Alex is on his way to embodying the best attributes UK's intellectual tradition was famous for. ❤ Godspeed Pastor Paul, your voice & your input in the comment sections of the wider UA-cam is very much welcome & very much enriching 🏆❤
Pageau is such an intriguing and interesting guest. I've been thinking recently that my atheism is really a reaction against reductionism. When you find religious people with a more sophisticated take, who are also wary of the "man in the sky" conception of god, it does make me think there are forms of religious thinking I can respect. It just seems that many modern religious types have an extremely unsophisticated interpretation of religion, and that often provokes an equally unsophisticated reaction from us atheists. A necessary reaction, in my view, when religion begins making scientific claims, but maybe we would do better to not only reduce ourselves to the same literalist interpretations as the people we oppose precisely for that same reductionism.
Yes, And also i think atheism itself is not a sufficient answer to the death of God. Atheism only provides criticism but no real alternatives. The only thing an atheist can rationally want is progress and "understanding the universe". But atheists can't give us the ultimate why... Religion basically states that God IS the ultimate why of the universe. God is the source and the way and the purpose of things. So by loosely defining it, it actually makes it more practicable for an actual human being. An atheist can't tell you the purpose of life whitout writing 50 philosophy books about it. Or an atheist can say: Who cares what the purpose is, just live in the here and now man.
@JoshWiniberg - Thank you for your fair and honest comment. As a Theist/Christian, it has been very frustrating reading and watching comments and videos from Atheists who insist on caricatures of God ( man in the sky, flying spaghetti monster ) that come off as mere mockery. As much as I appreciated ( and miss ) Hitchens for strong, valid challenges, he also was lazy in going for cheap slam dunk insults instead of arguing in good faith. You sound like one who is for arguing in good faith, on both sides. I, too, have been frustrated by simplistic reasoning from fellow Christians, and it actually would bring tension upon myself when around Believers for asking uncomfortable questions. Then later in life it became unbearable to keep my questions to myself, so watching debate after debate has been helpful in my journey. Yes, there are much deeper Christian thinkers out there. I would say that Atheists reacting to unsophisticated thinking by Christians shouldn't bring a "necessary" reaction in kind from Atheists. Why not rise above it and do due diligence to investigate for oneself if such reactions from Atheists are warranted to the core and history of Christianity? Argue in good faith. I've consistently corrected fellow Christians when they reacted similarly to unsophisticated comments by Atheists with fleshing out stronger sophisticated reasoning on behalf of Atheists. Both sides, if you will, can do better. Partly why I watch Alex, for the respect he displays as well as striving for intellectual honesty in himself as well as his opponent.
I'm not super interested in hearing JPs fanfiction about how the world works. For example, to the unindoctrinated like myself it comes off as double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressures ruining architecture. Because in the same breath he blames "leftists", who broadly define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure. If he actually spoke with a leftist it's likely many would support state sponsored beautiful public buildings like the cathedrals he speaks of... I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions if you're willing to follow his twisted logics. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father. To a layman he's just special pleading. It would come off as more honest if he simply said "we don't think the second commandant still applies" or "we interpret it as meaning simply no idols".
Is it just me, or did this conversation feel short? I was fascinated by the conversation, it was great, and could have listened to the two of you go at it for a few more hours. I think it's because you both came into this conversation with the intent to understand each other while still being genuine to yourselves. I've always been interested in imagery and symbols as a juxtaposition of aesthetics and meaning. I was particularly intrigued by the explanation of how one can justify judeo-christian iconography in light of the biblical commandment to not make such images. Thank you for this interview!
Ryte?! I feel the same, ahnd it was rahd to see them flesh out the nuances of their different perspectives, ahnd even come to a consensus for the most part 👌🤘
@@boomguitarjaredmy guess would be they agreed to a shorter discussion given J’s prior concerns. I thought it went rather well though, and would welcome a follow up.
I wrote this as a standalone comment, but it makes sense to answer your question. To quote the scripture he’s talking about, Exodus 20, first let me say you can see the objection is not to follow, serve, obey, or bow down and worship the object or the evil that some objects of the time represented. Also other gods are listed as demonic principalities that are associated with a few things, but start the rabbit trail with the seven deadly sins. Two of these sins that lead to hell being self pleasure and love of success often sought with the sacrifice of your own infant offering. Use google image to see Moloch sacrifice to better understand the carved bull/cow bowing down and other “god” worship, although some still sacrifice kids in hopes of greater success and The commandment still say this will be wrong. “And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods besides me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Wow Alex. Great job letting this episode happen. You had some questions cued up and placed them in the exact right spot. I’d bet $100 that you had dozens of questions but you had the wisdom to let them go and let the conversation take its own life. Well done!
@@unduloid it most certainly is a dialogue about religion :) both implicity but also explicitly. I mean they directly referenced beautiful buildings and religion
That was such a rich conversation. Alex, I sorely misjudged you- you really are a seeker. You brought out the best in Jonathan. Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful conversation with us.
Great conversation. Alex, I am impressed by your willingness to listen to people who think differently to you. I think this conversation is a good example of how, often, someone who we think we will strongly disagree with is actually just thinking about things in a different way than ourselves, and it turns out that not only do we agree on many things but that we actually gain a lot from adopting their different perspective. I wonder have you heard of Daniel Schmachtenberger? If not, you should look him up. He's someone who I really think you should talk to.
I just heard Jonathan mention this on Paul Vanderklay’s podcast; thank you for having this conversation with Jonathan. Alex, you should definitely talk to Paul if you are able.
Haha I met Alex in a spoons once in London and we chatted for about an hour almost exclusively on art and our favourite paintings. Think this is what he’s actually passionate about so glad to see him having talks on the topic. Found it interesting that his favourite painting is the prodigal son👀
Lest we forget, and to answer Alex's question about "atheistic structures," the well attended and sacred space beneath the "Golden Arches." Ronald McDonald be praised and amen!
Alex, please please please try and get Fr. Stephen DeYoung on your show, he's a friend of Pageau and has perspectives on religion (especially the Old Testament,) that I'm sure will be completely new to you. He has a podcast called 'Lord of Spirits' that you should check out.
I want to see 1-2 more convos with Pageau, before Alex can readily digest Fr. Stephen DeYoung. It seems Jonathan Pageau is better at translating religious-sounding vocabulary into modern vocabulary. I might be undervaluing the extend of Alex's openness for uncharted waters though. If so, my bad. ❤
Wonderful job interviewing as always. I had no idea who Pageau was before this but found him to be very interesting and great at expressing his ideas. Thank you for this introduction Alex.
I haven't finished the interview, but if Pageau doesn't explain why he believes in demons and exorcisms before it's done, then I don't really think it was a great introduction to Pageau. I remember also hearing him describe Alex Jones as a shaman. (That was before the QAnon shaman became famous.)
@coreander286 I was focusing more on the opinions expressed regarding primarily art and architecture (since that was the primary conversation), as such I don't expect someone to explain their fundamentals in this type of conversation. The things I think he could have explained more which would be more relevant would be specific Marxist ideology (like maybe a quote or specific line of reasoning) which lead to it causing people to be treated as robots. Even though I agree with him on that, I I don't actually understand why it happens.
Consider something psychologically overwhelming, like an obsession with an idea or emotion. Someone who is captured by rage, responds to everything with anger. Or someone who is obsessed with how others see them to the point of madness. These obsessions are not unique, they recur at different times and with different people, because they are part of our psychology. The most infamous is the obsession with blaming others: anti-semitism, witch trials, etc. I think that’s something like a “demon.” Someone can be so captured by an idea or emotion that it takes over their rational faculties such that they respond as if that idea or emotion had “possessed” them. It’s a hypothesis.
@@coreyander286 Pageau is effective in these sorts of discussions because he doesn't jump into the deep end with people who aren't there yet (something I fail at all the time). I think if future discussions happen they can go deeper, but it's hard to start talking about demons and principalities with someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural to begin with.
Alex is rocking out of the park. Picking great choices to talk to. And they all seem quite content and entertained in the conversations, with 2 or 3 exceptions. You're being an awesome voice of discussion, Alex. Great job.
@@MrSplonger stopping to think about it, I didn't remember one that had a guest arguably discontent. What I can recall coming close someway was the discussion with Shapiro, which although Ben seemed outwardly enthusiastic, it was clear in his contrived demeanor how shattering to his intellect Alex's part on it was. I saw Constantin personally displeased in some lines of questioning with him as well. And recently saw Alex himself getting visibly annoyed (but composed) by the obvious dishonesty and manipulation of a guest. That guest being the skeptic who was modified genetically.
A little surprised that Roger Scruton’s The Face of God and The Aesthetics of Architecture are neither mentioned here when discussing such a topic. All points covered in this conversation are beautifully elaborated in those two books.. Glad to see JP here with his usual open-mindedness and sincerity, binge watched many of his videos a couple of years ago, very interesting contents.
Why? This guy is so mediocre. He’s above average when it comes to Art knowledge and history. Most people really seem to know little about the art world…
Great conversation. As someone nearing the end of my architectural training I would add though that most of the qualms relating to contemporary architecture raised in the discussion are not really to do with secularisation or even aesthetic judgments by architects, more so the economic model architects operate within. Take the Walkie Talkie raised by Alex, the bulbous form is simply to maximise the area of lettable floor plates. Rem Koolhaas’ idea of “Typical Plan” and the skyscrapers that are ubiquitous with central business districts have more to do with economics than belief or lack of belief in God. When contemporary architecture is given the ‘space’ to be about people, atmosphere and landscape, and not profit or efficiency, we can find examples that are awe inspiring whilst still reflecting our modern sensibilities. Peter Zumthors work is an example. He’s designed many incredible chapels, churches, memorials and museums that are seminal works - what these buildings have in common with medieval cathedrals are wealthy patrons to bankroll them…
It comes off as a bit of double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressure ruining architecture and at the same time blame "leftists", who generally define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure. I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father.
Except this "economic model" absolutely has to do with God or lack of God. Constructing the tallest structure in the center of city dedicated to ultimately...finance. Any pre-modern would understand that the people of that city are idolizing finance
As another architect-in-training, I have to disagree. A simple google search for the works of Peter Zumthors' works makes it clear they are, though better than most of the modernist profit boxes, lacking in its formal composition. And why is this? Because the founders of the modernist movement rejected beauty as even relevant to architecture and hence also formal composition. Many of my professors and teachers explicitly teach that beauty is not even relevant to architecture at all, and those who do not say it outright, act and talk as if it is. The "B-word" I've heard someone call it, for it should not be even uttered. The problem with contemporary archtiecture is that it is largely modernist, and the problem with modernism is the rejection of beauty and formal composition.
Jonathan made me think about big picture societal relationships. If reproduction is essential to species survival, ( " Be fruitful and multiply...") respecting the wisdom of elders ("Honor your father and mother that it may be well with you ... ") and permitting them to share knowldege to be built on by following generations would be just as essential. Deconstruction is a survival threat.
I'd like to see Alex have another dialogue with Jonathan to understand his religious view. I suspect Alex could clarify it (it can be abstract and hard to comprehend) and Alex may also find it interesting since I think it is very different from other religious people Alex has spoken with
At the end of the day Pageau does believe in an old man in the sky, despite his protestations, it's just that he adds a lot of philosophical-sounding word salad to justify believing in an old man in the sky. Search "jonathan pageau decoding the gurus".
@@coreyander286 That's what I can't shake. I consider Alex Jones to be an evil PoS. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that he is. A greedy liar, narcissist & a sociopath. I can't get over Jonathan making excuses for him. If I believed in demonic evil, I'd say that was demonically evil. And ugly in the extreme!
19:25 It would be great to see another conversation of you guys and get more into detail and deep about some of Jonathan's ideas, more specifically about christianity. This was a great coversation but very general as well. There is the potential for more. Cheers
This is such a fascinating and refreshing change from the usual boring old atheism vs religion debates that illumintate nothing and only serve to further entrench already entrenched views
I don't think this interview did much to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs in literal demons, possession, and exorcism, except insofar as it sets a precedent for future conversations that go beyond his vague commentary about architecture.
@@coreyander286 I don't think the point of the interview was to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs. Extremist beliefs aside, I don't know why anyone would want to do such a thing. Besides, it's a futile endeavour. Nothing's more effective at further entrenching someone's deeply held beliefs than the act of trying to un-entrench them. I found his comments very clear, especially regarding the distinction between idols and icons and the error of religiously minded people using quasi scientific discourse. It is possible to appreciate what he says without believing in god. We need more of that in today's world
Beyond expectations on all fronts. Well done both of you on a predictively deep, yet surprisingly intriguing exploration. Left me thinking about the implications of our social choice architecture and how we might improve it by applying some of the systemic, life pattern language of Christopher Alexander and others. I eagerly anticipate round 2.
I really enjoyed this it is quite clear that you attract in guests by meeting them where they are rather than forcing conversations, talking where there maybe commonality.
A note on the pyramids. The great pyramid was originally capped in perfectly smooth limestone blocka to give a perfevtly polished finish. It takes up over 30 acres of land and is built to perfection and alligned to the celestial bodies to an awe inspiring degree. So it seems unfair to try and put the pyramids in same vane as skyscrapers ect.
43:30 this whole segment about ordering a hierarcy of purpose so that things are serving a higher good, and are not the end in themselves, is brilliant!
I felt the same way about Paris’ Notre-Dame as you did about the Sistine Chapel. Even though I loved the experience, even went twice, but it was more of a touristic excursion. As soon as you walk through the doors they sell coins and stuff lol
These conversations are so interesting and important. Thank you, Alex. As much as I love Hitch, you’re proving to be a more open minded successor. I’m a non religious theist and I think you’re the strongest atheist online
I think the implication that modern architecture is worse is based on the strange assumption that functional, everyday architecture should live up to the standard of a chapel that probably took decades to build. Not all old shit was stunningly beautiful, they had their own share of strictly functional buildings. If you expect everyday buildings to look like a gothic cathedral or a decadent palace, you're kind of asking to be disappointed imo.
He never said that. First, the church does serve a function, and he would say the church should be the most beautiful thing. His point is that we don't care about anything that binds us universally, so the public buildings have been reduced to universal function. All we get is idiosyncratic "beauty" that sucks. Like the bean. The only thing that would bind us is entertainment, and barely. Look at the Vegas sphere.
@@bradspitt3896. It might be more helpful for the future of all people, if the buildings could be beautiful and functional, without having to adhere to one particular ideology. Whether church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or whatever, it does assume that everybody believe in the same idea of 'universality'. Beauty is subjective. Personally I find many religious buildings either austere, brutalist, 'overegged', or sickeningly gaudy...but that is just my opinion. The large investment of resources could surely be better utilized to be inclusive, rather than divisive. You've only got to look at Jerusalem to see that religious buildings have less to do with people's personal spiritual connection with existence, and more to do with political pissing contests, and power.
I enjoyed hearing new views as always, but couldn't find myself agreeing with much of what this guest said. Would like to see more on this topic though.
13:50 If I may insert a minor points of subconscious importance: imagine a typical medieval peasant looking down at plants and rocks and hands and feet all day and then having the opportunity on whatever is the service to enter into a church with holy sounds and lights and scriptures and actually rest for a few hours and look up at those dazzling lights. That enough could induce a trance like religious state and someone overworked and always looking down
Yeah in a lot of ways this while conversation seems like a bit of a made up problem... Like sure we have ugly utilitarian buildings but that's what humans have lived in since time immemorial. There was never a time when all the buildings were beautiful cathedrals and suddenly now we build ugly ones. We have preserved the cathedrals because they are the exceptions.
I think Alex is a good listener and that Jonathan can open his eyes and show him what the symbolic view of the world is and how reality functions. I know that it's possible because I was an atheist and Mr Pageau made a believer out of me. It was a pretty fruitful conversation a part two would be very welcomed.
Jonathan's way of thinking about worship, idols, and icons is a very different way of looking at them than I'm used to thinking about. Honestly, it's confusing me. It's like a different language with the same words.
@Paraselene_Tao One thing to keep in mind while listening to Jonathan is "fractals". Always imagine whatever he is talking about can be zoomed out to view it on a bigger scale, but have the pattern appear the same.
As a European, I tried walking as a form of transportation around Miami (in the 1990's). I failed. The cops actually stopped me for acting suspiciously. People were unable to give directions for someone on foot. And a lot of the time it was like an obstacle course. Walking around San Francisco was fine though.
Why though, are the religious more willing to sacrifice money to fund beautiful buildings? They sacrifice it for the common good and to partake in something unifying to the collective. Modern people are atomised individuals with no strong connection to a unified collective so are not willing to sacrifice for it
This was a great conversation and definitely warrants a second! He speaks very deeply in response to your questions and i would love to hear him in conversation with you again!
I think this fit well with a recent humanist talk I went to about "recapturing awe" and how we still need to feel this even as secular people. Architecture is a key place where this can happen.
I can appreciate Pageau's passion for religious iconography, art, and architecture. Still, as a former Christian turned agnostic, the conversation feels wanting when he doesn't just answer straightforwardly what God he believes in, why he believes in that specific God, and why anyone else should believe in it either.
Yep, not 2 minutes after saying how normally he dislikes such interviews as they consist of two people talking past each other, he immediately ignores and non-answers the very first prompt. I guess this is going to be something.
I mean, he did say he was Christian Eastern Ortodox, for one. For another, that wasn't the point of this conversation, this isn't Atheist Experience. That being said, I don't find it a particularly interesting discussion either.
@@Wolfboy607 It has gotten to the point that believers have carried upon themselves the burden of convicting others. It's like the believer should believe on behalf of the unbeliever and should go out of their way to do the work that they should be doing themselves. Christianity works on principles that most people are not willing to go by until it gets real dark. I love it here.
Talking about the Vatican Museum and great art, I strongly recommend the Borghese Galey in Rome, it won't disappoint. Not only it displays the best works of Bernini, but they used the light so efficiently, that the marble almost glows. Photos don't make it justice.
Good job on this discussion, I think you directed it in a very thought provoking direction as I'm not sure Jonathan himself notices how absolutely narrow some of his premises are which makes it both difficult to follow and a sort of a mine field of philosophical walls. Having good faith goes a long way to understand what others propose even if ultimately agreement is that difficult. I had an interesting thought regarding the definition of icon Jonathan used, which brings me to a discussion you had in another podcast about the sloganisation of political movements. Under this analysis slogans would be meant to serve the value of an icon, not to be venerated directly but to always refer to an idea that has richer meaning, unfortunately due to how fragmented communication is they end up becoming the thematic idols of a specific political discussion that end up possessing a sacredness they shouldn't. Anyhow, thanks for the flow of ideas.
I appreciate the conversation. It seems rather obvious to me when it comes to churches vs office or residential structures. They each serve such a different purpose and intention at their cores that saying the latter is soulless much like saying a monkey is wingless. Office and residential has gotten more streamlined in order to reduce cost and maximize space and therefore profits but mega churches have certainly done the same to an even greater degree. Some are giant corrugated steal barns sitting in a dirt lot.
And I think that's precisely the point. The fact that places of business and residential are built to be soulless (only to accommodate more or less meat for less money) points a problem of how we, as a culture, conceive of the purpose of business in general.
I'm not sure Jonathan's argument around the 43 minute mark stands up - that some buildings are cared about and maintained forever which shows their inherent beauty. Brings to mind gothic architecture. After the renaissance it was seen as ugly and backward. Many gothic cathedrals and facades were torn down and updated. Take Notre Dame, now considered one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. It was, for a long while, completely neglected and crumbling. It took Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dam to make people fall back in love with it, and it took the Romantic movement in general to revive interest in the medieval period and Make Gothic Great Again (leading to neo-gothic in the 19th century).
@@Nanban_Ed Yeah to be fair he does, in the same segment. I just feel the changing attitude to gothic was so seismic and so universal that perhaps it can't quite be dismissed as some kind of minor exception. I agree with Pageau overall. I love gothic architecture and I hate brutalism, and I think the reason must be more fundamental than "because it's old". Just trying to work it through my head.
i think it's pretty well captured in the 'evolutionary' framing he set it up with. he's not saying the pendulum doesn't swing, just that those things that strongly capture those fundamental human relational dynamics are far more likely to be maintained thru the pendulum swings of the culture.
What a fantastic conversation. Maybe one of my favorite podcast episodes I’ve seen, of any podcast! This makes me eager for a p2 with him, getting a little more in the weeds of religion. Great job, Alex.
I think the reason buildings nowadays seem lifeless is because huge companies make them with practicality in mind. Not sure if it has to do with secularist worldviews, more than it has to do with everything being as profitable as possible. Im from Ecuador, and there is one skyscraper in the city I live in. It is different than every other one, pretty special and interesting arquitecture. "Torre The Point" if you wanna look it up. I think because it was such a meaningful building to the skyline that they decided to make it stand out.
Much modern architecture has been affected and impractical, as well as ugly. But yes, the Soviet style, the army barracks style, results from the imperative to spend as little as possible.
I don't know what Alex is planning with this but I can't wait. I've been wanting Jonathan and Alex to meet for a while now. Found this conversation about Secular vs religious world building quite interesting.
Great conversation. I like the stripped classicism of Eisenhüttenstadt. An architecture that somehow incorporates the Golden Mean, however tenuous, seems more accessible.
TIMESTAMPS
0:00 - start
59:03 - end
Thank you
So helpful! Thanks!
The alpha and the omega.
not all heroes wear capes
I'm confused, are you implying it isn't worth watching, are you questioning the integrity of the facts
This went well! Kudos to you Alex for doing what others couldn't.
It was brilliant
Hi Paul. Yes it was great.
Alex is on his way to embodying the best attributes UK's intellectual tradition was famous for. ❤
Godspeed Pastor Paul, your voice & your input in the comment sections of the wider UA-cam is very much welcome & very much enriching 🏆❤
Pageau is such an intriguing and interesting guest. I've been thinking recently that my atheism is really a reaction against reductionism. When you find religious people with a more sophisticated take, who are also wary of the "man in the sky" conception of god, it does make me think there are forms of religious thinking I can respect. It just seems that many modern religious types have an extremely unsophisticated interpretation of religion, and that often provokes an equally unsophisticated reaction from us atheists. A necessary reaction, in my view, when religion begins making scientific claims, but maybe we would do better to not only reduce ourselves to the same literalist interpretations as the people we oppose precisely for that same reductionism.
Yes, And also i think atheism itself is not a sufficient answer to the death of God. Atheism only provides criticism but no real alternatives. The only thing an atheist can rationally want is progress and "understanding the universe". But atheists can't give us the ultimate why... Religion basically states that God IS the ultimate why of the universe. God is the source and the way and the purpose of things. So by loosely defining it, it actually makes it more practicable for an actual human being. An atheist can't tell you the purpose of life whitout writing 50 philosophy books about it. Or an atheist can say: Who cares what the purpose is, just live in the here and now man.
The nature of subjectivity and identity made me understand religious thinking. That's Jonathan's bread and butter.
Thank you for this comment, it's an excellent insight
Absolutely agree, Jonathan is a unique mind worth listening to.
@JoshWiniberg - Thank you for your fair and honest comment. As a Theist/Christian, it has been very frustrating reading and watching comments and videos from Atheists who insist on caricatures of God ( man in the sky, flying spaghetti monster ) that come off as mere mockery. As much as I appreciated ( and miss ) Hitchens for strong, valid challenges, he also was lazy in going for cheap slam dunk insults instead of arguing in good faith. You sound like one who is for arguing in good faith, on both sides. I, too, have been frustrated by simplistic reasoning from fellow Christians, and it actually would bring tension upon myself when around Believers for asking uncomfortable questions. Then later in life it became unbearable to keep my questions to myself, so watching debate after debate has been helpful in my journey. Yes, there are much deeper Christian thinkers out there.
I would say that Atheists reacting to unsophisticated thinking by Christians shouldn't bring a "necessary" reaction in kind from Atheists. Why not rise above it and do due diligence to investigate for oneself if such reactions from Atheists are warranted to the core and history of Christianity? Argue in good faith. I've consistently corrected fellow Christians when they reacted similarly to unsophisticated comments by Atheists with fleshing out stronger sophisticated reasoning on behalf of Atheists. Both sides, if you will, can do better. Partly why I watch Alex, for the respect he displays as well as striving for intellectual honesty in himself as well as his opponent.
This conversation flew by. I can't believe how much I enjoyed this. Hope you have him back on again.
I think this calls for part 2 with a deeper exploration.
It really doesn't
I'm not super interested in hearing JPs fanfiction about how the world works. For example, to the unindoctrinated like myself it comes off as double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressures ruining architecture. Because in the same breath he blames "leftists", who broadly define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure. If he actually spoke with a leftist it's likely many would support state sponsored beautiful public buildings like the cathedrals he speaks of...
I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions if you're willing to follow his twisted logics. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father. To a layman he's just special pleading. It would come off as more honest if he simply said "we don't think the second commandant still applies" or "we interpret it as meaning simply no idols".
@@Bookswintersyou do not know what you talk about.
@@Bookswinters One-dimensional take
I hope Alex won’t ever invite this mediocre guy to his podcast.
Is it just me, or did this conversation feel short? I was fascinated by the conversation, it was great, and could have listened to the two of you go at it for a few more hours. I think it's because you both came into this conversation with the intent to understand each other while still being genuine to yourselves.
I've always been interested in imagery and symbols as a juxtaposition of aesthetics and meaning. I was particularly intrigued by the explanation of how one can justify judeo-christian iconography in light of the biblical commandment to not make such images.
Thank you for this interview!
Same!
Ryte?! I feel the same, ahnd it was rahd to see them flesh out the nuances of their different perspectives, ahnd even come to a consensus for the most part 👌🤘
@@boomguitarjaredmy guess would be they agreed to a shorter discussion given J’s prior concerns. I thought it went rather well though, and would welcome a follow up.
For sure. I think they are testing the waters to see if it is going to be productive. It certainly was!
I wrote this as a standalone comment, but it makes sense to answer your question. To quote the scripture he’s talking about, Exodus 20, first let me say you can see the objection is not to follow, serve, obey, or bow down and worship the object or the evil that some objects of the time represented. Also other gods are listed as demonic principalities that are associated with a few things, but start the rabbit trail with the seven deadly sins. Two of these sins that lead to hell being self pleasure and love of success often sought with the sacrifice of your own infant offering. Use google image to see Moloch sacrifice to better understand the carved bull/cow bowing down and other “god” worship, although some still sacrifice kids in hopes of greater success and The commandment still say this will be wrong.
“And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods besides me.
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.”
Well, I for one am glad Jonathan reconsidered. Great conversation, thank you both.
wow I never imagined in a million years that Jonathan would come on this podcast. I'm surprised.
He would what now...
he said that he would cum on his podcast
man english is so hard i can't imagine trying to learn it
@@jeremybucketsimagine trying to learn a second language 😂
@@alekhinesgun9997ayo chill shun
Wow Alex. Great job letting this episode happen. You had some questions cued up and placed them in the exact right spot. I’d bet $100 that you had dozens of questions but you had the wisdom to let them go and let the conversation take its own life. Well done!
Big congrats Alex. This is one of the best interviews of Jonathan I have seen. Sad to see it end. Hope there is a part 2
As a first-time viewer of Alex, I am pleasantly surprised by his open-minded attitude in a dialogue about religion!
He's got a degree in Theology so if he wasn't willing to grapple with religious ideas he'd be in trouble!
yes...but get him with Dawkins and they cackle together
@@leegrant7333 You're deluded if you think Alex takes Dawkins seriously.
I wouldn't call spending almost an hour complaining about brutalist architecture a "dialogue about religion."
@@unduloid it most certainly is a dialogue about religion :) both implicity but also explicitly. I mean they directly referenced beautiful buildings and religion
Thanks for having Jonathan Pageau on! He's awesome. I'm always interested in hearing what he has to say.
Yep, these here are load-bearing walls… but are they Lord-bearing walls? 🤨
Can they bear the Lord's loads?
😂
Comment of the year
Gravity, balance,plum
Take em out and speak to your maker about it lol
I didn't know Jonathan and I found the conversation super interesting.
Recommend checking out his channel. It's good.
That was such a rich conversation. Alex, I sorely misjudged you- you really are a seeker. You brought out the best in Jonathan. Thank you so much for sharing this beautiful conversation with us.
Great conversation. Alex, I am impressed by your willingness to listen to people who think differently to you. I think this conversation is a good example of how, often, someone who we think we will strongly disagree with is actually just thinking about things in a different way than ourselves, and it turns out that not only do we agree on many things but that we actually gain a lot from adopting their different perspective. I wonder have you heard of Daniel Schmachtenberger? If not, you should look him up. He's someone who I really think you should talk to.
This was an incredible conversation. Hope there is another one somewhere down the line 😊
I just heard Jonathan mention this on Paul Vanderklay’s podcast; thank you for having this conversation with Jonathan. Alex, you should definitely talk to Paul if you are able.
Bump.
You should talk
Seraphim Hamilton would be better.
Bump. Talk to pvk!
@@bradspitt3896 Seraphim Hamilton would be phenomenal. That guy is wildly smart and articulate.
Haha I met Alex in a spoons once in London and we chatted for about an hour almost exclusively on art and our favourite paintings. Think this is what he’s actually passionate about so glad to see him having talks on the topic. Found it interesting that his favourite painting is the prodigal son👀
Maybe it’s a sign he will come back to veganism 😂
Bright person!
Alex, I appreciate you having Jonathan on. Also, the questions you asked Dawkins were great. Keep it up.
Absolute lad bringing on Pageau
I love the irony of having this conversation in front of the ubiquitous rectangular IKEA shelf-lamp
I love lamp
Lest we forget, and to answer Alex's question about "atheistic structures," the well attended and sacred space beneath the "Golden Arches."
Ronald McDonald be praised and amen!
Alex, please please please try and get Fr. Stephen DeYoung on your show, he's a friend of Pageau and has perspectives on religion (especially the Old Testament,) that I'm sure will be completely new to you. He has a podcast called 'Lord of Spirits' that you should check out.
This please
ooo I'm down for this!
I want to see 1-2 more convos with Pageau, before Alex can readily digest Fr. Stephen DeYoung.
It seems Jonathan Pageau is better at translating religious-sounding vocabulary into modern vocabulary.
I might be undervaluing the extend of Alex's openness for uncharted waters though. If so, my bad. ❤
I thought the same thing some time ago. A lot of the criticisms and questions he has, Protestant apologists have no good answers for.
It was a great pleasure to see this two guys talking! Thank you Alex and Jonathan, I will look forward to see another conversation of you two!!
Wonderful job interviewing as always. I had no idea who Pageau was before this but found him to be very interesting and great at expressing his ideas. Thank you for this introduction Alex.
I haven't finished the interview, but if Pageau doesn't explain why he believes in demons and exorcisms before it's done, then I don't really think it was a great introduction to Pageau. I remember also hearing him describe Alex Jones as a shaman. (That was before the QAnon shaman became famous.)
@@coreyander286
Yeah, this discussion was pretty weak-sauce and disappointing.
@coreander286 I was focusing more on the opinions expressed regarding primarily art and architecture (since that was the primary conversation), as such I don't expect someone to explain their fundamentals in this type of conversation. The things I think he could have explained more which would be more relevant would be specific Marxist ideology (like maybe a quote or specific line of reasoning) which lead to it causing people to be treated as robots. Even though I agree with him on that, I I don't actually understand why it happens.
Consider something psychologically overwhelming, like an obsession with an idea or emotion. Someone who is captured by rage, responds to everything with anger. Or someone who is obsessed with how others see them to the point of madness. These obsessions are not unique, they recur at different times and with different people, because they are part of our psychology. The most infamous is the obsession with blaming others: anti-semitism, witch trials, etc.
I think that’s something like a “demon.” Someone can be so captured by an idea or emotion that it takes over their rational faculties such that they respond as if that idea or emotion had “possessed” them.
It’s a hypothesis.
@@coreyander286 Pageau is effective in these sorts of discussions because he doesn't jump into the deep end with people who aren't there yet (something I fail at all the time). I think if future discussions happen they can go deeper, but it's hard to start talking about demons and principalities with someone who doesn't believe in the supernatural to begin with.
Alex is rocking out of the park. Picking great choices to talk to. And they all seem quite content and entertained in the conversations, with 2 or 3 exceptions.
You're being an awesome voice of discussion, Alex. Great job.
lol one pretty big exception
@@hciuahwuiwa yes, one of them quite expressive kkkkkk
Besides the obvious, which are the other exceptions?
@@MrSplonger stopping to think about it, I didn't remember one that had a guest arguably discontent. What I can recall coming close someway was the discussion with Shapiro, which although Ben seemed outwardly enthusiastic, it was clear in his contrived demeanor how shattering to his intellect Alex's part on it was.
I saw Constantin personally displeased in some lines of questioning with him as well.
And recently saw Alex himself getting visibly annoyed (but composed) by the obvious dishonesty and manipulation of a guest. That guest being the skeptic who was modified genetically.
A little surprised that Roger Scruton’s The Face of God and The Aesthetics of Architecture are neither mentioned here when discussing such a topic. All points covered in this conversation are beautifully elaborated in those two books.. Glad to see JP here with his usual open-mindedness and sincerity, binge watched many of his videos a couple of years ago, very interesting contents.
One of your best podcasts yet, really getting to the bottom of things. Would be great to hear you two talk again!
Why? This guy is so mediocre. He’s above average when it comes to Art knowledge and history. Most people really seem to know little about the art world…
Wow! Jonathan Pageu is really interesting. Great episode. Thank you Alex.👍🏻
Really enjoyed this conversation. No one was trying to score points or make the other person look bad. It was a pleasant listen and thought provoking.
Great conversation. As someone nearing the end of my architectural training I would add though that most of the qualms relating to contemporary architecture raised in the discussion are not really to do with secularisation or even aesthetic judgments by architects, more so the economic model architects operate within. Take the Walkie Talkie raised by Alex, the bulbous form is simply to maximise the area of lettable floor plates.
Rem Koolhaas’ idea of “Typical Plan” and the skyscrapers that are ubiquitous with central business districts have more to do with economics than belief or lack of belief in God.
When contemporary architecture is given the ‘space’ to be about people, atmosphere and landscape, and not profit or efficiency, we can find examples that are awe inspiring whilst still reflecting our modern sensibilities.
Peter Zumthors work is an example. He’s designed many incredible chapels, churches, memorials and museums that are seminal works - what these buildings have in common with medieval cathedrals are wealthy patrons to bankroll them…
This is the point Pageau was making. Economic concerns are not merely a limiting factor, but rather the ultimate.
It comes off as a bit of double speak for JP to complain about ubiquitous economic pressure ruining architecture and at the same time blame "leftists", who generally define themselves as opposing the flows of economic pressure.
I'm sure he has some rationale that makes sense through his mental contortions. Same way he rationalizes "you shall not make a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth" as meaning simply avoid representing God the Father.
Except this "economic model" absolutely has to do with God or lack of God. Constructing the tallest structure in the center of city dedicated to ultimately...finance. Any pre-modern would understand that the people of that city are idolizing finance
As another architect-in-training, I have to disagree. A simple google search for the works of Peter Zumthors' works makes it clear they are, though better than most of the modernist profit boxes, lacking in its formal composition. And why is this? Because the founders of the modernist movement rejected beauty as even relevant to architecture and hence also formal composition. Many of my professors and teachers explicitly teach that beauty is not even relevant to architecture at all, and those who do not say it outright, act and talk as if it is. The "B-word" I've heard someone call it, for it should not be even uttered.
The problem with contemporary archtiecture is that it is largely modernist, and the problem with modernism is the rejection of beauty and formal composition.
@@egonomics352 idolising finance? They need a building to work from. Making it look nice is secondary.
Jonathan made me think about big picture societal relationships. If reproduction is essential to species survival, ( " Be fruitful and multiply...") respecting the wisdom of elders ("Honor your father and mother that it may be well with you ... ") and permitting them to share knowldege to be built on by following generations would be just as essential.
Deconstruction is a survival threat.
I'd like to see Alex have another dialogue with Jonathan to understand his religious view. I suspect Alex could clarify it (it can be abstract and hard to comprehend) and Alex may also find it interesting since I think it is very different from other religious people Alex has spoken with
At the end of the day Pageau does believe in an old man in the sky, despite his protestations, it's just that he adds a lot of philosophical-sounding word salad to justify believing in an old man in the sky. Search "jonathan pageau decoding the gurus".
@@coreyander286 Strawman
@@coreyander286 man you love straw-manning smh
@@coreyander286No.
He’s an Eastern Orthodox Christian. I think you might find a great deal of this sort of thinking there.
Probably the best conversation so far. Please keep bringing him in!
Next time Alex should ask Pageau what he thinks about demons and exorcism and Alex Jones.
@@coreyander286 That's what I can't shake. I consider Alex Jones to be an evil PoS. It should be bloody obvious to anyone that he is. A greedy liar, narcissist & a sociopath. I can't get over Jonathan making excuses for him. If I believed in demonic evil, I'd say that was demonically evil. And ugly in the extreme!
19:25 It would be great to see another conversation of you guys and get more into detail and deep about some of Jonathan's ideas, more specifically about christianity. This was a great coversation but very general as well. There is the potential for more.
Cheers
I thoroughly enjoyed this conversation. Thanks Alex!
I have been following you both for years so it's great to see you two together! I hope to see more of you two coming together like this!
So happy Jonathan decided to do this interview! Alex is the best atheist to watch, he's honestly searching for Truth and it is refreshing.
Huh, this is definitely unexpected. I’m happy to see you guys conversing!
That was actually very pleasant. I think you did a splendid job of facilitating the conversation and exploring a topic from your guests point of view.
This is such a fascinating and refreshing change from the usual boring old atheism vs religion debates that illumintate nothing and only serve to further entrench already entrenched views
exactly.
They are boring because religious people don't have any good answers and solutions to anything that is better than secular morality.
boy are you stupid @@mkm1015
I don't think this interview did much to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs in literal demons, possession, and exorcism, except insofar as it sets a precedent for future conversations that go beyond his vague commentary about architecture.
@@coreyander286 I don't think the point of the interview was to un-entrench Pageau's beliefs. Extremist beliefs aside, I don't know why anyone would want to do such a thing. Besides, it's a futile endeavour. Nothing's more effective at further entrenching someone's deeply held beliefs than the act of trying to un-entrench them.
I found his comments very clear, especially regarding the distinction between idols and icons and the error of religiously minded people using quasi scientific discourse.
It is possible to appreciate what he says without believing in god. We need more of that in today's world
This is a combo I didn’t see coming! Definitely saving to watch
37:46 - "People think they're engaging in progress, but what they're actually doing is engaging in fashion."
👌💯
Mm, insightful statement.
Love Jonathan Pageau. Thanks for having him on. Respectfully done and informative.
I like Jonathan. Truly unique voice in many of today’s discussions. His comments on sexuality were great
Beyond expectations on all fronts. Well done both of you on a predictively deep, yet surprisingly intriguing exploration. Left me thinking about the implications of our social choice architecture and how we might improve it by applying some of the systemic, life pattern language of Christopher Alexander and others. I eagerly anticipate round 2.
Johnathan is brilliant I loved this, look forward to seeing more conversations between you two :)
Fantastic conversation! I look forward to hearing you two talk again!
I really enjoyed this it is quite clear that you attract in guests by meeting them where they are rather than forcing conversations, talking where there maybe commonality.
Such a wonderful and insightful conversation.
Alex, DW has a whole documentary on how St. Peter’s was designed and made by a succession of architects and Popes. Well worth a watch.
A talk with Seraphim Hamilton will push you to your limits if you want an apologetics conversation with an Orthodox guy.
This would be interesting
That was the best “where do you go for wisdom” response I’ve heard yet.
Good question from Alex, and great answer by Johnathan: "Worship is the highest point of your attention." Thank you for hosting this conversation!
A note on the pyramids. The great pyramid was originally capped in perfectly smooth limestone blocka to give a perfevtly polished finish. It takes up over 30 acres of land and is built to perfection and alligned to the celestial bodies to an awe inspiring degree. So it seems unfair to try and put the pyramids in same vane as skyscrapers ect.
Yes. They would have been stunning
43:30 this whole segment about ordering a hierarcy of purpose so that things are serving a higher good, and are not the end in themselves, is brilliant!
I felt the same way about Paris’ Notre-Dame as you did about the Sistine Chapel. Even though I loved the experience, even went twice, but it was more of a touristic excursion. As soon as you walk through the doors they sell coins and stuff lol
Really enjoyed the conversation and what lovely interesting guest
An exceptional conversation, thank you.
Well, this is getting really interesting. Would definitely be up for another conversation!
HOLY SHIT IT'S HAPPENING. I was hoping for this conversation for a long time! I'm hyped.
I really enjoyed this conversation.
I was waiting for this one! Excellent choice in guests Alex.
Well done for asking the correct questions, Alex. A good exposé.
These conversations are so interesting and important. Thank you, Alex. As much as I love Hitch, you’re proving to be a more open minded successor. I’m a non religious theist and I think you’re the strongest atheist online
Cheers
So you're a deist.
@@redmed10 not exactly
@@TyrellGlen i'm really not interested any more. You could have just explained but you chose not to and who knows if you ever will. Life's too short.
@@redmed10 I never cared whether you were interested 😅 was just letting you know you jumped to a conclusion
The crossover I was not expecting but I'm so glad.
I think the implication that modern architecture is worse is based on the strange assumption that functional, everyday architecture should live up to the standard of a chapel that probably took decades to build. Not all old shit was stunningly beautiful, they had their own share of strictly functional buildings. If you expect everyday buildings to look like a gothic cathedral or a decadent palace, you're kind of asking to be disappointed imo.
Completely agree.
Based comment
He never said that. First, the church does serve a function, and he would say the church should be the most beautiful thing.
His point is that we don't care about anything that binds us universally, so the public buildings have been reduced to universal function. All we get is idiosyncratic "beauty" that sucks. Like the bean.
The only thing that would bind us is entertainment, and barely. Look at the Vegas sphere.
@@bradspitt3896. It might be more helpful for the future of all people, if the buildings could be beautiful and functional, without having to adhere to one particular ideology. Whether church, temple, mosque, synagogue, or whatever, it does assume that everybody believe in the same idea of 'universality'. Beauty is subjective. Personally I find many religious buildings either austere, brutalist, 'overegged', or sickeningly gaudy...but that is just my opinion.
The large investment of resources could surely be better utilized to be inclusive, rather than divisive. You've only got to look at Jerusalem to see that religious buildings have less to do with people's personal spiritual connection with existence, and more to do with political pissing contests, and power.
@@curmudgeon1933 If beauty is subjective to them how can we make it universal?
Hoping for a part 2 in the near future!
Glad this conversation ended up happening
I love Jonathan Pageau. He has definitely opened the way I think about things. So glad to see him here.
I enjoyed hearing new views as always, but couldn't find myself agreeing with much of what this guest said. Would like to see more on this topic though.
13:50 If I may insert a minor points of subconscious importance: imagine a typical medieval peasant looking down at plants and rocks and hands and feet all day and then having the opportunity on whatever is the service to enter into a church with holy sounds and lights and scriptures and actually rest for a few hours and look up at those dazzling lights. That enough could induce a trance like religious state and someone overworked and always looking down
A lot of new skyscrapers are quite beautiful. Vancouver's new Alberni tower is an example.
Yeah in a lot of ways this while conversation seems like a bit of a made up problem... Like sure we have ugly utilitarian buildings but that's what humans have lived in since time immemorial. There was never a time when all the buildings were beautiful cathedrals and suddenly now we build ugly ones. We have preserved the cathedrals because they are the exceptions.
@@Bookswinters It wasn't always like this.
Great Interview! As questions are good, answers are better,. better way to say it, Question engages answers.
I think Alex is a good listener and that Jonathan can open his eyes and show him what the symbolic view of the world is and how reality functions. I know that it's possible because I was an atheist and Mr Pageau made a believer out of me. It was a pretty fruitful conversation a part two would be very welcomed.
Lovely episode, I wish it were longer, would've loved you guys to go more into detail on some of those topics.
Jonathan's way of thinking about worship, idols, and icons is a very different way of looking at them than I'm used to thinking about. Honestly, it's confusing me. It's like a different language with the same words.
@Paraselene_Tao One thing to keep in mind while listening to Jonathan is "fractals". Always imagine whatever he is talking about can be zoomed out to view it on a bigger scale, but have the pattern appear the same.
Thanks for the wonderful interview Alex. It was insightful and eye opening to me.
As a European, I tried walking as a form of transportation around Miami (in the 1990's). I failed. The cops actually stopped me for acting suspiciously. People were unable to give directions for someone on foot. And a lot of the time it was like an obstacle course. Walking around San Francisco was fine though.
I can't believe you don't appreciate the """freedom""" of being forced to use a car to get everywhere. What are you some kind of socialist?
I believe you
Reminds me of Bradbury's shrotstory about a pedestrian
Imagine being interrogated by the police for taking a walk...
This is the one I sub for... Well up Alex, God bless 🙏🏻
@Alex O'Connor - if you have to ask the question, the answer is money. It costs so much money to create "beauty" above "functionality."
Touche
Why though, are the religious more willing to sacrifice money to fund beautiful buildings? They sacrifice it for the common good and to partake in something unifying to the collective.
Modern people are atomised individuals with no strong connection to a unified collective so are not willing to sacrifice for it
There's plenty of billionaires who could do it, and governments could easily make it.
@@Foogi9000Governments do not make money. They print it. Not the same thing.
Billionaires would be criticized for such ostentatiousness, rather than putting the funds to better use
This was a great conversation and definitely warrants a second! He speaks very deeply in response to your questions and i would love to hear him in conversation with you again!
I think this fit well with a recent humanist talk I went to about "recapturing awe" and how we still need to feel this even as secular people. Architecture is a key place where this can happen.
Become a scrutonite, seek BEAUTY, beauty leads to Truth, and Truth is Him
i could listen to jonathan for hours.
I can appreciate Pageau's passion for religious iconography, art, and architecture. Still, as a former Christian turned agnostic, the conversation feels wanting when he doesn't just answer straightforwardly what God he believes in, why he believes in that specific God, and why anyone else should believe in it either.
Yep, not 2 minutes after saying how normally he dislikes such interviews as they consist of two people talking past each other, he immediately ignores and non-answers the very first prompt. I guess this is going to be something.
Did you not listen to him at all? He clearly stated he’s uninterested in such a conversation. If you’re interested in his views go watch his videos.
I mean, he did say he was Christian Eastern Ortodox, for one.
For another, that wasn't the point of this conversation, this isn't Atheist Experience.
That being said, I don't find it a particularly interesting discussion either.
@@Wolfboy607 It has gotten to the point that believers have carried upon themselves the burden of convicting others. It's like the believer should believe on behalf of the unbeliever and should go out of their way to do the work that they should be doing themselves. Christianity works on principles that most people are not willing to go by until it gets real dark. I love it here.
Come to think of it, perhaps I would have more enjoyed: "your ass is on mute. . . no no no, you're done!"
lolol
Talking about the Vatican Museum and great art, I strongly recommend the Borghese Galey in Rome, it won't disappoint. Not only it displays the best works of Bernini, but they used the light so efficiently, that the marble almost glows. Photos don't make it justice.
Love the final question about wisdom, please keep it going!
Good job on this discussion, I think you directed it in a very thought provoking direction as I'm not sure Jonathan himself notices how absolutely narrow some of his premises are which makes it both difficult to follow and a sort of a mine field of philosophical walls. Having good faith goes a long way to understand what others propose even if ultimately agreement is that difficult.
I had an interesting thought regarding the definition of icon Jonathan used, which brings me to a discussion you had in another podcast about the sloganisation of political movements. Under this analysis slogans would be meant to serve the value of an icon, not to be venerated directly but to always refer to an idea that has richer meaning, unfortunately due to how fragmented communication is they end up becoming the thematic idols of a specific political discussion that end up possessing a sacredness they shouldn't. Anyhow, thanks for the flow of ideas.
I appreciate the conversation. It seems rather obvious to me when it comes to churches vs office or residential structures. They each serve such a different purpose and intention at their cores that saying the latter is soulless much like saying a monkey is wingless. Office and residential has gotten more streamlined in order to reduce cost and maximize space and therefore profits but mega churches have certainly done the same to an even greater degree. Some are giant corrugated steal barns sitting in a dirt lot.
And I think that's precisely the point. The fact that places of business and residential are built to be soulless (only to accommodate more or less meat for less money) points a problem of how we, as a culture, conceive of the purpose of business in general.
Thoroughly enjoyed this. The clearest and most insightful I’ve heard from Jonathan Pageau. And you, Alex, are a fine interviewer/listener. 👏🏽
I'm not sure Jonathan's argument around the 43 minute mark stands up - that some buildings are cared about and maintained forever which shows their inherent beauty. Brings to mind gothic architecture. After the renaissance it was seen as ugly and backward. Many gothic cathedrals and facades were torn down and updated. Take Notre Dame, now considered one of the most beautiful buildings in Europe. It was, for a long while, completely neglected and crumbling. It took Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dam to make people fall back in love with it, and it took the Romantic movement in general to revive interest in the medieval period and Make Gothic Great Again (leading to neo-gothic in the 19th century).
I roughly remembered Pageau saying that it is not a 100% guarantee in that process. I can't recall the timestamp on that.
@@Nanban_Ed Yeah to be fair he does, in the same segment. I just feel the changing attitude to gothic was so seismic and so universal that perhaps it can't quite be dismissed as some kind of minor exception.
I agree with Pageau overall. I love gothic architecture and I hate brutalism, and I think the reason must be more fundamental than "because it's old". Just trying to work it through my head.
i think it's pretty well captured in the 'evolutionary' framing he set it up with. he's not saying the pendulum doesn't swing, just that those things that strongly capture those fundamental human relational dynamics are far more likely to be maintained thru the pendulum swings of the culture.
@@DafyddReevesdo you know if the disdain for Gothic Architecture was widespread among the people, or was it more of a top-down decision?
This was excellent. Thanks, Alex.
What a fantastic conversation. Maybe one of my favorite podcast episodes I’ve seen, of any podcast! This makes me eager for a p2 with him, getting a little more in the weeds of religion. Great job, Alex.
exaclty, a christian and athiest talking wihout any animosity or defensiveness.
I love both of you guys. I've been smelling this one cooking for a little while now. Thanks.
I think the reason buildings nowadays seem lifeless is because huge companies make them with practicality in mind. Not sure if it has to do with secularist worldviews, more than it has to do with everything being as profitable as possible.
Im from Ecuador, and there is one skyscraper in the city I live in. It is different than every other one, pretty special and interesting arquitecture. "Torre The Point" if you wanna look it up. I think because it was such a meaningful building to the skyline that they decided to make it stand out.
Much modern architecture has been affected and impractical, as well as ugly. But yes, the Soviet style, the army barracks style, results from the imperative to spend as little as possible.
I don't know what Alex is planning with this but I can't wait. I've been wanting Jonathan and Alex to meet for a while now. Found this conversation about Secular vs religious world building quite interesting.
Mr. O'Connor seems to be on some kind of journey. I've subscribed to see where his journey takes him.
Sometimes he forgets he is an atheist.
Very very interesting. Thanks for this information. Enlightening.
« Worship is the highest point of attention » J Pageau 👍🏻
Great conversation. I like the stripped classicism of Eisenhüttenstadt. An architecture that somehow incorporates the Golden Mean, however tenuous, seems more accessible.