of similar symbolic unpackings of reality ala Joseph Campbell or Carl Jung, but you say things I've never come across, imagery and explanations that clarify metaphysics while making the familiar feel new and wonderful. I'm greatly enjoying it and can't wait to see you at St. John Cantius later this month!
For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.
-Robert Jastrow
Anybody found bullying Jonathon, my self-proclaimed adopted son, is going to have to deal with Granny.
The explanation was sublime. You are amazing.
The pejorative connotations that come along with words like "subjective" and "relative" aren't inherent to their nature. I think when people scoff at subjectivity, what they're really assuming is incommunicability: we don't assume that perspective can be shared. Recently I attended a talk where someone was hell-bent on emphasizing the "objectivity" of beauty; I got a lot of sidelong glances from the conservative, religious crowd when I told him he's hitching his cart to the wrong horse: beauty isn't purely objective, and nor is truth for that matter-both are Being, one as being sensed and one as being known (just as goodness is being as pursued). The real thing people are missing is that subjectivity of beauty is exactly what makes it so powerful. Claims of objectivity neglect the nobility of what beauty, symbolism, and religion truly are, and they're signs of a person retreating from the real question: the thing exists, but how can we look at it together? However, we don't get to this question because we never assume subjectivity can be communicable, because we live in a world where communion rarely exists.
@@arfbark8101 there are truths only visible through the subject. You fell into the trap.
You might call the _perceived_ beauty of a thing subjective, but beauty as a category has a specific nature. As Jonathan has said, it is the coming together of things, in ordered love. Vervaeke would call it his more general relevance realization, his meaning. But in this frame that renders our "subjective" sense of beauty only so because of our inability to see the Whole Show, meaning that, ultimately, some of our subjective beauty is true/alligned and some false/misalligned. Beauty, properly conceived, is to see the Kingdom, which you can see in every thing if you see it right.
To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour
A Robin Red breast in a Cage
Puts all Heaven in a Rage
Jonathan you have gone so ridiculously next level genius on this video that it is awe-inspiring sir.
Anyone else's mind go straight to CS Lewis's The Abolition of Man when Jonathon mentioned the word "sublime"? Choice of wording couldn't have been more perfect.
I remember once I was hearing a dissertation by Stephen Hawkings, in which among other things, he spoke on being an atheist. I don't recall the entire argumentation, since this was many years ago, but what kept resonating in my mind through all these years was that he ended up his speech by saying "No one created the universe and no one directs our fate. This leads me to a profound realization that there probably is no heaven and no afterlife either. We have this one life to appreciate the grand design of the universe and for that, I am extremely grateful".
By that time, I found the word to be very spiritual and "non atheist-friendly"... because it is my understanding than gratitude is a warm and humbling feeling towards the one who gives you a gift or a blessing. If being alive is a random fact, then there's no point on being grateful. "To whom was SH feeling grateful then?", I asked myself.
When you said that the words "sublime" and "precious" were an interesting choice of words for an atheist when referring to scientific answers, I recall the SH anecdote. I can think of many atheists who are way more spiritual beings than some people who go to church... those "generations of smart people alienated from religion" due to an overwhelmingly poor job done by the clergy, as you very well say at the beginning of your argumentation.
There’s a major difference between being an atheist/agnostic and yet being spiritual and being a strict atheistic materialist who denies any spirituality and think they cease to exist at death.
I just found you this morning. I sent a link to you to my grandson, who I thought would enjoy you as well.
The throwing mud in the air analogy really struck me. It made my hair stand. One of those moments of things coming together
I love science, yet symbolism and religion will always be more efficient at describing the world around us.
Great analysis of the comment, very illustrative answer, it really brings understanding to where science and symbolism stand, and how they are ultimately related.
I love these videos! Thank you for doing what you're doing Jonathan.
Love this channel. Still an atheist but loving it man.
+Rob Vel Christians talking about what we believe =/= trying to make you not an Atheist. Being critical and mocking of the ideology known as Atheism =/= trying to make you not an Atheist. Maybe his purpose is to show maybe that religious thought isn't inferior to Atheistic thought. Something most Atheists push in some way or another. For example the very common false claim that we have to abandon logic and reason to believe in the concept of God or a concept of God.
Plus there are some Atheists like Richard Dawkins who pushes all Christians should believe in the false teachings of Young Earth Creationism and Biblical Literalism.
I am a 2nd year Psychology student and these videos are seriously distracting me from my school work. Yet, I am making time for them because something deep within the structure of my Being, my cognition, my heart, etc, is shifting and moving about. I am nauseated by listening to scientists. If my profession is to help heal the sick (or help improve those who wish to improve) then I must grasp these things.
I won't go into a retelling of my past, but I have always been a deeply spiritual person. But I spent years bashing Christianity and wandering the worlds religions/spiritual practise and philosophies. I realize now that I never actually understood the word Religion. I in turn (and I persist in this) failed to even grasp the most basic meanings of Christianity. Of course, the horrible irony is that I could never help but act and think like a Christian symbolically, whether or not my conscious will is willing to admit it.
I have read a lot of Jung. I was initiated by the fungi. And I am coming to find that Jung had much to say about the unconscious, the dark Chthonic face of God. But I am wondering if he didn't neglect an 'Upper' Unconscious. Or maybe it is that the bottom most point of the soul is also the highest most. The symbols work like this. But I am horrified to admit the possibility that the structure of our unconscious is actually Christianity. Yet I realize like St. Augustine that the kingdom is an available for any of us to walk into, at any moment, if we could just drop it and walk through. I can feel what must be "The Kingdom of God" as a reality of the heart. And one cannot apprehend the Glory, and Magic of existence without entering this Kingdom. Science will never report on it, for it is not in the physics or the atoms. It is in the heart. In the consciousness. And how could one not perceive the totality of Being truly, without weeping?
That is next level sublime. Thanks for clarifying this further.
The best philosophical treatment of this subject is “The Myth of Religious Neutrality” by Roy A Clouser
Supporting Empirical Evidence (From Peterson):
“It is the hippocampal system - which, as we have seen, is an integral part of the regulation of anxiety - that is critically involved in the transfer of information from observation of ongoing activity to permanent memory, and that provides the physiological basis (in concert with the higher cortical structures) for the development and elaboration of this mnestic representation. It is the right hemisphere, which is activated by the unknown, and which can generate patterns rapidly, that provides the initial imagery - the contents of fantasy - for the story. It is the left hemisphere that gives these patterns structure and communicability (as it does, for example, when it interprets a painting, a novel, a drama, a conversation - or a dream). The hippocampus notes mismatch; this disinhibits the amygdala (perhaps not directly). Such disinhibition “releases” anxiety and curiosity, driving exploration. The right hemisphere, under these conditions of motivation, derives patterns relevant to encapsulation of the emergent unknown, from the information at its disposal. Much of this information can be extracted from the social environment, and the behavioral interactions and strategies of representation - emergent properties of exploration and communication -that are ‘embedded’ in the social structure. Much of this ‘information’ is still implicit - that is, coded in behavioral pattern. It is still knowing how, before it has been abstracted and made explicit as knowing what. The left-hemisphere gets increasingly involved, as translation ‘up the hierarchy of abstraction’ occurs.” (Maps of Meaning, pg. 67)
Modern man takes so many things for granted, not realizing that all those things are possible and known because of religion. If you’re only goal is to understand the universe then what you’re undertaking is a labor of narcissism, not love. It’s a sweet little lie we sometimes tell ourselves. I agree with you though, Jonathon, we have to do a better job of explaining to intellectuals within the Church. Its why I became an atheist as well and it took apologetics to set me back on the right path and accept there was definitely more to Christ than I thought. I think having apologetics as a mandatory part of the preteen/teen Sunday school program is a very good idea. Trying to start one in my own town for that very reason.
Wow. Just saw this....Superb. - - -the logical flow of your argument, the artistry of language, the flawless unfolding to your piercing yet gracious conclusion. I lift up a joyful Amen!, Sir.
The hierarchy of value, symbolically expressed, is inherent in language. Language is the most basic explicit form of measurement. All measurements proceed from the fact of experience that we see relative speeds, sizes, etc and they have relative value for us as persons. "Taking out the subject" is a post-hoc correction necessary to sieve the kind of data valuable to science, but notice immediately there is an accompanying valuation placed on the presence or absence of human interference. You can't get away from it. "Objectivity" is a divine attribute.
Awesome and enthralling, Thank you!
A thrill of delight, irony and recognition went through me when watching this video just now. Jonathan focused on the word 'sublime' in the email from Amber. This is because only a few minutes earlier I had been watching the Q&A section of the gathering with Jonathan, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein somewhere in Vancouver, which I believe is much more recent than this video. Anyway, there, behind Jonathan on the stage at that event was a big covered vessel of cold water, and on it were the words 'Ice Water'. Seeing that got me thinking about solids, liquids and gasses, and how they change between ice (solid), water (liquid) and vapour (gas), and the gas aspect was being used in the power of speech by these three men and the chap posing the audience's questions to them. So funny, to my easily amused mind, that in a matter of minutes later none other but Jon Pageau was describing 'the sublime', and of course 'sublimation' is from that, and it is the 'scientific' term for the process of a solid becoming a gas and not stopping at the liquid state. Great, when there's an inner 'time slippage' like this. Wondrous and funny at the same time. THANKS for your wonderful work Jonathan!
Hey, I'm new to this channel and it's great! What a consistency and coherency you have in explaining your view! Thank you!
How does this video compare after your recent realization with Vervaeke and Peterson? How do you reconcile that point?
Atheists put the scientific method and reason at the top of the hierarchy of value. Description of the universe is the end goal. But when ignoring the subjective reality of human consciousness human experience becomes irrelevant. Since we are a speck on a speck in a brief moment in time, the individual experience contains no value. I think this is why collectivism and leftism is so heavily correlated with atheism. The macro of society is the thing that lives on, so if "reason" could just construct the perfect system, then society would be perfect. This brings to mind Jordan's description of the tower of babel and communism. When reason is at the top of the hierarchy, why can't reason lead to the utopia?
Sort yourselves out.
"Atheists put the scientific method and reason at the top of the hierarchy of value." NOPE. Modern Science is just another religion. It doesn't even follow the scientific method. Its just bullshit. All the real science was settled in the 1800s. Since then they just make up religious bullshit like cosmology and quantum physics.
You ask "Why can't reason lead to the utopia?"
Hume answered this question over two centuries ago:
"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them."
Furthermore, the quest for a utopia invariably leads to a dystopia.
I agree with Jordan Peterson 100% on that, at least!
oconnorseanj : because reason it is not a matter. You need to sort it out of as it is written for example, for with men of other thongues and other lips I will speak to this people, and yet for all that, they will not understand " hear me", when I will open my mouth in parables, I will utter things keep secret from the foundation of the world...
But why do you reason in your hearts? Because you forgot about Bread ?😂
the electronic device you typed that on wouldn't even have the possibility to exist or function without quantum physics to design the microprocessors.
oconnorseanj : because reason by definition leads to haos.
I love this! Thanks for heightening my understanding! I'd love to hear an explanation of the story of Rahab. There is good surface value but I believe there may be deeper meaning / patterns I'm missing?
Damn you explained this in a way I never could
Beautiful and so especially relevant to all that seems to be coming to a head right now in 2020. Thank you.
Thank you for an honest and sincere reaching across the aisle.
thank you @Jonatan as always do❤
Great points! Also, the idea that so-called materialists are actually materialists is also ridiculous. They believe in things like mathematics, energy, gravity, space-time, waves vibrating in vacuums, particles popping in and out of existence from nothing. The idea of matter itself is a construct of mind; how can one ever stand outside of consciousness? The thing that makes something “physical” is the assignment of a physical property to it, but where does that property come from? It comes from mind; what in the world is physical about math or universal wave functions? It’s magic that has been labeled physical because of its explanatory power conceptually; not because of any material evidence!
Imagine having Jonathan as your high school teacher...
Would have actually learnt how to think!
def get a high school teacher vibe from him!
So is there symbolism behind you being in a low light room while discussing science and atheism?
The concluding minutes were 'sublime' 😅🔥
I really want to develop a better understanding of the natures/meanings/functions of ancient religious symbolism. I know one mistake I used to make is to try and know THE meaning of a symbols, when a good ancient symbols is good partly for its capacity for manifold levels of meanings.
What beginner and advanced resources would you recommend that explain/explore the nature of ancient symbolism?
That’s very interesting, and listening to this it occurs to me that all of the scientists and atheists who have inspired me use transcendent (and often hierarchical) language. Nietzsche certainly wrote a lot about the mountain tops. Perhaps religion simply gives this tendency a more developed language.
Revisiting. I wonder if Amber Trance came to understand that the Symbolism does in fact allow one to make sense of the universe.
I am no literalist but now I want to know what you think happened to Christ and His body after he ascended into heaven? did Christs body decompose? Did he remain here? Did his soul separate from his body again? did His soul ever reunite with his body again or in the first place after the crucifixion? These are things that need to be answered without pure relegation to allegory or metaphor.
Great work Jon
It was roughly this line of reasoning that helped me escape from atheism at the time. The atheist "solution" to purposelessness is to create your own purpose. But that's like saying the "anti-materialist" solution to the cold is to build a house out of thin air. Purpose doesn't come from matter. Purpose comes from design, and design comes consciousness, and all of this ultimately comes from the God who is the fundamental origin of all things.
That was a fantastic explanation.
Excellent video Jon. Religion parallels the micro of human experience to the macro of universal nature, Science specifies the macro of universal nature to categorize the micro of human observation. Neither are inferior or less/more advanced as they both articulate the structure of cycles; both are just narrow-minded as a symptom of their own conscious existence. Science sees the personal as insignicant, blinded by the values of infinity. Religion sees the external as black and white, blinded by the realities of everyday adversity.
Emergence. That's a term sometimes used by scientists to refer to the phenomenon that mud in certain configurations is capable of being more than mud. The "higher" properties somehow "emerge" from the arrangement of parts. There's no need for heaven in cosmology because you get heaven-like properties by rubbing earth and earth together, somehow.
In this regard, I do think religious cosmology has merit as a scientific theory because it is more complete. A theory that can't account for a big and vital part of the phenomena that need explanation is, let's say, a work in progress.
Awesome video!
I love how gently you use symbolism to explain what typically becomes a rancorous polemic. You gently orient the atheist to their own symbolic world that they use to critique science and religion. At this point in my old age this approach opens me to a larger perspective. I have long believed that moving toward meaning is basic to humans; however, I believed that it originated in appreciation of specifics and moved outward. I now see that it is the context that presses us to examine the specifics in the first place (e.g., scientific enquiry). Some things that have long mystified me are becoming clearer. Like Gobekli Tepe, symbolism/meaning motivates humans to aggregate and build before advances in agriculture and technology.
Excellent explanation. Very nicely done in a story form as well 👍👉✝✝✝
It's almost like we're back to the debate between the platonic ideal (religious/symbolism) and the aristotlean sub structure or building blocks (science/materialism)...
I am not sure if you have checked this out brother Pageau: the Semiotic philosophy of Charles Sanders Peirce. It is complex, but will show the underlying logic and reasoning shared between the religious, scientific, mathematical (Peirce actually claimed it was the basis of our knowledge of all things). That sort of semiotic analysis also helps do away with the wooliness of a lot of symbolic interpretation.
I would recommend Christopher Hookway's chapter on it in his book called "Peirce" from the Arguments of the Philosophers Series (ed. Ted Honderich).
Peirce's analysis of semiotic makes language, logic, scientific discovery, metaphor, symbolism, art, poetry, so on and so forth, all part of the same analysis of meaning of signs. This seems directly relevant to your brother's attempt to collapse the metaphor/literalist biblical distinction.
Throwing up mud and hoping it sticks long enough to worship.
The unconscious physical and spiritual can only come together in Christ; that in which we were made in the image of, created in the space created within the Mother, our consciousness.
Thanks Jonathan for all you do.
-Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.
This channel is amazing!
You have a strong center that does not require orbiting material (JBP) to give it credence. These are answers I have been looking for. Great stuff. I have been exploring Lakoff's metaphors as such and I have been trying to corral them into something. I don't know what that something is but your description of the mountain and it's experience was a light bulb going off for these low level metaphorical experiences. An example Lakoff gives is how trouble is a container. Great stuff.
I think most of the people who come to my channel are doing so because of JBP, though indeed I was thinking these things long before Jordan and I met. But to be honest, it is Jordan's "fault" that I am making these videos, without the strange story he has brought me on, I would never have thought I could attract the attention of atheists and skeptics the way it has been playing out. And also I appreciate what he is doing for western culture so I want to acknowledge that. But as we move forward, you will see me coming into my own more and more. Jordan and I disagree on many rather basic things.
I love Jordan. I was trying to compliment you in that I have known about your for a long time because of the videos you have done with Dr. Peterson. He gives you respect thats for sure. After watching a couple of your video's I see immense value that is a different value than what I get from Jordan. I look forward to more! Thanks for the high quality videos and the great content. Blowing my mind this morning.
Hey Jonathan,
This is a fantastic video, and I can't wait to get a copy of your new book as well.
The only thing I think I might disagree with you on, and I'm unsure if this opinion is shared by you or not based on this video, is that I believe Heaven and Hell are indeed real places that are placed outside our reach. When Christ died and ascended to heaven, I believe that's where he went - not to the sun or to the moon - but the place where He came from, outside of our reach and understanding. Science has never described such a place, but this is why faith is central to belief systems - the ability to believe in that which is not discoverable or seen physically. Science is nested in religion in the way that it expands on religion, explaining and showing the beauty of the world around us that we *can* know, but I feel that pushing aside the reality of the divine and impossible (to us as humans) is to throw faith away from religion and then only subscribe to those items "inside" religion through science, thus turning the equation inside-out, invalidating the nest being as it was, stated initially, "science in religion." What do you think of this though? I'm very curious, and again thank you for such a fantastic video.
“Your ability to have empathy with the Geometer-to imagine what it would be like to be someone else-isn’t a mere courtesy. It is an innate process of consciousness.”
― Neal Stephenson, Anathem
Good Sir! Will you ever be doing a video or essay about the enneagram? Also connected to this is the symbol for vortex mathmatics. Gurdjieff and Randy Powell (Thru Marco Rodin). If you are unfamiliar the most basic description is a circle divided into nine equal parts 9 at the apex with the 3, 6 and 9 forming an equalateral triangle. Lines can be drawn between other numbers differently each with their own but in many ways overlapping significance.
Thank you again for all of your work.
Peace and God Bless
As you weaved the symbology of the mountain, I thought of the Mandela. Carl Jung talks about the circumambulation of the self using mandala's. I had a great image of a 3D mandala that looked like a mountain. Thanks for the imagery.
I enjoyed the video. It makes sense that Atheism and science don't contain a value system, but I would make the argument they don't claim to. Science is just a tool. I think your making a leap by saying it is nested in religion. If you are arguing that religion is all subjective experience then the argument would make more sense to me but religion itself seems to be nested in subjective experience. Educate me, am I missing something here?
From what i can see the religious world view is an account of how humans experience consciousness, there are structures and properties that are universal to human consciousness that are there all the time, so it not subjective as there are the same patterns in all human consciousness.
One example being when you see a glass of water, what that glass means to human consciousness is 'reach out hand in glass shaped grasping action and make movements necessary to drink restorative wet thing', it takes a lot of effort to then think in the scientific method to determine the exact composition of the glass, the chemical composition of the water etc, you could do this, it requires a lot of rigor to maintain and you can't do it for very long before you revert back to the pre scientific world view that it is a thing you reach out for to imbibe a restorative cold liquid.
The phenomenological view of the glass of water exists 'around' the scientific world view, with the scientific world view requiring a huge amount of effort to temporarily get rid of the meaning humans give to things until it gives way to the phenomenological reality again.
I am a Christian, but I am also firmly rooted in the scientific paradigm when it comes to the physical. I think this argument conflates science with the wider discipline of philosophy. Science is a product of philosophy and not all philosophy is religious. There is plenty of philosophy that can firmly be counted as secular, i.e. non-religious. The video is driving at some interesting and likely true phenomenon of cognition focusing on assigned meaning, value structures. The commentator even admits as much, but in doing so argues against himself. The application of some formal logic, diagraming the argument with clear hypotheses would help here. I suspect there may be several category errors here too. Still, this has promise with some untangling.
Throw mud up into the heavens to worship it? That is so spot on. This cats pov has opened up a whole new world of understanding to me. He is a blessing from God. His brother is pretty kewl as well. Jesus is Lord!!!!
Steven Meyer has written several books addressing the subject of science & religion.
Darwin's Doubt, Signature in the Cell & Return of the God Hypothesis.
There are also a few excellent interviews & lectures here on you tube.
good job with logic + feeling
I can see where you are coming from, but I think there is a fundamental mistake in your first premiss. I would say that science and religion are both nested in our human need to understand the world, and by 'the world' I mean both the 'external world', and our own human feelings and desires. One can trace this desire for understanding back to the Pre-Socratics, through Plato and Aristotle on the Western side, and through the the eastern traditions of Egypt, Assyria, India and China.
I would suggest this desire takes two basic forms, which one might call the technical and the poetic. The technical involves the hunting of animals and the gathering and cultivation of crops, the making of clothes and shelter etc. All are necessary for physical survival. Then there is the reflective or poetic form, found in the Psalms, and the great poets down the ages, in art and music and in architecture [which becomes a bit of a hybrid when it combines the functional and the aesthetic].
As humans, we desire and need both the technical and the poetic or emotional/moral aspects. The technical to develop our external environment and the poetic/moral for our internal and inter-social development. One will help to preserve our physical well-being, the other our emotional and cultural well-being. Both are nested in our human condition, and thus have a common ancestry; but neither is 'descended' from the other. As an analogue, consider that humans and chimps have a common ancestry, but neither is descended from the other.
You are running circles around the word religion for some reason, there is a word which unites art, architecture, poetry AND social/moral structures of a society, that word is religion. If you want to go back to ancient people, you will notice that for most ancient people, all actions were anchored in religion and ritual, whether it be hunting or building a house or even cooking, all the things we today would consider technology and medicine were grounded in pattern and seen as a manifestation of a hierarchy of meaning. A progressive letting go of that hierarchy of the sacred has led to amazing leaps in the capacity to measure, predict and reproduce material phenomena which lead both to medicine and hygiene and a reduction of physical suffering, while also leading to weapons of mass destruction, the creation of hereto unseen techno/political systems of tyranny and psychologically suffering masses (1/3 of women on anti-depressants, massive amounts of boys on ADHD medicine, opioid epidemic, etc.). Such radical results of those opposites are precisely what happens when a true hierarchy is undermined, Babel and Babble as the result. But in the end, you cannot really destroy the hierarchy, it must exist in order for technical language to exist by the nature of Being itself. I think with people like Jordan Peterson and hopefully with what we are trying to do, we are seeing ways to bring those two into a symphonic relationship. (But symphony also necessitates hierarchy...)
So are you advocating a return to primitivism? It rather sounds like it.
One can have (and benefit from) an orderly and fulfilling life without resort to magical thinking. Do you really attribute all the ills of modern life to the abandonment of religion? That sounds as unlikely as blaming the downfall of the Roman Empire on homosexuality.
@@saltburner2 You seem very early-on in this journey of life. Your language and premises seem that of an anthropology major? I would suggest you continue your studies far beyond that which one receives in university. Further your growth without confirmation bias, but with an introspective and well-reasoned approach. You do yourself disservice with glib, pointed comments meant to be "true" as such. If you don't think that the negative slide of moral behavior had something to do with the fall of Rome, you are kidding yourself. If you think that the species of man is both related to but not descended from ape, you are trying to have it both ways- all the while disregarding both science and religion. I think you can do better.
"Using words to talk of words is like using a pencil to draw a picture of itself, on itself. Impossible. Confusing. Frustrating." -Elodin
A fascinating video. The symbolic world has much in common with the mathematical world. Sophisticated symbolic analysis, just like pure mathematics, looks at a collection of things which appear to be related and then defines a higher-order abstract object, of which each element in the collection is an instance. Just as 1 and 4 are distinct instances of the higher-order object "number", love and truth are distinct instances of the higher-order object "God".
Sublime, precious, above, enlighten.
Jonathan you are amazing man!
I sense you are onto something really important here. Where can I read more about it?
I see your explanation very much as a treatise on epistemology (rather than ontology) and making sense of the (rather unexplainable) neuroscience of the mind - it's the giant missing link that the atheist interlocutors you describe are quite arrogantly ignorant of. Thumbs up for hierarchies (or classes of events ;)!
Subsidiarity Man : some things cannot be explained when translate " vuzdux pod nalqgane " naprimer has a tremendous value of position v/s location.
I would just like to add that science is the birth child of philosophy and theology has often referred to being the queen of the sciences from philosophical thought. If we acknowledge philosophy as the king of sciences (which includes atheism as a form of philosophical thought and all understanding thereof of natural philosophy) then we must acknowledge all the realms of philosophy. The scientific methodology like I said before was born from natural philosophy and it is a mistake to only acknowledge one method of knowledge to all of the existences. Many prominent scientists have tried to separate science as the foundation of all knowledge.
I'd like to point out a particular example in your video. She said " The value that science brought to humanity, on the other side, is irreplaceable. I will cease being an atheist and become spiritual or whatever when all these post hoc connections and symbols will make a difference in allowing me to understand the nature of the universe outside my insignificant, tinny life."
She also goes on to say "These answers are more sublime and precious than anything I know." And also says "Then, how could anyone judge you for being an atheist when science, as imperfect as it is, brought you the knowledge about distant stars and galaxies, the small atoms and much more?"
There is a lot going on here that is based on several misconceptions and contradictions. One being that the scientific methodology itself is restrictive in its methodology which cannot answer many philosophical questions. Philosophy asks the question "what is the most real thing" and it's a philosophical statement to say "what is the natural explanation for X" or "can there be a metaphysical answer for X"? The scientific method is nested in natural philosophy for natural explanations but it's not philosophical in asking "is this important, does it have value, meaning, purpose, etc."
So my objection here is that she equates atheism (philosophy) with science (it technically is a science of understanding and thought) but it's not science. To do the scientific methodology it doesn't matter if someones philosophical views are atheism or religious in nature...it just does not matter. So the moment we start talking about atheism in any sense we are no longer talking about the scientific method but philosophy. I also found it curious that she finds great importance, value, meaning in the scientific views which bring us knowledge of these things but then considers her life to be insignificant. Therein lies a contradiction here in practice because if we are insignificant as being part of the cosmos itself then so is our knowledge and the cosmos itself. For example, if I were to run into a baby kitten abandoned crying hungry and sick. The last thing that comes to my mind is how insignificant that kitten is compared to the grand design and knowledge of the cosmos. At that moment, all I see is great cosmic significant for that kitten's life as if it matters that I care for it. Caring for that kitten is a body of knowledge as well and the feeling I get for doing that good is also a body of knowledge which is if not more valuable to me personally than the grand design of distant stars and galaxies which is seemingly distant and indifferent to me. Now I say all body of knowledge is important whether it is true or not. She might dismiss this and she is welcome to but bodies of knowing whether they are true or not enlighten us! It doesn't matter if the multiverse doesn't exist in my mind it is still a body of knowledge which expands what we know and how to understand things from different perspectives which can aid us to discover the ultimate truth.
The last and final point I want to make besides this misunderstanding she has between philosophy, science, and theology. That somehow she married together science with atheism (which is philosophical) and my objection to her perception of what is valuable and what is not is this... it's just not true that the scientific method brought us knowledge of stars, galaxies, and atoms and so much more. Ancient philosophers have understood and gave us knowledge of our cosmos as well. Stars, Galaxies, Earths revolution around the sun was discovered by natural philosophers. Even the concept of the atom was understood before we could measure it with instruments. So it's not true that the scientific method brought us knowledging of these things...they existed in philosophy long before the scientific method was born. Technology is a separate branch of the body of sciences as well so maybe she finds technology to be the most important thing which isn't based in the methodology of science itself...that is a misconception again. Technological advancement is a body of knowledge that is based on numerous things. For example, consumers promote technological advancement, scientific, and other goods and services. Police use forensics to help solve crimes (which requires technological advancement for the harder cases). In short, Technology is the collection of techniques, methods or processes used in the production of goods or services or in the accomplishment of objectives. If our desire is to build A.I. it's not a matter of scientific methodology but our interest in making that a reality and building the goods we need to accomplish that objective!
To start, I am an agnostic atheist. I do not know, therefore I cannot believe things are true without knowing.
The video makes 100% sense for me since I don't really view science as the end-all-be-all of truth. It isn't really. Science a growing body of knowledge. *Knowledge.* Not experiences.
There is a scene in the movie _Ex Machina_ that especially embodies this where Nathan explains to Caleb how some things just are. In his example, Nathan supposes that Caleb is into black chicks. He explains that Caleb is into black chicks because of his upbringing and such, not because Caleb evaluated all racial group mates based on a table.
Also whether or not God exists is out of my knowledge. Think of Schroedinger's uncertainty principle. In the box, the cat could either be dead or alive, but we'll never know. A such, God could exist, or could not exist, or could both exist and not exist at the same time.
Wau!. What a rebuttal!
People constantly combat each other back and forth. So boring and annoying.
But this, how you handle criticism is so refreshing. The last sentence was like an orgasm. Its like people throw illusions at you and you dismantle those illusions down to the ground. They watch their illusions crumble right in front of them. And on the end its like getting a kiss. Just wow. :)
Science is good with details and satisfying our mental curiosities, while religion is good with the big overview picture and with helping and describing the human emotional experience.
Thank you for that. I love how your explanation shows that we are all oriented towards worship. What do you think about this? Every human behavior is an act of sacrifice to an ideal (god or the highest ideal God) in order to become that ideal. So a submission to science is a worship of the spirit of science whatever that means. What would the spirit of science and empiricism be? Like how is that expressed?
nothing in this universe is separate. there is a connection between everything, and as such between science and religion too.
my problem with modern science is that it's missing two things:
1.) LOVE
2.) INTUITION
the first one is easier to understand because nearly all of us have experience it once, but the second one is a bit trickier. we used to call it the "qualitas occulta", but now we call it intuition.
Hits different post-COVID.
I have been following your work for a while now and THIS is such an incredible video! you touch so many important things! I pray for your conversion to the Catholic Church! I would love for you to get into the symbolism of the papacy, the immaculate conception, and so many other beautiful aspects of Truth!
Much love to you and your family!
So your response to the argument of placing meaning lower in the hierarchy of importance for knowledge than objective truth is, that you can't use the same language to describe meaning and objective within the same hierarchy?
Great Stuff Doug
I think more good questions would be: Why try to understand the universe? Why is that understanding precious? Why is your tiny human experience worth less than that? What your answer gets across is that the fundamental structure of value and motivation is essentially religious. It is built upon a series of base assumptions about the world and the value of human beings that the commentator doesn't even know she is using. Are human experiences worthless than science? Then why is scientific understanding meaningful? Scientific understanding is human understanding. Enlightenment for who? For human beings. The human experience and the value of our experience in the universe and the understanding that this world is inherently good for us: all of these are products of Christian religious belief, revealing the basic structures of our consciousness and Being. "And ye shall know the Truth and the Truth shall set you free."